The Books of Chronicles
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in │
│ printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for │
│ easier reading. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ bold text: --> =text=. │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
_THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES_
GENERAL EDITOR FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT:――
A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D.
DEAN OF ELY
THE BOOKS OF
CHRONICLES
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
=London=: FETTER LANE, E.C.
=Edinburgh=: 100 PRINCES STREET
Illustration: (‡ colophon)
=New York=: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
=Bombay, Calcutta and Madras=: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
=Toronto=: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
=Tokyo=: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
_All rights reserved_
THE BOOKS OF
CHRONICLES
With Maps, Notes and Introduction
by
W. A. L. ELMSLIE, M.A.
Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge
Cambridge:
at the University Press
1916
_First Edition 1899_
_Second Edition 1916_
PREFACE
BY THE
GENERAL EDITOR FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT
THE present General Editor for the Old Testament in the Cambridge Bible
for Schools and Colleges desires to say that, in accordance with the
policy of his predecessor the Bishop of Worcester, he does not hold
himself responsible for the particular interpretations adopted or for
the opinions expressed by the editors of the several Books, nor has
he endeavoured to bring them into agreement with one another. It is
inevitable that there should be differences of opinion in regard to
many questions of criticism and interpretation, and it seems best that
these differences should find free expression in different volumes. He
has endeavoured to secure, as far as possible, that the general scope
and character of the series should be observed, and that views which
have a reasonable claim to consideration should not be ignored, but he
has felt it best that the final responsibility should, in general, rest
with the individual contributors.
A. F. KIRKPATRICK.
CAMBRIDGE.
STAND YE STILL AND SEE THE SALVATION OF THE LORD WITH YOU, O
JUDAH AND JERUSALEM.
2 Chronicles xx. 17.
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
§ 1. Characteristics of Ancient Historical Writings
§ 2. Relation to Ezra and Nehemiah
§ 3. Date and Authorship
§ 4. Contents
§ 5. The Sources
§ 6. The Purpose and Method of the Chronicler
§ 7. The Historical Value of Chronicles
§ 8. The Religious Value of Chronicles
§ 9. Name and Position in the Canon
§ 10. Text and Versions of Chronicles
§ 11. Literature
II. TEXT AND NOTES
INDEX
MAPS
Western Asia (Early Times)
Palestine
The Environs of Jerusalem
Jerusalem (Ancient)
PREFATORY NOTE
THE author desires to acknowledge with gratitude his indebtedness to Mr
S. A. Cook for his kindness in reading the first proofs and in making
many most valuable suggestions and criticisms, and to the General
Editor of the Series, the Dean of Ely, for his very helpful revision of
the proofs. His obligation to Professor W. E. Barnes is referred to on
p. lx.
W. A. L. E.
INTRODUCTION
§ 1: CHARACTERISTICS OF ANCIENT HISTORICAL WRITINGS
Until recent times the study of the historical records of Israel and of
other nations of antiquity has suffered from insufficient recognition
of the principles and procedure of ancient historians. It is obvious
that a great contrast exists between any modern historical work and
those books of the Old Testament which relate the fortunes of Israel;
and unless there is a clear perception of the main facts to which this
contrast is due, the nature and value of the Books of Chronicles cannot
readily be understood and certainly will not be properly appreciated.
It is desirable therefore to deal with this matter at the outset,
before proceeding to consider the special characteristics of Chronicles.
(1) _Standpoint._ According to the modern point of view, a perfect
history would seem to be a complete and impartial statement of events.
This ideal is unattainable, for even the fullest account must fall
far short of the richness of actual life. Moreover, it is imperative
that the trivial be distinguished from the important, and the facts be
presented according to their relative values. A historian is therefore
necessary to arrange the material so that the events are seen in
their proper relationship. Thereby, however, a subjective element
is introduced into our histories. Life is so complex that two men
considering the same facts may reach very different conclusions
concerning them. We cannot wholly escape this danger, but we do claim
that the historian shall consciously seek to present the truth and
nothing but the truth. He must not deliberately suppress or distort
facts to favour (say) the Protestant or the Roman Catholic view of
the Reformation. A modern historian may be convinced that sin leads to
disaster, but he must not therefore write that a certain wicked monarch
perished dethroned and in misery, if he knows that he died peacefully
in his royal bed. If he wishes to enforce the doctrine that “the wages
of sin is death,” either he may turn to history and select incidents
which support that view, or he may invent characters and weave them
into a tale which points his moral, or he may discuss the belief
generally; but he ought not to publish as serious history a work in
which, irrespective of facts, every wicked king is punished or involves
his land in ruin. We should count such a work an illegitimate use
of historical material, unless the author gave some clear indication
of its real nature. We draw a sharp distinction between history and
fiction, and in the serious historian we demand fidelity to the truth
as he sees it.
This modern standpoint is in reality the outcome of that more
scientific habit of mind which insists above all things on accurate
observation of phenomena and on the subordination of theory to
fact. But the duty of scientific thinking has not so very long been
recognised by the human mind, and in former days many things were
legitimate and natural which would not be so now. The moment we make
allowance for our mental environment, we can conceive that there might
be other ideas than our own as to what constitutes the use and abuse
of historical records. To us the facts are primary, and the lessons
they seem to teach must be accepted, whether they suit our wishes or
not. But an ancient writer was not dominated by that maxim. Supposing
he desired to teach that “Virtue is rewarded,” he _might_ consider
that an excellent way of enforcing his theory was not only to use the
narratives of the past, but to mould and modify them as best suited his
object. History might be made the tool of his conviction, and the tool
be shaped to assist his purpose. If it is hard for us to realise that
such a procedure was legitimate _for him_, that is simply due to the
difficulty we have in being anything except the children of our own age.
The earliest historical records of Israel were not attempts to write
a continuous history of the people, but popular tales and songs
commemorating such deeds of the people or its heroes as had made a
profound impression on the popular imagination. An excellent example is
the famous Song of Deborah in Judges v. Records of this type were long
transmitted orally, but eventually were gathered together into written
collections, such as the Book of Jashar, referred to by the canonical
writers (see Joshua x. 13, 2 Samuel i. 18). As national history
lengthened out and State records accumulated in connection with palace
and temple, the idea would finally arise of combining these with
the popular memories so as to form a connected historical narrative.
But the motive which prompted the formation of such accounts was not
scientific interest nor even perhaps curiosity to ascertain the exact
course of events, but the desire to interest, to instruct, and above
all to edify contemporary thought and life. Broadly, we may distinguish
two types of ancient historical writing; first, the _descriptive_
narrative in which events were recorded on account of their intense
human interest, and, secondly, the _didactic_, where the older
descriptive tales and any other available material were selected,
related, and built into a unity in such fashion as might best serve to
bring out the religious, moral, or political lessons which they seem to
teach or which the writer was anxious to impress upon his generation.
The books of Samuel‒Kings and of Chronicles both belong to the didactic
type¹. Thus, they contain many stories (e.g. the _details_ of Jehu’s
revolution in Kings) which teach no special lesson but are recorded
for their intrinsic interest; and also much annalistic record of fact.
But this material has been welded together by a writer or writers who
were supremely interested in the religious condition of their people,
who believed that the character and purpose of God were manifest in the
vicissitudes of their national history, and who desired to make the
ethical and spiritual import of that history clear to their fellow-men.
Hence in their present form their works are not scientific records but
rather what may be termed “history with a motive.” For instance, the
space given to the tales about Elisha the prophet compared with the
brief allusion to Omri King of Israel is entirely disproportionate
to their respective values in the _political_ sphere. The books of
Samuel and Kings are practical and powerful appeals to history in the
interests of religious faith. The same is true of Chronicles, and to an
even greater degree, because Chronicles belongs to a later period than
Samuel‒Kings (see § 3), when the religious convictions of Israel were
felt with extraordinary intensity, and could be expressed in accordance
with certain precise theological beliefs.
¹ That _both_ Samuel‒Kings and Chronicles can be classed as
didactic does not imply that they do not differ greatly in
character: the former books are “prophetic” and national,
relating God’s dealings with the nation as a whole, whilst
Chronicles gives an essentially priestly and ecclesiastical
view of the history.
(2) _Method: the treatment of “sources.”_ It is of no less importance
to realise something of the difference of method between ancient and
modern historians, particularly as regards their treatment of “sources.”
For all that lies beyond his personal experience the historian is,
of course, dependent on sources, documentary or otherwise. The modern
writer recognises the duty of testing and verifying the accuracy of
the sources he uses for his narrative, and in producing his own account
of affairs he is expected, where desirable, to state the sources upon
which he has relied. The ancient historian also made use of sources,
but (1) he used them uncritically, with little or no anxiety concerning
their accuracy, and (2) it was his custom simply to select from the
available material any passages, long or short, even words or phrases,
which served his purpose, and to incorporate these in his work,
frequently without any indication of the borrowing. Only in certain
instances was the source precisely referred to. Moreover (3) the
utmost freedom was exercised in dealing with the passages thus chosen.
Sometimes they were reproduced word for word; at other times they
were partially or wholly transformed to suit the new context. This may
seem an unwarrantable procedure to us, but one has only to examine the
actual instances of these adaptations or transformations of unnamed
sources to perceive that the ancient¹ writer has acted in perfect
good faith, with no suspicion that the manipulation was in any way
blameworthy. How indeed could it have been otherwise? The science of
literary criticism was unknown, “notions of literary propriety and
plagiarism had not been thought of, and writers who advanced no
pretensions to originality for themselves were guilty of no imposture
when they borrowed without acknowledgement from their predecessors”
(Skinner, _Kings_, p. 7).
¹ Nor need one go back to antiquity for an instance. Most
instructive examples of composite narrative compiled
uncritically but quite innocently by mediaeval chroniclers
from earlier sources may be found in Chapman’s _Introduction
to the Pentateuch_ (in this series), pp. 260 ff. Compare
also an illustration from Arabic historical writings given
by A. A. Bevan in _Cambridge Biblical Essays_, pp. 12 ff.
For us there is both gain and loss in these methods of the ancient
writers, (a) Loss――because the continual adaptation of old tradition
has sometimes produced changes so great that it is difficult or even
impossible to discover now what was the actual course of events. By the
exercise of care and by the diligent application of the principles of
literary research the loss thus occasioned can be greatly diminished,
particularly where different accounts of the same period have
survived――e.g. in the parallel history of Judah in Samuel‒Kings and
in Chronicles. Not only do the two versions facilitate the task of
recovering the actual history, but each version throws light upon the
origin and nature of the other. (b) On the other hand, the practice
of incorporating passages of older narratives in the text is a great
gain. It is, of course, unfortunate that the writers did not more
carefully indicate the various sources they happened to be using;
but constantly――thanks to idiosyncrasies of style, language, and
thought――we are able to analyse the composite whole into its component
parts. From the study of the separate sources thus revealed we gain
invaluable information which would have been lost to us had the later
writer (or rather, compiler and editor) given his version of the
history entirely in his own words.
(3) _The absence of the idea of Development._ One other feature of the
ancient writers, at least of the chroniclers of Israel, is of singular
interest, and deserves special attention: it might be described as a
feature of their temperament or of their mental environment. The idea
of _growth_ has become familiar to us, and we recognise that there has
been a process of development in our religious and social institutions.
We are content to trace the seeds of the present in the past. But
the feeling of antiquity was apparently different. In Israel, at
least, there was a tendency to suppose that the cherished system and
organisations of the present had sprung into existence, as it were,
_full-grown_ at some great moment of the past. For example, by the
Chronicler’s time, the whole body of law and ritual embodied in the
final form of the Pentateuch had come to be ascribed in its entirety
to Moses, whereas historical and literary evidence demonstrates
beyond all question that the system of Jewish worship and law was a
gradual growth of which the stages can be traced with considerable
clearness. Similarly, many features in the organisation of the Temple
ministrants――the Priests, Levites, etc.――came into existence only
in post-exilic days; but the whole system as it appeared in the
Chronicler’s time was believed by him, and doubtless also by his
contemporaries, to have originated with King David. Indeed, it is
very probable that the ancients felt it so natural and so necessary to
justify important customs and institutions by giving them the sanction
of an ancient and honourable origin, that occasionally the very ideals
of the present were represented as facts of the past. The converse of
this tendency was also in force. As the present sought the support of
the authority of the past, so the past could only continue to be deemed
important provided it conformed to some extent with the beliefs and
ideals of the present. Ideas change and expand. Thus it was quite
impossible in the Chronicler’s time to represent the age of David and
Solomon as great and glorious unless the moderate figures given in
Kings were altered to correspond with the ideas of men accustomed to
think of the mighty armies of the Persian monarchs or of Alexander
the Great. As Kuenen says, “In ancient times, and specifically in
Israel, the sense of historic continuity could only be preserved by
the constant compliance on the part of the past with the requirements
of the present, that is to say by the constant renovation and
transformation of the past. This may be called the Law of religious
historiography” (_The Modern Review_, vol. i. [1880], p. 705).
One consequence of the first importance follows from this fact. An
ancient historical writing often records unconsciously far more than
the history of the period it purports to describe. Since much in it
which is ascribed to a past age in reality reflects the conditions of
the present, it follows that the work _as a whole_ may be an invaluable
commentary on the author’s own period. By taking into account this
law of religious historiography, by studying the writer’s method of
compilation, his use and manipulation of sources and the additions he
has himself made to the story, we shall find in the completed book a
mirror of the thoughts, the ideals, and the conditions of the age when
it was produced.
Justification for these remarks can be drawn not only from the writings
of the Old Testament but also from the study of ancient literature
in general. Nowhere, however, are the principles and characteristics
which we have outlined more clearly exemplified than in the books of
Chronicles. They are the key to the comprehension of Chronicles; and,
if they are borne in mind, what is generally considered a somewhat dull
book of the Bible will be seen to be one of the most instructive pieces
of ancient literature. At the same time, we shall be in a position to
perceive and appreciate the religious enthusiasm which animated the
Chronicler.
§ 2. RELATION TO EZRA AND NEHEMIAH
It is well known that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally
one book; but further it is certain that Chronicles has been
artificially separated from them, and that the three books,
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, were once a continuous work. The reasons
upon which this conclusion is based are as follows:
(1) The ending of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra are the same (2
Chronicles xxxvi. 22 f. = Ezra i. 1‒3a), i.e. after the separation was
made between Chronicles and Ezra‒Nehemiah the opening verses of Ezra
(recording the proclamation of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return)
were retained, or perhaps one should say, were added by someone who was
aware of the original continuity of Chronicles with Ezra‒Nehemiah and
who was anxious that Chronicles should end in a hopeful strain (see
note on 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 23). The desirability of securing a hopeful
conclusion is much more obvious in the Hebrew than in the English Bible,
for, whereas in the English order Ezra immediately follows Chronicles,
in the Hebrew Canon Ezra and Nehemiah are made to precede Chronicles,
and Chronicles is actually the _last_ book of the Hebrew Bible. (On the
reason for this order in the Hebrew, and generally on the separation
of Chronicles from Ezra‒Nehemiah, see § 9, _Position in the Canon_, ad
fin.)
(2) The same general standpoint and the same special interests are
found both in Chronicles and Ezra‒Nehemiah to a remarkable degree. In
particular, attention may be called to the following points:
(a) The same fondness for lists and genealogies is shown in both
works; compare e.g. 1 Chronicles xii. with Ezra ii. _or_
Nehemiah iii.; and 2 Chronicles xxxi. 16‒19 with Nehemiah
vii. 63‒65.
(b) The same intense interest in religious festivals and
institutions; compare 1 Chronicles xv., xvi.; 2 Chronicles
v.‒vii., xxix., xxx., xxxv. 1‒19, with Ezra iii., vi. 16‒22;
Nehemiah viii.
(c) Three classes of Temple attendants, viz. Levites, singers,
and porters, which are barely mentioned in the rest of the
Old Testament, receive a great deal of notice both in
Chronicles and in Ezra‒Nehemiah.
(3) The same style and diction are found in both works (excepting of
course in such sentences and passages as are transcribed from older
sources). Characteristic phrases are the following:
(a) “Fathers’ houses”; compare 1 Chronicles vii. 2, note.
(b) “The house of God,” very frequently in Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah
in place of the usual “house of the LORD” (Jehovah). With
this compare the avoidance of the use of the name Jehovah
(Jahveh) in such places as 2 Chronicles xvii. 4 (compare
Authorized Version with Revised Version), xx. 12, 30; Ezra
viii. 18, 21.
(c) “genealogy” (“reckon by genealogy”); compare 1 Chronicles
v. 17, note; Ezra ii. 62.
(d) “to oversee”; 1 Chronicles xxiii. 4; 2 Chronicles ii. 2
[ii. 1 Hebrew]; Ezra iii. 8 (Revised Version “to have the
oversight”).
(e) “willingly offer”; 1 Chronicles xxix. 14; Ezra i. 6.
These are merely a few instances out of very many which might be given.
This similarity of style and language is far more striking in the
Hebrew (compare § 3, C, and for full particulars the long list in
Curtis, _Chronicles_, pp. 27 ff.).
When fully stated, the evidence indicated under (2) and (3) above is of
a convincing character, and the conclusion that Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah
were at one time a single work should be unhesitatingly adopted.
§ 3. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
(1) _Date and Unity._ The scope of our inquiry in this section requires
to be defined with some care. In dealing with any work which is chiefly
a compilation of older material, it is necessary clearly to distinguish
between the dates of the various sources which can be recognised or
surmised and the dates of the writer or writers who have effected the
compilation. When we examine the structure of Chronicles its composite
nature is at once evident. Many long and important passages have been
taken, with or without adaptation, directly from the existing books
of Scripture. The date of all such passages, of course, falls to be
considered in the commentaries on Samuel or Kings or wherever their
original setting may be. The remainder of Chronicles presents an
intricate but interesting problem. It has been held that there are no
sources involved in this remaining portion but that the whole is the
free composition of the writer who quoted or adapted the passages from
earlier books of Scripture referred to above. According to the view
taken in this volume, sources other than these “canonical” books were
utilised in the formation of Chronicles, although for reasons suggested
in § 5 (q.v., pp. xxxvi f.) such sources are not easy to distinguish
from the work of the compiler himself. The little which can be
said regarding the origin and history of these supposed sources may
conveniently be reserved for the section dealing with the _Sources_
(§ 5). The question, therefore, which is before us in this section is
the date of the editorial process to which we owe the present form of
Chronicles. Fortunately the answer is simplified by one important fact,
namely the remarkable homogeneity of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah. To such
a degree are these books characterised by unity of style, vocabulary,
standpoint and purpose (see below; also § 2 and § 6), that we may
safely conclude they are essentially the product of one mind: they have
reached _substantially_ their present form in the course of a single
editorial process. Conceivably the work was achieved by a small body
of Levites (see below under _Authorship_), contemporaries, sharing the
same training and outlook; but it is much more reasonable to infer the
activity of a single writer――the _Chronicler_. It is his date which we
proceed to consider. The evidence may be grouped under three heads, of
which the last two (B, C) are of chief importance.
(A) (1) In 1 Chronicles xxix. 7 a sum of money is reckoned in _darics_,
a Persian coinage introduced by Darius I (521‒486 B.C.).
(2) In 1 Chronicles iii. 19b‒24 (see note _ad loc._) according to the
Hebrew the line of David’s family is traced to the sixth generation
after Zerubbabel (_circa_ 520 B.C.). Hence, reckoning a generation as
about 20 to 30 years, this passage would indicate a date not earlier
than 400 B.C. or 340 B.C. The Greek, Syriac, and Latin Versions,
however, differ from the Hebrew by extending the line to the _eleventh_
generation after Zerubbabel. That would imply a date possibly as
late as 200 B.C. and not earlier than about 300 B.C., but it is very
doubtful whether we can here rely upon the text of these Versions, and
obviously it was easy for a translator or scribe to carry the list on
to his own date. This piece of evidence, therefore, for the later date
cannot be pressed, although it is worthy of notice.
Since, as we have said (§ 2), Ezra‒Nehemiah formed originally one book
with Chronicles, evidence for the date of Chronicles is also furnished
by any indications of date which occur in Ezra‒Nehemiah.
(3) In Nehemiah xii. 22 we find the significant phrase “to the reign
of Darius, the _Persian_.” Now as long as the Persian empire stood
such a description would have no point when written by a Jewish writer.
For two hundred years down to 332 B.C., when Syria and Phoenicia fell
into the hands of Alexander the Great, the rulers of Judea were all
“Persians.” But from 332 B.C. onward Greek monarchs were the rulers of
Palestine, and nothing is more natural than that a Jewish chronicler
writing under their rule should refer to a king of the older régime as
“the Persian.”
(4) Further, in Nehemiah xii. 26, 47 the phrase “in the days of
Nehemiah” occurs, implying that for the writer Nehemiah belonged to the
past, but, as one cannot say how near or how distant a past, the point
carries little weight.
(5) Again, in Nehemiah xii. 10, 11 and 22, 23, a list of high-priests
is given, concluding with the name of Jaddua, whom the Chronicler
evidently (and correctly, compare Josephus, _Antiquities of the Jews_
xi. 7, 8) knew to have been the high-priest about 332 B.C., at the
end of the reign of Darius (Darius III, Codomannus), when the Persian
Empire collapsed before the attack of Alexander the Great.
These details, indicative of the date of composition, are as numerous
as we have any right to expect in a work of the nature of Chronicles,
which deals with past history. Their evidential value can of course
be criticised by supposing that the passages in question are late
interpolations and have therefore no bearing on the date of the main
body of the work. But no solid grounds are adduced for this objection,
and the burden of proof lies upon the objector. The supposition is
extremely improbable, and may be dismissed in view of the fact that
(B) the general character, and (C) the linguistic peculiarities of
Chronicles alike demand a date considerably later than the period of
Ezra‒Nehemiah.
(B) The character of Chronicles has already been referred to, but in
a different connection (§ 2, pp. xvi f.). Here the point to notice is
that _throughout the entire work_ the whole system of law and ritual
found in the Pentateuch is presupposed as existing in its final form.
This system, which may conveniently be described as Priestly (P) in
distinction from the earlier system to which the name Deuteronomic
(D) is applied, and the still earlier standpoint represented by the
Jahvistic and Elohistic writers (J and E), may have been of slow
growth, and no doubt embodies features of law and ritual which are
of relatively high antiquity. But there is overwhelming evidence
to prove that, as an organised and completed _system_, it cannot be
dated earlier than the period of Nehemiah (_circa_ 425 B.C.). Now in
Chronicles not only is this final code in force; it has evidently been
so long and so firmly established that the Chronicler did not know, or
at least did not believe, that any other earlier system had once ruled
the practice of Israel. He belonged to a period when the development
of the Pentateuch was no more remembered, and when its origin――in all
completeness――had come to be ascribed with absolute confidence to the
remote past, in accordance with that religious instinct which we have
described above on p. xiv. Manifestly, a considerable lapse of time
after Nehemiah’s period must be allowed for that conviction to have
become established.
Another consideration is found in the attitude of the Chronicler
towards the kingdom of Israel. For the apostate Northern Kingdom
the Chronicler has only contempt and hatred and displays no interest
whatever in its fortunes, except that he takes pains occasionally to
indicate the corruption of the North, thus emphasising by contrast the
virtue of the Judeans. His absorption in the affairs of Jerusalem and
his bitter antagonism to the North in all likelihood reflect the anger
felt by the post-exilic Jews of Jerusalem against the Samaritans after
the famous schism between the two communities. Indeed it is possible,
§ 6 (1), that his work was directly inspired by the necessity of
combating the religious pretensions of the Samaritans with their Temple
on Mt Gerizim, rivalling Jerusalem. The Samaritan schism is generally
supposed to date from 432 B.C., but there are grounds for thinking that
it was not so early, and _possibly_ the Temple on Mt Gerizim may have
been built, not in 432, but in 332 B.C. If the later date be correct,
we have strong evidence for dating Chronicles not earlier than the last
half of the fourth century B.C.
(C) The late date of Chronicles is finally put beyond all doubt by
the linguistic peculiarities of the book. Excluding, of course, the
passages drawn from earlier Scriptures, the Hebrew of Chronicles
is of such a character that it is impossible to assign anything
but a late post-exilic date for its composition. In every aspect of
language――grammar and syntax and vocabulary――the diction exhibits the
unmistakable characteristics of late Hebrew. It lies beyond the scope
of the present volume to give details of the Hebrew, and reference
may be made to the edition of Chronicles by Curtis and Madsen
(_International Critical Commentary_), pp. 27 ff., where a list of 136
such peculiarities is given.
The _style_ of Chronicles is disappointing. The Chronicler had some
praiseworthy qualities as a narrator: he displays force and imagination
in the treatment of the material, he knew how to add a graphic touch,
and he was able to revise a story thoroughly while preserving its
internal coherence (e.g. 1 Chronicles xxi.). But he had not the gift
of choice language. In so late a work we could not hope to find the
strength and purity which characterised Hebrew prose of the “golden
age.” It must, however, be confessed that, judged even by the standard
of its own age, the Hebrew of Chronicles is clumsy and displeasing in
many ways.
* * * * *
From this cumulative evidence we infer that the Chronicler was
certainly a post-exilic writer later than the period of Ezra‒Nehemiah
and in all probability not earlier than about 300‒250 B.C. This is a
valuable and definite conclusion, but it is important to observe that
it does not fully answer the problem of the date of the _present form_
of Chronicles. It remains to ask whether the text as it has reached
us (the Masoretic Hebrew) is precisely the text which left the
Chronicler’s hands, and, if not, what changes have been introduced.
It is safe to say that the Hebrew text has been almost unchanged since
about 150 A.D., but between that date and the time of the Chronicler
is a long and sometimes stormy period. The subject, though in many
ways important, is too intricate to be discussed here at length: a few
remarks must suffice. (1) Like all other books of the Old Testament,
Chronicles has suffered from the usual accidents of scribal errors in
the course of transmission; but the changes due to this cause, being
unintentional, are as a rule unimportant and can often be detected and
corrected (see § 10, _Text_). (2) More serious are alterations made
by revisers or scribes who were anxious to bring the narrative of
Chronicles into conformity with that of Samuel and Kings. In the last
two chapters of 2 Chronicles the Hebrew text can be compared with an
_old_ Greek Version (1 Esdras――see § 10, _Greek Versions_), and the
comparison indicates that changes of text (see notes on 2 Chronicles
xxxv. 8, 15) and a harmonisation of Chronicles with Kings (see note
on 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 5; compare also verse 15) have occurred in that
brief section.
Except in these two chapters the old Greek Version has unfortunately
perished, and for all the rest of Chronicles comparison can only be
made with a much later Greek Version, which is a translation of a
Hebrew text almost identical with the present, Masoretic, form. Even so,
differences are found, notably a substantial passage deleted from the
Hebrew in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 19 (where see note). It is a legitimate
conjecture that, if the _old_ Greek Version were extant throughout
Chronicles, considerable variations between the earlier and the present
text might be disclosed. (3) Finally, internal evidence suggests that
a few passages are of a secondary character; i.e. interpolations by
a writer later than the Chronicler: such perhaps are 1 Chronicles vi.
50‒53; viii. 29‒38; xxiv. 20‒31; 2 Chronicles xv. 16‒19 (see note verse
17); xx. 33 (see note xvii. 6); xxxi. 17‒19.
Interpolations on a large scale are not likely to have been made. Yet
it must be borne in mind that Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah were once a
continuous work, and study of Ezra‒Nehemiah shows that those writings
have undergone a complex literary process, involving serious omissions
and transpositions. This heightens the possibility that Chronicles also,
before or after its separation from Ezra‒Nehemiah, was treated with
freedom. Thus “the recurrence of 1 Chronicles ix., Nehemiah xi. [both
giving a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem] in a single work hardly
looks like an original feature; like the more remarkable repetition of
Ezra ii., Nehemiah vii., the feature seems to point to the combination
of sources which were primarily distinct” (Cook, _1 Esdras_, in
Charles’ _Apocrypha_, p. 19, but see note on ix. 17). On the other
hand the homogeneity of style and purpose in Chronicles tells strongly
against the probability of large interpolations, and it is reasonable
to believe that in the present text we have _substantially_ the work
produced by the Chronicler.
(II) _Authorship._ Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah contain no hint whatsoever
of the name of their author, and external evidence fails us equally.
From the contents and tone of the work we can infer with comparative
certainty that he belonged to the Levitical order, and in all
probability was a member of one of the Levitical guilds of musicians
and singers (see, e.g. 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 12, note). His character
and conceptions can also be discerned from the nature of his work. That
he was a man of strong intellect and vivid imagination is shown by his
qualities as a narrator (see p. xxi) and by the consistency and power
with which the whole work has been designed and carried through (see
below, §§ 5, 6, 8). Beyond this it is futile to conjecture.
§ 4. CONTENTS
The books of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah give a history of Israel and its
ancestors from Adam down to the conclusion of Nehemiah’s activity on
behalf of the post-exilic community in Jerusalem, _circa_ 432 B.C. Of
this history the two books of Chronicles cover the period from Adam to
the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.¹ Before giving a detailed analysis,
it may be of advantage to call attention to certain outstanding
features. Remark that (1) the traditions of the period from Adam to
Saul’s death have been compressed into a series of genealogical lists
which occupy chapters i.‒ix.; (2) the rest of the two books gives an
account of the history of _Judah_ from the death of Saul down to the
destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586, the fortunes of
North Israel being ignored, except for some scornful allusions to its
degeneracy in comparison with Judah and Jerusalem; (3) the keenest
interest is displayed by the writer in all matters connected with the
Levites, the Temple, and its worship, so that an extraordinary amount
of space is allotted to those subjects――note especially 1 Chronicles
vi., xxii.‒xxix.; 2 Chronicles iii.‒vii., xxix.‒xxxi., xxxiv. 8‒xxxv.
19.
¹ Actually Chronicles concludes with the first three verses of
Ezra i., which relate the famous edict of Cyrus, permitting
the Jews to return to Jerusalem: see § 2 (1).
The following Table gives a general survey of the contents of 1 and 2
Chronicles¹.
¹ The sign “=” in the Table means that the passage in
Chronicles is a transcription, with little or no change, of
the passage given in brackets; the sign “compare” is used
where the account in Chronicles differs considerably from or
has only a faint connection with that of the passage in
brackets.
(A) 1 Chronicles i.‒ix. INTRODUCTORY GENEALOGIES.
i. 1‒4 (compare Genesis v. 3‒32). Genealogy from Adam to the
sons of Noah.
5‒23 (= Genesis x. 2‒29). The descendants of Japheth, Ham,
and Shem.
24‒28 Genealogy from Shem to Ishmael.
29‒31 (= Genesis xxv. 12‒16). Ishmaelite descendants of
Abraham.
32, 33 (= Genesis xxv. 1‒4). Arabian descendants of Abraham.
34‒37 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 10‒14). Edomite descendants
of Abraham.
38‒42 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 20‒28). Genealogy of the
Horite inhabitants of Seir.
43‒51a (compare Genesis xxxvi. 31‒39). The early kings of
Edom.
51b‒54 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 40‒43). The “dukes” of Edom.
ii. 1, 2 (compare Genesis xxxv. 22b‒26). The sons of Israel.
3‒iv. 23 Genealogies of the tribe of Judah:
ii. 3‒17 Descent of the sons of Jesse.
18‒55 Caleb. Jerahmeel. Caleb.
iii. 1‒9 (= 2 Samuel iii. 2‒5; v. 14‒16). David’s sons.
10‒24 The Davidic Line before and after the
Captivity.
iv. 1‒23 Additional genealogies of Judah.
iv. 24‒v. 26 Genealogies of Simeon, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh.
vi. 1‒81 The tribe of Levi:
1‒3 Genealogy from Levi to Eleazar.
4‒15 The line of the high-priests to the Captivity.
16‒30 The three clans of the Levites.
31‒47 The singers.
48‒53 Distinction between the sons of Aaron and the
rest of the Levites.
54‒81 The cities of the Levites.
vii. 1‒40 Genealogies of Issachar, Zebulun (see note on vii. 6),
Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher.
viii. 1‒40 Genealogies of Benjamin:
1‒28 Various Benjamite families.
29‒40 (compare ix. 35‒44). The genealogy of the house of
Saul.
ix. 1‒17 The heads of the families of Judah, Benjamin, and
Levi, which dwelt in Jerusalem.
18‒34 The duties of porters and Levites.
35‒44 (= viii. 29‒38). The genealogy of the house of Saul.
(B) x.‒xxix. DAVID.
x. 1‒14 (= 1 Samuel xxxi. 1‒13). The death of Saul at the
battle of Gilboa.
xi. 1‒9 (= 2 Samuel v. 1‒10). Coronation of David and capture
of Jebus.
10‒47 (compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 8‒39). David’s mighty men.
xii. 1‒40 David’s adherents who brought him to the kingdom.
xiii. 1‒14 (=2 Samuel vi. 1‒11). The removal of the Ark from
Kiriath-jearim. Death of Uzza.
xiv. 1‒7 (compare 2 Samuel v. 11‒16). David’s sons born in
Jerusalem.
8‒17 (= 2 Samuel v. 17‒25). Two Philistine attacks
repulsed.
xv. 1‒24. Preparations for bringing home the Ark.
25‒xvi. 6 (compare 2 Samuel vi. 12‒20). The Ark brought
into the city of David.
xvi. 7‒36 (= Psalms cv. 1‒15; xcvi. 1‒13; cvi. 1, 47, 48).
David’s psalm of praise.
37‒43 Arrangements for daily worship.
xvii. 1‒27 (= 2 Samuel vii. 1‒29). Permission to build a
Temple refused to David.
xviii. 1‒17 (= 2 Samuel viii. 1‒18). David’s foreign wars. His
officials.
xix. 1‒xx. 8 (= 2 Samuel x. 1‒19; xi. 1; xii. 26‒31; xxi.
18‒22). Wars with Ammon, Syria, and the
Philistines.
xxi. 1‒30 (= 2 Samuel xxiv. 1‒25). The census and the plague.
xxii. 1‒xxix. 20. David’s preparations for the building of
the Temple and for the establishment of its
services:
xxii. The choice of the Temple site. The charge to
Solomon.
xxiii. The organisation of the Levites.
xxiv. The divisions (“courses”) of the Priests.
xxv. The divisions of the singers.
xxvi. The divisions of the doorkeepers.
xxvii. Various officers of David.
xxviii. 1‒xxix. 20 David’s charge to Solomon and to all
Israel.
xxix. 21‒30 The Epilogue: The Great Rejoicing; the Anointing
of Solomon; Summary of David’s reign.
(C) 2 Chronicles i.‒ix. SOLOMON.
i. 1‒6 (compare 1 Kings iii. 4). Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon.
7‒13 (= 1 Kings iii. 5‒15). The Vision and the prayer for
wisdom.
14‒17 (= 1 Kings x. 26‒29). Chariots and horses.
ii. 1, 2, 17, 18 (compare 1 Kings v. 15, 16). Bearers of
burdens and hewers of wood and stone.
3‒16 (compare 1 Kings v. 2‒11). Negotiations with Huram
(Hiram) king of Tyre.
iii. 1‒v. 1 (compare 1 Kings vi. 1‒vii. 50) The building and
furnishing of the Temple.
v. 2‒14 (= 1 Kings viii. 1‒11). The bringing in of the Ark and
the descent of the cloud.
vi. 1‒11 (= 1 Kings viii. 12‒21). Solomon’s blessing.
12‒42 (= 1 Kings viii. 22‒50). Solomon’s prayer.
vii. 1‒3 The descent of the fire upon the sacrifices.
4‒10 (= 1 Kings viii. 62‒66). The final rejoicings.
11‒22 (= 1 Kings ix. 1‒9). The second Vision and the
acceptance of Solomon’s prayer.
viii. 1‒13, 17, 18 (compare 1 Kings ix. 10‒28). Various Acts
of Solomon.
14‒16 Organisation of the Priests and Levites in the
Temple.
ix. 1‒28 (= 1 Kings x. 1‒27). The Visit of the Queen of Sheba.
Solomon’s greatness.
29‒31 (= 1 Kings xi. 41‒43). The Epilogue.
(D) 2 Chronicles x.‒xxxvi. THE ACTS OF THE KINGS OF JUDAH.
x. 1‒xi. 4 (= 1 Kings xii. 1‒24). The Revolt of the Ten Tribes.
xi. 5‒xii. 16 (compare 1 Kings xiv. 21‒31). The Acts of
Rehoboam.
xiii. 1‒22 (compare 1 Kings xv. 1‒8). The Acts of Abijah
(Abijam).
xiv. 1‒xvi. 14 (compare 1 Kings xv. 9‒24). The Acts of Asa.
xvii. 1‒19 Jehoshaphat’s religious measures. His captains.
xviii. 1‒34 (= 1 Kings xxii. 1‒37). Jehoshaphat with Ahab at
Ramoth-Gilead.
xix. 1‒xx. 30 Jehoshaphat’s judges. His victory in the
wilderness of Tekoa.
xx. 31‒37 (= 1 Kings xxii. 41‒49). The rest of the Acts of
Jehoshaphat.
xxi. 1‒20 (= 1 Kings xxii. 50; compare 2 Kings viii. 17‒24).
Jehoram.
xxii. 1‒9 (= 2 Kings viii. 25‒29; compare ix. 27, 28). Ahaziah.
10‒xxiii. 21 (= 2 Kings xi. 1‒20). The rise and fall of
Athaliah.
xxiv. 1‒14 (= 2 Kings xii. 1‒16). Restoration of the Temple
under Joash.
15‒22 Apostasy of the princes. Assassination of the
prophet Zechariah.
23‒27 (compare 2 Kings xii. 17‒21). The Syrian War and
the end of Joash.
xxv. 1‒13 (compare 2 Kings xiv. 1‒7). Amaziah. The Edomite War.
The Ephraimite ravages.
14‒16 Apostasy of Amaziah.
17‒28 (= 2 Kings xiv. 8‒20). Capture of Jerusalem. Death
of Amaziah.
xxvi. 1‒23 (compare 2 Kings xv. 1‒7). Uzziah (Azariah).
xxvii. 1‒9 (compare 2 Kings xv. 32‒38). Jotham.
xxviii. 1‒27 (compare 2 Kings xvi. 1‒20). Ahaz.
xxix. 1‒xxxi. 21 Hezekiah. Cleansing of the Temple. The Great
Passover. Care for the priesthood.
xxxii. 1‒23 (compare 2 Kings xviii., xix.). The deliverance
from Sennacherib.
24‒33 (compare 2 Kings xx. 1‒21). Hezekiah’s sickness.
His death.
xxxiii. 1‒20 (compare 2 Kings xxi. 1‒18). Manasseh. His
captivity and repentance.
21‒25 (= 2 Kings xxi. 19‒26). Amon.
xxxiv. 1‒7 (compare 2 Kings xxii. 1, 2; xxiii. 4‒20). Josiah.
Removal of the emblems of idolatry.
8‒28 (= 2 Kings xxii. 3‒20). Repair of the Temple.
Discovery of the Book of the Law.
29‒33 (= 2 Kings xxiii. 1‒3). Renewal of the Covenant.
xxxv. 1‒19 (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 21‒23). Josiah’s Great
Passover.
20‒27 (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 28‒30a). The death of
Josiah.
xxxvi. 1‒4 (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 30b‒34). Jehoahaz.
5‒8 (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 36‒xxiv. 6). Jehoiakim.
9, 10 (compare 2 Kings xxiv. 8‒17). Jehoiachin.
11‒21 (compare 2 Kings xxiv. 18‒xxv. 21). Zedekiah. The
Captivity of Judah.
22, 23 (= Ezra i. 1‒3a). The decree of Cyrus.
It will be seen at a glance that large portions of earlier canonical
Scripture have been reproduced in Chronicles exactly or very closely:
viz.
Genesis x. 2‒29; xxv. 1‒4, 10‒16; xxxvi., _passim_.
1 Samuel xxxi.
2 Samuel v.‒viii.; x.; xxiii. 8‒xxiv. 25.
1 Kings iii. 4‒14; v.‒vii. (in part); viii.‒x.; xi. 41‒xii. 24; xiv.
21‒xv. 24 (in part); xxii. (in part).
2 Kings viii. 17‒29; xi., xii.; xiv. 1‒22; xv., xvi. (in part);
xxi.‒xxiv. (in part).
Ezra i. 1‒3.
As the foregoing list shows, Chronicles by no means includes all the
narrative of Samuel and Kings. In particular may be noted the omission
of any account of the early life of David (1 Samuel _passim_), the
_Court History_ of David (2 Samuel xi.‒xx.), the history of Elijah and
Elisha (1 Kings xvii.‒xxi.; 2 Kings i. 1‒viii. 15), and the affairs of
the Northern Kingdom with a few exceptions.
On the other hand, Chronicles contains a great deal which is either
independent of or not immediately dependent on earlier books of the Old
Testament: note especially the opening nine chapters of genealogies,
the last seven chapters of 1 Chronicles, and many passages, long and
short, in 2 Chronicles x.‒xxxvi. The origin and significance of this
new material will be discussed in the section on the _Sources_, § 5.
§ 5. THE SOURCES
From what has been said in § 1 regarding the nature of ancient
historical writings it will be realised that a careful examination
of the material used in the compilation of Chronicles is a necessary
preliminary to the task of estimating the purpose and value of the
work in its final form. Only when the extent of the sources has been
determined can we say whether contributions made by the writer who
combined those sources into the existing work are so great or so
small that we ought to reckon him in the one case a narrator whose
personality must be seriously considered, or in the other a mere
copyist and compiler.
(1) In considering the material of Chronicles, it is convenient to
begin with those passages which seem to be copied or adapted from
earlier books of the Old Testament. That such passages are numerous,
and constitute a very large amount of 1 and 2 Chronicles will be seen
by a glance at the table of contents given in § 4. Occasionally the
Chronicler reproduced the canonical text _verbatim_, but generally
he introduced alterations, which were sometimes both numerous and
important. The discrepancies thus produced between Chronicles and other
parts of canonical Scripture presented a grave difficulty to the older
commentators, and the theory was put forward that the Chronicler used,
not the canonical books, but the still older sources from which the
canonical books themselves were built up and to which they frequently
refer. It was hoped thus to minimise the divergences by supposing
that the Chronicler had copied somewhat different portions of these
old sources, and had approached them from a different standpoint. Not
only was this hypothesis in the highest degree improbable, but the
reconciliation it was supposed to effect is now recognised to be for
the most part untenable. The theory is finally discredited by the fact
that these sources of the canonical books _always_ appear in Chronicles
combined together in precisely the same manner in which they are found
combined in the canonical books; i.e. they appear always ‘edited,’
and never in their original, independent, form. It may be definitely
asserted therefore that for all the passages which are common to
Chronicles and other canonical works the Chronicler was indebted solely
to the text of the canonical books as it appeared in his time.
As for the divergences, real and apparent, between Chronicles and
other canonical Scriptures, it is now recognised that, whilst they are
properly a subject for historical investigation, they do not involve
a religious problem. The old “religious” difficulty is answered by a
deeper comprehension of the nature of Inspiration. The real inspiration
of the Scriptures does not, as was once thought, rest upon points of
historical accuracy: see the article _Inspiration_ by A. E. Garvie
in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹, vol. xiv., especially pp. 647 _ad
fin._, 648, with the references there given.
(2) More important and difficult is the problem of the source of the
_new_ material in Chronicles. Nearly one-half of the two books of
Chronicles is material otherwise unknown to us, and not to be regarded
as mere ornamental amplification of the passages drawn from canonical
sources. Rather it is precisely these new parts which give colour to
the whole work, and there can be no doubt that the Chronicler must have
dwelt with special fondness on just these passages. The question is,
Can we discern or infer sources from which these independent chapters
and paragraphs have been derived, or is the Chronicler himself their
only source and origin?
In attempting to answer that question, our first task is to note and
discuss a long list of works to which the Chronicler appeals, either
as authorities for what he says or as sources where fuller information
might (presumably) be expected. They are as follows:
A. _Those with specific prophetic titles._
[For the reigns of David and Solomon.]
(1) The history (literally _words_, or _acts_) of Samuel the seer
(1 Chronicles xxix. 29).
(2) The history of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles xxix. 29;
2 Chronicles ix. 29).
(3) The history of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles xxix. 29).
(4) The last acts of David (1 Chronicles xxiii. 27). [Perhaps the
same as (5).]
(5) The chronicles (literally _acts of the days_) of king David
(1 Chronicles xxvii. 24).
(6) The prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (2 Chronicles ix. 29).
(7) The visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chronicles ix. 29).
[For the kings of Judah (excepting Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah,
Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah).]
(8) The histories of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer
(2 Chronicles xii. 15).
(9) The commentary (literally _Midrash_¹) of the prophet Iddo
(2 Chronicles xiii. 22).
(10) The history of Jehu the son of Hanani which is inserted in
the books of the kings of Israel (2 Chronicles xx. 34).
(11) A writing of Isaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles xxvi. 22).
(12) The vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz in the books
of the kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chronicles xxxii. 34).
(13) ? The history of Hozai (literally _the seers_) (2 Chronicles
xxxiii. 19).
(14) ? A genealogical register compiled in the time of Jotham and
Jeroboam II (1 Chronicles v. 17).
(15) A collection of “lamentations” (2 Chronicles xxxv. 25).
B. _Those with general titles._
(1) A Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (cited for the reigns
of Asa, Amaziah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; 2 Chronicles xvi. 11,
xxv. 26, xxviii. 26, xxxii. 32). Compare (12) above.
(2) A Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (cited for Jotham,
Josiah, and Jehoiakim; 2 Chronicles xxvii. 7, xxxv. 27,
xxxvi. 8).
(3) A Book of the Kings of Israel (cited for genealogies,
1 Chronicles xix. 1; for the reign of Jehoshaphat, 2
Chronicles xx. 24; and for Manasseh, 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18).
(4) A _Midrash_¹ of the Book of Kings (for the reign of Joash,
2 Chronicles xxiv. 27).
¹ The noun _Midrash_ is derived from a verb meaning to _search
out, explore_. The word occurs only in 2 Chronicles xiii. 22,
xxiv. 27 in the Old Testament but is very common as a
description of many works of later Jewish literature. A
Midrash may be defined as an imaginative adaptation of
an idea suggested by Scripture, especially a homiletic
exposition or an edifying religious story. In midrashic
writings “numbers are multiplied, all the details assume
huger and more exalted proportions, right is always richly
rewarded and wickedness signally punished, miracles are
common, and prophets and kings deliver majestic, spiritual
addresses, embodying the best doctrines of later Judaism”
(Kent, _Student’s O.T._ II. p. 20). Several of the
narratives in Chronicles partake of this character. For
later and more obvious examples, compare the stories of
Tobit and Susanna in the Apocrypha.
This great array of authorities dwindles to small proportions on
inspection. Of the fifteen given under A, numbers 13, 14 are uncertain
but of very small importance, whilst number 15 is also unknown:
it is _not_ the canonical book of Lamentations (see the note on
2 Chronicles xxxv. 25). The rest, numbers 1‒12, almost certainly were
not independent works, but simply sections of some comprehensive work
(see especially numbers 10 and 12), it being the custom among the
Jews to refer to the sections of a large work by means of distinctive
titles――compare Romans xi. 2, “Know ye not what the Scripture saith
_in Elijah_.” Thus some of these titles, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, may refer
simply to passages in the canonical books of Samuel and Kings, numbers
11 and 12 to Isaiah xxxvi.‒xxxix. = 2 Kings xviii. 13‒xx. 19. But
the others (and perhaps some also of those just mentioned) in all
probability denote sections of a large history of a more or less
midrashic character; and it is this work apparently which is meant
by the titles given under B. To these we now turn. It is generally
admitted that all four titles mentioned in B denote one and the same
work, a comprehensive history of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
This work was _not_ our canonical books of Kings, for it is quoted as
containing material not found in those books. Still less was it any of
the sources referred to in Kings: there is not the faintest probability
that any of the new material in Chronicles was derived directly
from those very old sources. The question therefore is whether in
this general work to which the Chronicler appeals he had a source
_independent_ or _semi-independent_ of Kings. Opinion is divided. Some
scholars think that it was essentially dependent on the canonical Kings,
merely “a reconstructed history, embellished with marvellous tales of
divine interposition and prophetic activity.” Others maintain that this
midrashic history had its roots not only in canonical Kings but also
in traditions partly or wholly independent of Kings. The latter opinion
is here preferred, but the reasons for adopting it will be best seen if
we first state and consider two sharply opposing views put forward by
recent writers.
On the one side is Torrey (_Ezra Studies_, 1910) who argues that the
Chronicler had no source at all other than the canonical books――all
else was the product of his imaginative skill. He describes this
supposed midrashic history of Judah and Israel as “a phantom source,
of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external
evidence is limited to the Chronicler’s transparent parading of
authorities.” The strength of Torrey’s contention lies in the fact
that almost all the additional matter in Chronicles is written in one
and the same distinctive style. That style has certain unmistakable
peculiarities. Thus Driver in the _Encyclopedia Britannica_ s.v.
_Chronicles_, col. 772, writes, “It is not merely that the style of
the Chronicler presents characteristically late linguistic novelties
... but it has also a number of special mannerisms.... So constant are
[these marks] that there is hardly a single sentence, not excerpted
from Samuel or Kings, in which they are not discernible.” On the other
side we have to consider the attitude adopted in the commentaries of
Benzinger (1901) and Kittel (1902), following up a suggestion made by
Büchler in 1899. These scholars not only believe that non-canonical
sources supplied much of the new material of Chronicles, but they have
attempted to analyse that material minutely into various contributory
elements. According to their view the Chronicler was essentially
a compiler, following his sources closely and showing such little
independence as he exercised chiefly in those verses and passages where
the affairs and interests of the Levites are set forth. In the opinion
of the present writer that is not a satisfactory account of the part
played by the Chronicler. It does not make sufficient allowance for the
singular homogeneity of style and purpose throughout the book. Torrey’s
work is of value as a warning against the danger and difficulty of the
analysis which Benzinger and Kittel have essayed. Frequently the points
which are adduced as evidence for distinction of sources are too few
or too subjective to provide adequate ground for the analysis――see the
detailed examination of the Hebrew provided in the edition by Curtis.
But, whilst it should be admitted that this uniformity of style carries
great weight and must receive careful consideration, it does not, we
think, follow that Torrey’s sweeping conclusion is correct, and that
behind the non-canonical passages there is nothing save the imagination
of the Chronicler. To begin with, if that were true, the Chronicler
would be unparalleled amongst ancient historians. The originality of
ancient chroniclers was shown in the manner in which they combined,
modified, and embellished the nucleus given by tradition, but they did
not invent _de novo_ to the extent required by this theory. Even if
that be an over-statement, we can at least assert that they did not
shut themselves up to their own imagination, if any traditions relating
to their subject were current. On the contrary, they made use of all
such available material, good or bad. And it is quite incredible that
historical interest in Jerusalem regarding the old days of the Kingdom
was confined to the compilation of Kings until suddenly the Chronicler
produced this startlingly different account. There is very strong
probability that the version given in Chronicles has a long chain of
antecedents behind it. For consider, further, the general situation.
The vicissitudes of time and fortune had caused great changes in the
population of Jerusalem, but none that made absolutely impossible the
continuance of traditions not represented or only partially represented
by the narratives crystallised in Kings. Thus “we may safely assume
that the overthrow of Edom (2 Chronicles xxv. 5‒13) and the leprosy
of Uzziah (2 Chronicles xxvi. 16‒23) were once told more fully than
in the brief verses of 2 Kings xiv. 7, xv. 5. We may surely allow
links between the impression left upon tradition by these events and
the stories that have been preserved by Chronicles” (S. A. Cook, in
the _Journal of Theological Studies_, xii. 470). It is now generally
recognised that the depopulation of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. was not
nearly so complete as was once thought, and considerable continuity
of tradition may have been maintained. Moreover, the influx of South
Judean families in the exilic and post-exilic times must have meant an
extension of popular tales concerning Judean affairs. It is therefore
significant that the South Judean “strain” is a marked feature in the
Chronicler’s history. Again, it is practically certain that Levitical
predecessors of the Chronicler felt somewhat the same interest as he
displays in the origins of their order and institutions. Are we to
suppose that they made no attempts to gratify their curiosity, or to
find historical grounds for their claims? Surely they would seize with
interest on any and all current traditions, and would be constantly
collating them with the well-known version in Kings, adding whatever
they could to the total, and no doubt tending to retell the whole――at
least the popular and edifying portions of the narrative――in terms
more agreeable to the ideas and practices of their own time. We cannot
suppose that the Chronicler was the first and only Levite who attempted
to satisfy the obvious need (§ 6) for an orthodox ecclesiastical
version of Judean history. Features of the genealogies, and in
particular the Levitical _data_, suggest the existence of statistical
records, if of nothing more. One further small but interesting point
deserves mention. In 1 Chronicles iv. 9, vii. 23, xii. 18 there are
sayings which cannot possibly originate with the Chronicler, for they
are written in an archaic style utterly foreign to his manner of speech.
Of these xii. 18 is poetical in form, while the other two are sentences
of a type made familiar to us by early passages in Genesis. These
verses, then, are certainly not the invention of the Chronicler, and,
even if they are only isolated fragments, their existence is at least
significant. In fine, the natural supposition is that in post-exilic
Jerusalem there were various traditions which were drawn partly, but
_not exclusively_, from the particular recension of history preserved
in Kings, and which continued to develop in form and perhaps in
content after the “Kings” recension was relatively fixed. Whether these
developments of traditions, canonical _and_ otherwise, preserve any
genuine history or not (§ 7), their existence in popular and priestly
circles of the Chronicler’s time is, we think, almost certain; and it
is quite certain that, if they were in existence, the Chronicler would
utilise them. On this view, then, the sources of the Chronicler were:
(a) The canonical books.
(b) Variant forms of a few narratives in Kings; traditions of South
Judean origin, recording movements of population and hostilities
with southern tribes; popular midrashic tales; family statistics
and genealogies, particularly of the Priests and Levites; records or
traditions relating to the Temple, the fortifications of Jerusalem,
and the repair of certain Judean towns――_some_ of this material being
really independent of the traditions in Kings.
The problem raised by the stylistic uniformity of the new passages
in Chronicles must now be considered. Probably the material indicated
in (b) above may at times have crystallised into definite midrashic
writings. (Thus, when the Chronicler speaks of the “History of the
Kings of Judah and Israel,” we may believe that he refers to some such
document, one that was either extant in his own age or was generally
known to have existed.) Probably, however, it was also to a large
extent in a fluid oral condition――matter of common knowledge and of
common talk in Levitical circles. Certainly it is legitimate to think
that with this material, written or oral or both, the Chronicler was
intensely familiar; and that he could easily have related it _in his
own words_. We may surmise that his procedure was somewhat as follows:
He made the well-known narrative of Samuel‒Kings the basis of his
version, altering its words as little as possible, yet, if necessary,
exercising great freedom, so as to make it fully orthodox in accordance
with the ecclesiastical standards of his time. Into this groundwork
he wove with admirable skill new material of fact and narrative, drawn
from the sources set forth in (b) above; and all this new material he
selected, revised, and related in such a fashion as might best serve
the very definite religious, moral, and ecclesiastical ends (§ 6)
which his history was designed to meet. It passed, in fact, freely and
effectively through the medium of his mind; so that it appears, if not
wholly in his own words, at least coloured by his distinctive turns of
speech. A second way in which we can explain the uniform style of the
new matter in Chronicles and escape the conclusion that it has all
been derived from the imagination of the Chronicler is to suppose that
for some time past it had been transmitted through the talk or writing
of Levites like-minded with the Chronicler and sharing the same
ecclesiastical fashion of speech; that, in fact, much of Chronicles was
built up by chroniclers before the Chronicler. There may be some truth
in this argument; for, as was said above, the Chronicler was surely not
the first Levite to feel the need for an “orthodox” history. The two
explanations can be regarded as supplementary rather than alternative;
but the present writer considers that stress should be laid chiefly
upon the first.
This investigation of the structure of Chronicles yields the following
general result. The position here taken is opposed to the theory that
the whole of the new material was the product of the Chronicler’s
imagination and literary skill. It leaves open the valuable possibility
that the new material may preserve historical facts and traditions
independent of those in Kings. On the other hand it admits that the
Chronicler has had an important share in shaping the material and that
(a) the consequent uniformity of style renders any attempt to analyse
the new matter into its proximate sources precarious (observe, however,
that the _immediate_ history of the sources behind the new material is
not of such primary importance to us as is the fundamental conclusion
that there _were_ such sources): and (b) whilst each part of the
new matter is entitled to a thorough examination on its merits,
great care must be exercised to determine exactly what part the
Chronicler has played. Thus it is probable that some features of
the narratives in Chronicles may _originate_ with the Chronicler:
that is only what we should expect from a man able to plan and carry
through a work so clearly intentioned and on such a large scale as
Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah. He may have told his tale not only in his own
words, but in his own way. We must be on our guard therefore to make
allowance for the strength of his convictions, for his conception of
the course of history and for the intentions with which he wrote. How
far these considerations affect the historical value of his work will
be dealt with below (§ 7).
This discussion of the sources may conclude by emphasising the
remarkable skill of the composition. The passages taken direct from
the earlier Scriptures have been so admirably combined with the new
material that the component parts have been wrought into a real unity.
It is evident we are dealing with an author of strong personality. What
the aim and purpose of this writer were we may now proceed to consider.
§ 6. THE PURPOSE AND METHOD OF THE CHRONICLER
(1) In the time of the Chronicler the position of the orthodox party
in Jerusalem, whose interests, civil and ecclesiastical, were bound
up with the worship at the Temple on Mt Zion, was one of considerable
difficulty. During the Greek period (from 330 B.C.) the mental horizon
of the Jews in Jerusalem had expanded even more than under the Persian
rule (538‒330 B.C.). They were now able to realise their isolation and
political insignificance, whilst at the same time the communities of
Jews scattered in all the leading countries of the ancient world were
rapidly growing in size, influence, and in cosmopolitan outlook. Even
the religious supremacy of Jerusalem was threatened. We now know that
there was an important Jewish Temple at Elephantine in Egypt, which
the Jewish community there was eager to maintain. But far more serious
was the Samaritan schism and the Temple to Jehovah erected by them on
Mt Gerizim. We can well imagine that a rival Temple on _Palestinian_
soil claiming, no doubt with some show of justice, that there were true
Levitical families among its priests, that its ritual was correct and
its observance of the Law every whit as sound as that in Jerusalem, was
a matter of vital importance to the ecclesiastical orders at Jerusalem.
Undoubtedly the feud was bitter in the Chronicler’s time; and there are
strong grounds for holding that Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah were written
with the immediate object of confuting the ecclesiastical pretensions
of the Samaritans and of showing that in Jerusalem only ought men to
worship. Certainly Chronicles is well adapted for that end. A virulent
polemic would have been discounted as a party document. The Chronicler
instead has skilfully retold the story of the past, so as to leave
two main impressions. In the first place, by ignoring the affairs of
the Northern Kingdom, save where he intimates that its people were
religiously degenerate from the start (see 2 Chronicles xiii. 5‒12),
that they were grievously decimated by a great disaster (2 Chronicles
xiii. 13‒17), and that in general their attitude on the subject of
mixed marriages was scandalously lax (see Ezra and Nehemiah), he has
subtly but forcibly created the impression that the Samaritans were
little better than “a heterogeneous mob of heathen.” Secondly and
chiefly, his history was intended to show that Jerusalem, with its
Temple on Mt Zion, is the _one_ place which Jehovah has chosen, and
where He has set His Name. There alone was His worship properly and
legitimately established, and there alone can it still be carried
on. Jerusalem too, like Samaria, had suffered for its sins, but the
disaster of the exile, the break in the succession, was repaired,
he argues, through the return from Babylonia of that company of
Israelites of pure descent whom Ezra led back: the genealogies which
are so noticeable a feature of Chronicles‒Ezra‒Nehemiah are given as
irrefutable proof that the Jerusalem community of the Chronicler’s
day――Levites and laymen――were the true and only descendants of the
nation of old. It followed that by them alone could the worship of
Jehovah be lawfully conducted.
It seems very probable that the Chronicler’s work was directed
specifically against the Samaritans. But in any case it is undoubtedly
true that the essential purpose of the book was to vindicate the
religious supremacy of Jerusalem, and to exalt the honour and the
privileges of its priesthood and its Temple.
(2) In seeking to achieve this aim, the Chronicler inevitably dwelt
upon those aspects of life and thought in which he specially believed.
Thus we may distinguish various features of his work which subserve the
main purpose:
(a) He was anxious, for instance, to uphold the _political_ supremacy
of Jerusalem, no easy matter in his time. To Jews of the Greek period,
fully aware of the pomp and power of heathen states, the achievements
of even such national heroes as David or Solomon probably seemed pale
and insignificant, as they are related in Samuel or Kings. In order to
create a due sense of their importance, and to mitigate the depressing
effects of Jerusalem’s present impotence, the Chronicler retold the
glories of the past in terms commensurate with the notions of the
present. To this end he idealised the great men of Israel. Thus the
life of David is related by him as a career of almost unbroken success
and of consistent piety. Thus also the sacrifices offered by Solomon
at the dedication of the Temple are said to have been on a scale that
might well have astonished Alexander the Great.
(b) Chiefly, however, the Chronicler was concerned with the _religious_
pre-eminence of Jerusalem. He delights therefore in magnifying to the
full the glories of the Temple, its ritual and its officers. It is
quite clear that his interest in this theme is far wider than any
immediate polemical aim, and the subject deserves careful attention.
When he describes the Temple of Solomon in terms of surpassing
splendour, he is not merely seeking to cast down the pride of Samaritan
rivals, he is also gratifying the longings of his own heart――how poor
in comparison the outward form of the Temple he himself served so
faithfully! Perhaps also he hoped thereby to excite his own love for
its well-being among the less ardent of his brethren. More important
was the question of _ritual and the Law_. We have already said (p. xx)
that the Chronicler lived at a time when the Pentateuch had for a long
while existed in its final form, when the ritual and Law of Israel were
regulated in accordance with its fully elaborated precepts; the whole
complex system being supposed to have been imparted to Israel by Moses.
Now, when the Chronicler and others like him turned to the historical
records of their people, the books of Samuel and Kings, they found
many things which must have sorely puzzled them. For those records
constantly relate events in ways which run counter to the provisions of
the completed Pentateuch, sometimes ignoring, sometimes contradicting
and breaking, its laws and practices. It is utterly unlikely that he
and his fellows were aware that those books reflect the customs of an
earlier period; so that in altering their narrative (as he does) he was
not conscious of falsifying history. Even if he was, we must not judge
his conduct by the opinions of our own time, but remember that “he
lived in an age when certain accepted theories were regarded as more
authentic than recorded facts” (Kent, _Student’s O.T._ vol. ii. 23).
It is fair, however, to believe that in the inconsistencies of the
older histories with the observances of his own day he saw only an
astonishing ignorance or carelessness in matters of the Law on the
part of the older writers――a state of affairs which called loudly for
correction. For the good name of David and Solomon, for the honour
of the pious Kings of Judah, as well as for the edification of his
contemporaries (and, maybe, for the confusion of the Samaritans), such
flagrant blemishes had to be removed. And in Chronicles he has produced
_a thorough revision of the history of Judah in accordance with the
principles and provisions of the completed Pentateuch_. Throughout
the entire work this aim is consistently pursued. It must be therefore
considered a main feature of the Chronicler’s purpose. The alterations
of the text of Samuel‒Kings which he has made on this account will be
so frequently pointed out in the notes that here one simple example
will suffice. In 2 Samuel viii. 18 it is said, “And the sons of David
were _priests_.” Since in the Chronicler’s time it was unthinkable that
any could be priests save members of Levitical families, this statement
was corrected to read, “And the sons of David were _chief about the
king_” (1 Chronicles xviii. 17). Finally, in the officials of the
Temple――Priests and Levites――the Chronicler manifests the deepest
interest. Throughout his narrative he is vigilant to exalt the honour
and privileges of those classes. In particular, he brings the guilds of
Levitical singers into prominence so frequently that it is generally
supposed he was himself a member of that order of Levites.
These remarks on the principal features of the book indicate in general
the purpose and method of the Chronicler. Yet in a sense they do so
externally, and behind all else, as the animating force, there lies
the Chronicler’s religious faith, his zeal for God. _That_ truly is his
ultimate motive; but it will be convenient to reserve what may be said
concerning it until a later stage (§ 8).
§ 7. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF CHRONICLES
Until recent times the burning question in the exposition of Chronicles
has been the problem of reconciling its statements with those in
Samuel‒Kings, finding explanations for the inconsistencies, and
combining the additional matter given in Chronicles so as to form one
harmonious narrative. So baffling was the task that even the Talmudists,
masters in the arts of subtle exegesis, doubted the accuracy of
Chronicles, and were inclined to treat it, not as an authority for the
history, but as a book for homiletic interpretation (see references
in the _Jewish Encyclopedia_ iv. 60). As soon as the character and
purpose of the book, the circumstances and opinions of the writer,
are understood, the demand for harmonising the variant accounts at
all costs is seen to be mistaken, and the exposition of Chronicles is
thereby freed from a burden by which it has been sorely hampered. The
question of the historical value of its narratives remains one of great
importance, but on literary and scientific, not on religious, grounds
(compare p. xxx).
It will make for clearness if we approach the subject by considering
first (A) the direct historical value of Chronicles, i.e. its worth
as a history of Judah; and secondly (B) its indirect historical value
as a work of the period to which we have assigned its composition,
300‒250 B.C. Under (A) our discussion may conveniently be divided into
a consideration of: (I) those parts which reproduce or are apparently
based on Samuel‒Kings; (II) the material wholly or apparently
independent of canonical Scripture.
A.
DIRECT VALUE.
(I) If the Chronicler’s version of the history was to gain acceptance
at all, it was necessary to make the older well-known histories the
basis of his work. And indeed he himself no doubt conceived his version
not as contradictory of the older narratives but only as a more careful
account of the history of Judah, paying adequate attention to the
religious affairs in which he was specially interested. Hence, wherever
the text of Samuel and Kings was suitable for his purpose he reproduced
it exactly¹: an example is 2 Chronicles xviii. 3‒34 = 1 Kings xviii.
4‒35. The historical value of passages which are merely transcriptions
must be discussed not here but in their original setting: obviously
their value is that which they possess there――neither more nor less.
We proceed therefore to consider the _changes_ introduced by the
Chronicler in using canonical sources. They are of various kinds:
¹ It must not be assumed that where the text of Chronicles
and Samuel‒Kings now coincides, it has done so always. That
conclusion is only generally true. Sometimes, it seems, the
_original_ text of Chronicles was altered to conform more
closely with Kings, and _vice versa_ the present text of
Kings is sometimes the result of assimilation to Chronicles
Unfortunately the evidence of the extant Greek versions
(§ 10) is quite insufficient to tell us how far the present
text of Chronicles has been modified by this assimilating
tendency, except in the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles
where the evidence of the Greek is peculiarly full. It is
clear, however, that some by no means unimportant changes
have taken place in the course of transmission: see § 10,
and the remarks on p. xxii.
(i) A great number of _minor_ alterations have been made, conforming
the older material to the Chronicler’s point of view. A few instances
may be given: 2 Samuel v. 21, “And [the Philistines] left their
images there, and David and his men _took them away_” = 1 Chronicles
xiv. 12, “And [the Philistines] left their gods there, and David gave
commandment, and they were _burned with fire_.” Again, 2 Samuel xxiv. 1,
“And the anger of _the Lord_ was kindled against Israel, and he moved
David against them, saying, Go, number Israel” = 1 Chronicles xxi. 1,
“And _Satan_ stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.”
Again, 1 Kings ix. 12, “The cities which Solomon had given him (Huram)”
= 2 Chronicles viii. 2, “The cities which Huram had given to Solomon.”
Compare further 2 Samuel viii. 18 = 1 Chronicles xviii. 17 (quoted
above, p. xli f.); 2 Samuel vi. 12 = 1 Chronicles xiii. 13; 2 Samuel
xxiv. 24 = 1 Chronicles xxi. 25.
(ii) In some instances the alterations are so many or of so radical a
nature that the whole tenour of the passage has been transformed――e.g.
the conspiracy against Athaliah which resulted in the coronation of the
youthful king Joash (2 Kings xi.) is rewritten (2 Chronicles xxiii.)
to agree with the usages of the Temple in the Chronicler’s time.
Similarly in the passage which follows (2 Chronicles xxiv. 4‒14), which
is certainly based on 2 Kings xii. 4‒16, only some 30 words of the
original have been kept, so freely has it been revised. Again, the
account of the destruction of Jehoshaphat’s fleet (1 Kings xxii. 48 f.)
is remarkably altered in 2 Chronicles xx. 35‒37. Compare further 1
Chronicles xv. 25‒28 = 2 Samuel vi. 12‒15; 2 Chronicles xxii. 7‒9 =
2 Kings ix. 27, 28; 2 Chronicles xxxii. 1‒23 = 2 Kings xviii. 13‒xix.
37 (a free abridgment).
(iii) Another noteworthy feature in the Chronicler’s treatment of
the canonical sources is his _omissions_. These call for mention here
because they are not only significant of his feelings and principles,
but they also have an immense effect on the impression conveyed by his
narrative as compared with that of his source. Not a word, for instance,
is said that would detract from the picture of David as the man after
God’s heart and the ideal monarch of Israel. The perils of his youth,
Saul’s enmity and the long struggle against Ishbosheth are omitted¹.
His murder of Uriah and the disastrous rebellion of Absalom are
ignored; but the result is a David very different from the great yet
sometimes erring monarch depicted in Samuel (see the head-note to
1 Chronicles xxviii.). Another significant omission is 2 Kings xviii.
14‒16, Hezekiah’s payment of tribute to Babylonia, a tradition which
doubtless seemed to the Chronicler a sign of weakness and lack of faith
incredible in a king so pious and successful. Above all, we notice
the omission of the affairs of the Northern Kingdom, except for a
few derogatory notices. The consequence is that if Chronicles stood
_alone_, our conception of the relative importance of Judah as compared
with Israel would be very far removed from the actual facts. It is a
simple matter to see how imperative it is that the impression given by
Chronicles should here be corrected by the records in Kings, and the
student will find it instructive to consider the point with some care.
¹ Such omissions are very skilfully managed by the Chronicler.
Even so, they generally entail some abrupt transition or
obscurity, as in the present instance for which see the
note on 1 Chronicles xi. 1. Here the cause of the obscurity
can be shown by direct comparison of the earlier history
in Samuel. Mark how usefully Chronicles thus demonstrates
the _legitimacy_ of the argument that similar difficulties
elsewhere in the Old Testament are perhaps due to a similar
cause, although the earlier source may not be extant to
prove that the conjecture is correct.
The conclusions to be drawn from the above are clear. First, in
passages of the type instanced in (ii) above, where the differences
between Kings and Chronicles are considerable and not confined to
changes made on transparently religious grounds, the possibility that
we have to do with a variant form of the tradition in Kings should be
carefully considered. If there be any such distinct traditions, even
though they are few or in a late stage of development, they are of
high value, for they _may_ be as worthy of consideration as the form
in Kings. Moreover a slight variation in a tradition may occasionally
suffice to indicate the existence of a different standpoint towards an
important topic or period in the history. But in the majority of _all_
cases included under this heading (I) it appears that the changes in
the narratives were arbitrarily made in consequence of the standpoint,
beliefs, and purpose (§§ 1 and 6) of the Chronicler, and they can make
no claim to rest on historical facts. For the detailed arguments upon
which this general conclusion is based, the reader is referred to the
notes on the text.
(II) The _additional_ matter of Chronicles includes a variety of
subjects. These may be roughly but conveniently summarised under the
following headings――(1) _genealogical lists_ (1 Chronicles ii.‒ix.,
xxiii.‒xxvii., etc.); (2) _topographical and other archaeological
notices_ (e.g. 1 Chronicles xi. 41‒47; 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒10, xix.
4‒11, xxvi. 6, 49, xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14, and notably the organisation
of the Levites, 1 Chronicles xxiii., xxiv., and details regarding the
building of Solomon’s Temple, e.g. 2 Chronicles ii.‒iv., _passim_);
(3) _letters and speeches_ (1 Chronicles xvi. 8‒36, xxii. 6‒19,
xxviii. 2‒10, xxix. 1‒20; 2 Chronicles xv. 1‒7, xvi. 7‒10, xxi. 12‒15);
(4) _national events, especially religious affairs and wars_ (e.g.
1 Chronicles iv. 34‒43, v. 6, xxiii. ff.; 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒10,
xix. 4‒11, xxix. 3‒xxx. 27), such topics being sometimes related in
the style of (5) _Midrashim_――i.e. edifying tales describing marvellous
deliverances from foes and splendid religious ceremonies (2 Chronicles
xiii. 3‒20, xiv. 9‒15, xxx. 13‒27, and especially xx. 1‒30¹). If,
as Torrey contends, the whole of this is simply the product of the
Chronicler’s imagination working upon the canonical sources only and
freely interpreting events in accordance with his own convictions, then,
we must frankly admit, its historical value as a record of the past
it purports to describe is _nil_. If, however, according to the view
taken in this volume (see § 5), much of this material is drawn from
a body of tradition, oral and written, current in the Jerusalem of
the Chronicler’s day, and not represented in canonical writings, the
question of historical value is still open. Our task, then, is to
consider whether among the extra-canonical traditions some genuine
historical facts may have been preserved. The problem is not easy, and,
as yet, it does not admit of so exact and definite a reply as we should
like to give. Obviously the answer requires a thorough consideration
of each _item_ of the new material, a task which would far exceed
the scope of this introduction. There are, however, some general
observations which throw light upon the problem. These we shall give
here, reserving the discussion of individual passages for the notes.
Taking the subjects enumerated above in order, we have:
¹ The subjects thus classified are not, of course, mutually
exclusive――thus a letter or speech and statements of alleged
historical events will frequently be a part of the contents
of some midrashic passage.
(1) The new _genealogical lists_, which are so prominent a feature of
Chronicles. Some of these lists are certainly not trustworthy records
of pre-exilic times¹. But others, e.g. parts of the Calebite and
Levitical genealogies, probably embody facts concerning the kinships
and distribution of various South Judean families in pre-exilic and
exilic times, and furnish valuable evidence of a northward movement
(see S. A. Cook, _1 Esdras_, p. 12 in Charles’s _Apocrypha_, or his
articles on _Caleb_, _Judah_, _Levites_ in _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹).
It is certain that in post-exilic Jerusalem a considerable part of
the population were descendants of these south Judean clans. Surely
it would be surprising if no valid traditions of their relationships,
their movements and fortunes, had been preserved amongst them. There
is therefore good reason for holding that some historical information
(e.g. 1 Chronicles iv. 34‒43) may be found in these lists, and it
is possible that a close study of certain of the genealogies will
yield most valuable light on some of the main questions of Old
Testament history and literature. Unfortunately the study of the
intricate problems involved is not yet sufficiently advanced to permit
conclusions which meet with general acceptance.
¹ On the other hand they may have historical value as
regards the families of Judah and Jerusalem in or about
the Chronicler’s own generation――a point, however, which
properly falls to be discussed under B below.
(2) Much of the _topographical_ and _archaeological_ information
scattered here and there in the books of Chronicles does not inspire
confidence, but part may rest on old tradition; compare the headnote
to 1 Chronicles xii. 1‒22. Many of the references in chapters i.‒ix.
(e.g. vii. 24, viii. 12, etc.) to Judean townships, whether explicitly
mentioned (e.g. 1 Chronicles vi. 54 ff.), or lightly disguised in
the genealogical tables (e.g. 1 Chronicles ii. 18 ff., 50 ff.), are
valuable not only for information regarding the relationship of Jewish
families and movements of southern peoples, Edomites and Arabians
(see (1) above, and the note on 1 Chronicles ii. 42), but also as
evidence of the extent (small indeed!) of the territory occupied by the
post-exilic Jewish community (compare Hölscher, _Palästina_, pp. 18‒23,
26‒31). It is further plausibly suggested that notices of certain
tribes of the Northern Kingdom (e.g. Ephraim and Manasseh) may be
regarded as indications of the extension of Judaism in Samaria and
Galilee about the Chronicler’s period (see note on 2 Chronicles xv.
9). The Chronicler was singularly interested in building operations
(see, e.g. 2 Chronicles xxvi. 9, xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14) and some
of his references to the building of fortified townships in Judea
(2 Chronicles xi. 5 ff., xiv. 6, xvi. 1‒6, xvii. 12) and to the origin
of buildings and gates in Jerusalem may be correct (see 2 Chronicles
xxvi. 5‒10, note).
(3) As regards the _letters_ and _speeches_ which are ascribed by the
Chronicler to various kings and prophets――e.g. David, Elijah, Azariah,
etc.――these cannot be deemed authentic. For example, the great song
of praise attributed to David in 1 Chronicles xvi. 7 ff. is wholly
composed of quotations from Psalms of late date. Such speeches or
letters are examples of a device constantly and legitimately employed
by _ancient_ historians as a method of imparting vividness and spirit
to their narrative. The letters and speeches represent simply what
ought in the historian’s opinion to have been written or spoken. The
Greek historian, Thucydides, carefully states the practice: “I have,”
he writes, “put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper
to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express
them....” (Thucydides i. 22)¹.
¹ The practice is not peculiar to Chronicles, and these
remarks are generally true of the correspondence between
Solomon and Hiram and the long prayer of Solomon, found
in 1 Kings v. 2‒9, viii. 22‒50, and transcribed (with some
expansions) in 2 Chronicles ii. 3‒16, vi. 12‒42.
(4) _National events_, such as _religious ceremonies_ (e.g. Hezekiah’s
Passover, 2 Chronicles xxix.‒xxxi.) and _wars_ (e.g. 2 Chronicles
xx. 1‒30) constitute as a rule the subject-matter of (5) the pious
_midrashic passages_; so that (4) and (5) may conveniently be treated
together. _Midrash_ is not serious history, and very probably was
not intended to be regarded as such even by its author. It is earnest
moral and religious teaching presented in a quasi-historical dress.
In all these passages the _form_ of the tale is unhistorical, and all
midrashic features, such as the incredibly and often impossibly large
numbers given in Chronicles, must without hesitation be set aside; but
it does not follow that the tale has no historical foundation whatever,
that the events around which it was written were originally unreliable.
In an ancient writing mythical features do not afford a proper ground
for rejecting a tale as historically worthless――a fact which requires
to be emphasised. An interesting example is found in the extraordinary
legends which attached themselves to the life of Alexander the Great
and rapidly spread throughout Europe and Asia (see _Encyclopedia
Britannica_¹¹ vol. i. pp. 550 f.).
Perhaps the most striking instance in Chronicles is the amazing and
bloodless victory vouchsafed to Jehoshaphat over certain Bedouin tribes
who invaded Judah from the desert by the southern end of the Dead
Sea (2 Chronicles xx. 1‒30, where see notes). As told in Chronicles,
the story is a _Midrash_, preaching the duty of trust in God and
of obedience to His will at all hazards; but it is evident that the
moral and religious form of the story has been built on and around
a tradition of a desert raid on Judah. Now this nucleus of the tale
may easily rest on historical fact. Fierce but undisciplined invaders,
advancing from the desert through the difficult country of south Judah,
a land of cliffs ravines and caves, might be sorely harassed by the
guerilla attacks of the shepherd population of that region, and finally
broken up by the outbreak of internal dissensions, before the main
Judean army from Jerusalem had arrived to oppose their advance in force.
Such an event would quickly fade from the military recollections of
Jerusalem, but might be long perpetuated as a _local_ tradition among
the shepherd class of the district where the victory was won. Thus we
should have, on the one hand, a reason for its non-appearance in the
earlier _strata_ of memories embodied in Kings. On the other hand,
when the South Judean families had moved northward to Jerusalem in
the exilic and post-exilic days, the story would gain currency, and
one can easily see how suitable it was for development into just
such a religious narrative as we find in Chronicles. The raid, then,
is probably a genuine tradition, but, even so, a word of caution is
required. It is necessary still to consider the question whether the
story is correctly associated with the time of Jehoshaphat. Perhaps,
yes; but _possibly_ several such raids took place, and the memories of
them may have been confused and combined into one; or, again, the names
of the original foes may have been changed into those of more recent
opponents. Other important passages of this type are discussed in the
notes on 2 Chronicles xiii. 3‒20, xiv. 9‒15, xxxiii. 11‒13.
One point calls for special mention. In the later chapters of 2
Chronicles the Chronicler’s account of the history, particularly as
regards the relations of the Judean kingdom with the Edomites and
Arabians to the south, is characterised by a freshness and independence
which suggests that he was here relying on definite and valuable
traditions (see notes pp. 257 f., 262, 280 f., 286 f., 292).
These results do not provide the complete material for an estimate of
the historical value of Chronicles. To them must first be added the
conclusions noted below, under B.
B.
INDIRECT VALUE.
Although the Chronicler says not one word directly of his own times,
indirectly his work gives us much useful information concerning that
obscure period. In very many ways Chronicles is a mirror reflecting
the thoughts, hopes, and circumstances of the orthodox community in
Jerusalem, _circa_ 300‒250 B.C. Indirect and unconscious though the
evidence may be, it is still precious, for our knowledge of the period
is so slight that all fragments of information are most welcome.
Some of the genealogical lists yield information regarding the
post-exilic population of Judah and Jerusalem. Certain references
(see p. xlviii) perhaps imply the extension of Judaism in Palestine.
From the descriptions of the Temple and its organisation, facts
can be gleaned regarding the Temple of the Chronicler’s own age.
Thus in 1 Chronicles xxiii ff. where the Chronicler ascribes to David
(unhistorically, see notes pp. 51 f., 136, 145) the origination of the
Levitical arrangements in the Temple, he gives an elaborate description
of their organisation; and therein we can see a picture of the complex
system and duties of the Priests and the Levites (with the subordinate
classes of doorkeepers and singers) as these were finally determined in
the late post-exilic Temple. Some interesting inferences can be drawn
from Chronicles regarding the instruction of the people in matters of
religion. When in 2 Chronicles xvii. 7‒9 arrangements for teaching the
Law throughout Judah are said to have been instituted by Jehoshaphat,
we may be sure that some such system was in vogue in the Chronicler’s
day, or, at the very least, that the Chronicler and his fellow-Levites
were anxious to see it fully carried out. Perhaps schools for
instructing the people had already been established in Jerusalem,
and it was desired to extend them throughout the countryside as well.
Significant in the same connection is the remark ascribed to Azariah
the prophet (2 Chronicles xv. 3): “Now for long seasons Israel hath
been without the true God and _without a teaching priest_ and without
law” (compare 2 Chronicles xxxv. 3). Similarly from 2 Chronicles xix.
4‒11 we may infer the existence of, or the desire to establish, a
careful system of courts of justice under the control of the Levitical
order. Again, Chronicles contributes to our knowledge of the evolution
of public worship. The subject is so obscure, the details so unknown,
that we may be grateful for anything which helps us to discern even
broad stages in the development. Undoubtedly those flagrant abuses of
worship which called forth the denunciations of Isaiah and Jeremiah had
passed away. One gathers that public worship in the Temple had become
an affair of truly religious significance. The prayer of Solomon is
repeated from Kings, but in addition the Chronicler ascribes similar
utterances of praise, supplication, and thanksgiving to David and
Hezekiah, and the good kings (especially Hezekiah and Josiah) are
represented as zealously active in ordering and arranging for great
services of worship which the people were to attend. All this, of
course, is related of the past, but from it we may infer facts of
the Chroniclers present. We infer, then, a community accustomed to
gather constantly at the Temple for the worship of their God. The
main elements of public worship can be traced. There was, of course,
the ancient ritual of animal sacrifice, hallowed for the Jews by its
vast antiquity, and grown the more impressive in proportion as the
literalism of the past was forgotten and men felt more vividly that the
offering was symbolic of things of the spirit――of the mystery of life,
of forgiveness, and of recognition that all things are the gift of God.
Undoubtedly there was public prayer. It is hardly possible to read the
prayers of the great kings in Chronicles and not feel that they echo a
liturgy of prayer――for the individual and for the nation. There was a
great and impressive service of song and of music, compare 2 Chronicles
v. 12, 13: _that_ is writ large indeed on the pages of Chronicles;
and 1 Chronicles xvi. 8 ff. is enough to tell us that the Psalter
was the book of praise. We have a sufficient hint, too, that to the
songs at least, if not to the prayers also, the people were expected
to respond――“And all the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord” (2
Chronicles xvi. 36). Probably arrangements were in vogue for regular
reading of the Law, although Chronicles alone would hardly suffice to
establish the point (2 Chronicles xxxiv. 31 is insufficient evidence).
Even if it be thought that this picture represents rather the ideals of
the Levites than the actual attainments of the community, it is still
important that such a standard of worship was conceived by the priests
and set before the people. One recalls the words of the great prophet
of exilic or post-exilic times who wrote: “for mine house shall be
called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isaiah lvi. 7). His was a
vision of the Temple as the centre of the whole world’s worship. To
the Chronicler it had at least become a true “house of prayer” for
Israel. Other details might be mentioned, but these will suffice to
indicate the light which Chronicles throws upon the _conditions_ of
the post-exilic community.
Much more important, however, is the insight we gain into the methods
and principles, the ideals and the ideas which prevailed in Temple
circles in Jerusalem during the third century B.C. Chronicles, like
all distinctive books, is necessarily eloquent of its author’s mind and
character. Now the Chronicler was a Levite of the Levites, and no doubt
typical of his class at this period. But we know that this period was
of the highest importance in the formation of the Old Testament, and it
was precisely at the hands of the orthodox Levitical circles that many
books of the Jewish Scriptures, especially the Laws, the Histories, and
the Psalms, underwent the revision which brought them approximately to
their present form. It is therefore extremely valuable that we should
be able to study the psychological characteristics of a typical Levite
of that age. From this point of view hardly any part of Chronicles is
without significance. Thus the midrashic stories, whatever their value
otherwise, at least reveal a great deal regarding the mental and moral
outlook of the writer and his contemporaries.
“Chronicles,” it has been said (Bennett, _Expositor’s Bible_, p. 20),
“is an object-lesson in ancient historical composition.” But it ought
also to teach us that history is something more than the record of
occurrences. Facts are fundamental, but of profound importance also
is the attitude in which we approach them.
To sum up the whole matter of this section. Compared with Samuel‒Kings,
Chronicles is of little or no value as a record of the history of
the Judean kingdom. Where it differs from those books, in almost
all cases the earlier account is the more accurate and trustworthy.
In what Chronicles _adds_, there may sometimes be found traditional
developments of genuine historical facts. Even if they should prove
to be few, it is possible that there may be among them some points of
high importance for our understanding of the Old Testament records.
Finally, as a product of the Greek period, Chronicles is very valuable
in illustrating the methods, ideals, and temperament of the Levitical
classes of Jerusalem about that time.
These results are disappointing only if we insist on treating
Chronicles as a manual of early Judean history instead of as a
remarkable and in some ways unique religious work.
§ 8. THE RELIGIOUS VALUE OF CHRONICLES
Chronicles has suffered by comparison with the fresher, more human,
history in Samuel and Kings. It has seemed to modern taste somewhat dry
and uninspiring. To the superficial reader any religious feeling in the
book is devoted to the concerns of a ritual that has long since passed
away, and with which we might in any case have little sympathy. And, of
course, the contrast is still more unfavourable if it be made with the
books which contain the noblest utterances of Jewish faith. Job in his
anguish crying “though He slay me yet will I trust Him”; the Psalmist
fearless of all ill since God is with him; Hosea who wrote of God “I
desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings”――these stand on a higher spiritual level than the
Chronicler. None the less, there _is_ virtue, and even great virtue,
in Chronicles, and failure to perceive it only argues lack of insight
on our part.
In the first place, if Temple ritual and observance of the precepts
of the Law bulk too largely in the Chronicler’s conception of the
religious life, he had much excuse for his attitude. In his day and
generation, faithfulness to Jehovah and to that moral and spiritual
interpretation of life for which the worship of Jehovah stood,
inevitably involved participation in the organised services which
centred in the Temple. Whatever its imperfections, the Temple at
Jerusalem in his time was performing a great religious work in keeping
alive zeal for Jehovah and His Law in the face of much degenerate
heathenism. Moreover it is an unfair and a false assumption to suppose
that his manifest devotion to the ritual necessarily or probably meant
that his religion was mere formalism or his creed poorly conceived.
Behind the parade of the formalities of worship burns a living faith.
The freedom with which the Chronicler has retold the history to conform
with his religious views is indeed the measure of the force of his
beliefs. We have already noted (p. xlix) as regards one midrashic
passage that it is essentially a sermon on the need for trust in God.
The Chronicler was passionately convinced that virtue is rewarded and
vice is punished. He believed in a God supremely just yet merciful,
One who rules directly and personally in human life, destroying evil,
guiding and fostering all that is true and good. “The might of nations
counted as nothing before Him. Obedience and faith in Jehovah were
more effective instruments in the hands of Israel’s kings than powerful
armies and strong alliances.” It is easy to smile at the Chronicler’s
belief that piety is necessarily rewarded by worldly prosperity, and
sin by worldly misfortune. But, if the life and teaching of Jesus
Christ have led us to a deeper interpretation of life, that does
not lessen the virtue of the Chronicler in maintaining his faith in
God’s justice and vigilance, despite all the cruel evidences of the
prosperity of the wicked. His doctrine of reward and punishment was
crude, but after all he was striving, as best he knew how, to maintain
the great central conviction of religion that “all things work together
for good to them that love God.” Everywhere his work is dominated
by the sense of right and wrong, and a clear-eyed perception of the
absolute distinction between them. He brings all men and all things to
a moral and religious test. The imperishable worth of Chronicles will
ever be that it is the record of a man’s endeavour to present, in terms
of national experience, the eternal laws of the spiritual realm.
Finally, since the Chronicler was retelling the past in terms of the
present, we know that these beliefs of his were not rules applied
in theory to history and ignored in present practice. They were the
convictions by which his own soul lived. No one can afford to despise
a man who was prepared to walk by the light of such a faith amid the
difficulties and the perils which surrounded the enfeebled Jerusalem
of that age. As Curtis says, “it was under the tutelage of men like
the Chronicler that the Maccabees were nourished and the heroic age of
Judaism began.” We must not allow any distaste for legalism in religion
to blind us to the virtues of the post-exilic Jews. The very rigidity
of the ritual and the doctrine was essential to the preservation of
the nobler elements in the faith. In the memorable words of Wellhausen
(_Prolegomena_, pp. 497 f.), “At a time when all nationalities, and
at the same time all bonds of religion and national customs were
beginning to be broken up in the seeming cosmos and real chaos of
the Graeco-Roman Empire, the Jews stood out like a rock in the midst
of the ocean. When the natural conditions of independent nationality
all failed them, they nevertheless artificially maintained it with an
energy truly marvellous, and thereby preserved for themselves, and at
the same time for the whole world, an eternal good.” Chronicles may
justly claim to have played a part in that extraordinary triumph.
§ 9. NAME AND POSITION IN THE CANON
_Name._ The Hebrew title is _Dibhrē Hayyāmīm_, literally _The Acts_
(or _Sayings_) _of the Days_. In the Greek Version (the Septuagint)
Chronicles was regarded as supplementary to Samuel and Kings, and so
received the title “[Books of] the Omitted Acts” παραλειπομένων or “the
Omitted Acts of the Kings (_or_ Reigns) of Judah.” This name, moreover,
passed into the Latin Vulgate, “(_Libri_) _Paralipomenōn_.” The title
_Chronicles_ seems to be due to a remark made by St Jerome, who,
in commenting on the Hebrew title, wrote that the book might more
appropriately be styled the “Chronicle of the whole of sacred history”
(_Prologus in Libros Regum_, edited by Vallarsi, ix. 458). The use of
the phrase is also suggested by a similar expression (literally “the
book of the Acts of the Days of...”) found some twenty times in Kings,
and commonly rendered “the book of the chronicles of...” e.g. 1 Kings
xiv. 19. On the whole, _Chronicles_ is a satisfactory title¹.
¹ It is, however, open to the objection that an inexperienced
reader may make the mistake of supposing that these
references in Kings to “the book of the chronicles of the
kings of Israel [Judah]” are references to the canonical
Chronicles.
_Division._ The division of Chronicles into two books (as in the
English Versions) probably originated in the Septuagint (LXX.); the
MSS. A and B both mark the division. It entered the English Version
through the Latin Vulgate. On the other hand, Rabbinical evidence
(Talmud, _Baba Bathra_ 15a; and the Masōrah) and the Christian Fathers
testify that among the Hebrews the book was undivided: so Origen
(_apud_ Eusebius _Church History_ vi. 25, 2) and Jerome (_Domnioni et
Rogatiano_).
_Position in Canon._ In the English Version Chronicles stands next
after Kings, the Historical Books being grouped together. This
arrangement was derived from the Septuagint through the Latin Vulgate.
The order of the Hebrew Bible is different. There the books are
arranged in three sections, of which the first contains the Books of
the Pentateuch, the second includes the Historical Books from Joshua
to Kings, while the third (Hebrew “Kĕthūbhīm”) contains Chronicles.
The books of this third section seem to have been the last to receive
Canonical Authority among the Jews. Kings thus appears to have been
taken into the Canon before Chronicles.
In the Hebrew Bible the “Kĕthūbhīm” (Hagiographa) are usually arranged
thus:――first the Poetical Books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job), next the Five
Rolls or _Megillōth_ (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther), and lastly the three books Daniel, Ezra‒Nehemiah, and
Chronicles. This is the usual Hebrew tradition, though it is surprising
to find Ezra (which begins with the closing verses of Chronicles) put
before Chronicles. The wording of Matthew xxiii. 35, however, “From
the blood of Abel the righteous (see Genesis iv. 10 f.) unto the blood
of Zachariah (see 2 Chronicles xxiv. 20 ff.)” suggests that as early
as our Lord’s day Chronicles was regarded as the last, just as Genesis
was the first, book of the Hebrew Canon. It is probable, therefore,
that Chronicles found its way into the Canon _after_ Ezra‒Nehemiah,
the latter book being needed to represent the post-exilic period of
the history, whereas Chronicles covered ground already occupied by the
books of Samuel and Kings.
§ 10. TEXT AND VERSIONS OF CHRONICLES
_Text._ The Hebrew (Masoretic) text in Chronicles is, on the whole,
well preserved, although by no means free from textual errors (compare
1 Chronicles vi. 28). Many of these occur, as one would expect,
in the lists of proper names. Olstead (in the _American Journal of
Semitic Languages_, October 1913) has given reasons for holding that
occasionally the original text of Chronicles may have suffered from
assimilation to the text of Samuel‒Kings. Further, we note a few
phrases and passages which seem to be scribal additions (see § 3,
p. xxii). An interesting scribal omission of late date is noted on
2 Chronicles xxviii. 20. In passages which are parallel to the older
canonical books Chronicles has occasionally preserved a superior
reading, e.g. 1 Chronicles xx. 4, Hebrew and LXX. “there arose war
_at Gezer_” = 2 Samuel xxi. 18, “there was again war ... _at Gob_”; or
again, 1 Chronicles viii. 53, “Eshbaal” = 2 Samuel ii. 8 “Ishbosheth”;
or compare 1 Chronicles xiv. 14, note on _go not up_.
_Versions._ (1) _Greek Versions._ What is commonly called the
Septuagint (LXX.) of Chronicles is now recognised to be not the
_original_ LXX., but a later Greek translation, which most scholars
(especially Torrey, _Ezra Studies_) consider to be the rendering
of Theodotion. [For criticism of the view that it is Theodotion’s
rendering see the article by Olstead mentioned above.] In the main
this rendering is a close reproduction of the Masoretic text, and of
little value except for determining the official Hebrew text of the
second century. The _old_ LXX., unfortunately, no longer exists for
1 Chronicles i.‒2 Chronicles xxxiv.; but for 2 Chronicles xxxv., xxxvi.
it has been preserved in 1 Esdras i.――a fact of great good fortune, not
merely for the textual criticism of that passage, but for the light it
sheds on the relations and characteristics of the Greek Versions.
(2) The _Old Latin Version_ was made from the _old_ LXX. which is now
lost except for the last two chapters of Chronicles, as stated above.
It would therefore be of great value for criticism, but alas! only a
few fragments survive.
The later Latin Version, the _Vulgate_, made by Jerome, is of small
value, as it represents only the official Hebrew text.
(3) The _Syriac Version_, known as the Peshitṭa, is of even smaller
value for textual criticism. Unlike the close rendering of other books
in the Peshitṭa, Chronicles constantly has the characteristics of
a paraphrase rather than a translation. One example will suffice.
For “Joel the chief and Shaphat the second,” 1 Chronicles v. 12, the
Peshitṭa has “And Joel went forth at their head and judged them and
taught them the scriptures well.” The Peshitṭa is further noteworthy
for curious omissions (and substitutions), e.g. 2 Chronicles iv. 10‒22;
xi. 5‒xii. 12 (for which 1 Kings xii. 25‒30, followed by 1 Kings xiv.
1‒9, is substituted).
For further information regarding the text and versions of Chronicles,
see the edition by Curtis, pp. 35 ff.
§ 11. LITERATURE
Of the more recent literature on Chronicles the following is a list
of the principal works which have been consulted in the preparation of
this volume.
J. Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_ (1885), especially chapter vi.
W. H. Bennett, _The Books of Chronicles_ in the _Expositor’s
Bible_ (1894).
F. Brown, _Chronicles_ in Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_
(1898).
W. R. Smith and S. R. Driver, _Chronicles_ in the _Encyclopaedia
Biblica_ (1899).
I. Benzinger, _Die Bücher der Chronik_ (1901).
R. Kittel, _Die Bücher der Chronik_ (1902).
C. F. Kent, _Israel’s Historical and Biographical Narratives_
(Student’s Old Testament, 1905).
W. R. Harvie-Jellie, _Chronicles_ in the _Century Bible_ (1906).
E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, _Chronicles_ (the International
Critical Commentary, 1910).
S. R. Driver, _Literature of the Old Testament_, pp. 517‒540
(8th edition 1909).
W. R. Smith and S. A. Cook, _Chronicles_ in the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_ (1910).
C. C. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_ (1910).
A. T. Olstead, _Source Study and the Biblical Text_ in the
_American Journal of Semitic Languages_ (October, 1913).
Students interested in the Hebrew text should consult Kittel’s edition
of the Old Testament in Hebrew; Kittel’s _Chronicles in Hebrew_ in _The
Sacred Books of the Old Testament_ (edited by P. Haupt); Torrey’s _Ezra
Studies_, and the commentary by Curtis and Madsen mentioned above; also
Arno Kropat, “Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik,” in the _Zeitschrift
für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_ (Beihefte) xvi. (1909).
* * * * *
N.B. The commentary on Chronicles according to the text of the
Authorised Version was edited in this series by the Rev. Professor
W. E. Barnes, D.D., in 1899. For this new edition which is based on the
Revised Version the present writer is entirely responsible. He desires
here to acknowledge the courtesy of Professor Barnes who has kindly
permitted the retention of notes from the first edition.
W. A. L. E.
_September 1st, 1915._
THE FIRST BOOK OF
THE CHRONICLES
CHAPTERS I.‒IX. GENEALOGIES.
CHAPTER I.
THE GENEALOGIES OF THE PEOPLES.
The historical narrative of the books of Chronicles commences in
chapter x. with the record of the defeat and death of King Saul on
Mt Gilboa.
The first nine chapters are occupied almost entirely by a series of
genealogical lists. Starting from the primeval age, the line is traced
from Adam to the origin of Israel, showing its place among the nations
of the ancient world. Attention is then confined to the descendants of
Israel, amongst whom the genealogies of Judah (particularly, the line
of David), of Levi, and of Benjamin, are given prominence. Finally the
ancestry of Saul, and a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem is recorded.
The modern reader is inclined to regard these statistics as the
least important section of the book, but the fact that the bare
lists of names are so foreign to our taste should serve at least as a
valuable warning of the difference between our outlook and that of the
Chronicler. It is in the highest degree important to understand the
motives which caused the Chronicler to give these lists of names as
the fitting introduction to the history, since the same motives operate
throughout the book and determine the standpoint from which the entire
history is considered.
(1) In the first place the genealogies were not recorded by the
Chronicler simply for the archaeological interest they possess. They
served a most _practical_ purpose, in that they helped to determine
for the Jewish community of the Chronicler’s time what families were
of proper Levitical descent and might claim a share in the privileges
pertaining thereto, and――on a wider scale――what families might
justly be considered to be the pure blood of Israel. How serious the
consequences entailed by the absence of a name from such lists might
be is well illustrated by Ezra ii. 61‒63 (= Nehemiah vii. 63‒65), “the
children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz ... sought their register
among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found:
therefore were they deemed polluted and put away from the priesthood.”
On the other hand the Jew who could successfully trace his ancestry in
the great lists knew himself indubitably a member of the chosen people
and was confident of his part in the covenantal grace and in all those
hopes which the faith of Israel inspired and sustained.
(2) The practical aspect of these lists was thus essentially connected
with high _religious_ sentiment. They were an expression of the
continuity of Israel, a declaration that the Present was one with the
Past, a witness and an assurance of the unfailing grace of Israel’s God.
The genealogies therefore are in perfect harmony with the spirit and
purpose of the Chronicler’s work――see the Introduction § 6.
(3) Finally, in the lists of place-names and genealogies of inhabitants
of Judah and Jerusalem, various facts of great historical interest are
preserved――see Introduction § 7, pp. xlvii f. and (e.g.) ii. 42 note.
Chapter i. contains the genealogies of the earliest age, showing the
origin of the nations. It concludes with a list of the chiefs of Edom.
The names are those given in the genealogies of Genesis i.‒xxxvi., but
the lists are abbreviated to the utmost by the omission of statements
of relationship. Evidently the Chronicler was able to assume that the
connection between the names was a matter of common knowledge.
=1‒4= (compare Genesis v. 3‒32).
A GENEALOGY FROM ADAM TO THE SONS OF NOAH.
¹ADAM, Seth, Enosh; ²Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared;
=1.= _Seth ... Noah_] This genealogy of ten antediluvian patriarchs
follows Genesis v. 3‒32 (P), the “Sethite” line as compared with
Genesis iv. 17‒24 (J) where the descent is traced through Cain.
There is some ancient connection between the list and the Babylonian
tradition of ten kings before the Flood (see Ryle, _Genesis_, pp. 88 ff.
in this series). For the symbols J and P, see the Introduction p. xx.
_Enosh_] A poetical word which, like _Adam_ in prose writings, was used
as a generic term for “man.”
³Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; ⁴Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
=3.= _Enoch_] Hebrew Ḥanôkh. In verse 33 the same name is more
correctly rendered Hanoch, but the Revised Version not unwisely has
here retained the famous name in the form (derived through the Vulgate
from the LXX.) with which the Authorized Version has made us familiar;
compare Genesis iv. 17, and v. 21.
=5‒23.=
THE GENEALOGY OF THE NATIONS.
The table which follows is taken from Genesis x. 2‒29. It is
geographical rather than ethnological, i.e. neighbouring nations are
regarded as having the same descent. The world as then known is divided
into three areas of which that in the north and west is assigned to the
Sons of Japheth (5‒7), the southern to the Sons of Ham, and the middle
and eastern to the Sons of Shem (17‒23). Had the arrangement been
according to actual descent the Semitic Zidonians, for instance, would
not be described as the offspring of Ham (verse 13).
The passage, when analysed, divides as follows: 5‒9 (a general table
of the descendants of Japheth and Ham), 10‒16 (an appendix to the
descendants of Ham), 17 (a general table of the descendants of Shem),
18‒23 (an appendix to the descendants of Shem). Of these four sections,
the general tables, verses 5‒9 and 17, belong to the “Priestly”
narrative of the Hexateuch, whilst the two appendices, verses
10‒16, 18‒23, are from the earlier narrative known as J. For a full
examination of the many interesting questions raised by this account
of the origin of the nations known to the Israelites the reader must
be referred to the commentaries on Genesis where such discussion is
appropriate (see Ryle, _Genesis_, in this series; or more fully Skinner,
_Genesis_, pp. 188 ff.). Here a few remarks of a general character must
suffice.
With the exception of Nimrod the names are those of nations and tribes
(e.g. Madai [Medes], Javan [Greeks]) or countries (e.g. Mizraim [Egypt])
or cities (Zidon). The names are eponymous: that is to say “each nation
is represented by an imaginary personage bearing its name, who is
called into existence for the purpose of expressing its unity, but is
at the same time conceived as its real progenitor”; and the relations
existing or supposed to exist between the various races and ethnic
groups are then set forth under the scheme of a family relationship
between the eponymous ancestors. This procedure may seem strange to us
but it was both natural and convenient for a period when men had not
at their disposal our scientific methods of classification. It must
have been specially easy for Semites, like Israel, who in everyday
life were accustomed to call a population the “sons of” the district
or town which they inhabited. But in truth the practice was widespread
in antiquity, and, if a parallel is desired, an excellent one may be
found in the Greek traditions respecting the origins of the several
branches of the Hellenic race. Whether the ancients believed that these
eponymous ancestors really had lived is somewhat uncertain. Probably
they did, although such names as _Rodanim_ (verse 7) and _Ludim_ (verse
11) where the name is actually left in a plural form (as we might
say “Londoners”) makes it difficult to doubt that in some cases the
convention was conscious and deliberate. The notion that the chief
nations of antiquity were differentiated from one another within some
three generations of descent from a common ancestor, Noah, is plainly
inaccurate. Equally untenable is the primary conception assumed in
this table that the great races of mankind have come into being simply
through the expansion and subdivision of single families.
It must not be imagined that these facts in any way destroy the value
of the table. _Historically_, it is a document of great importance as a
systematic record of the racial and geographical beliefs of the Hebrews.
Its value would be increased could we determine precisely the period
when it was originally drawn up, but unfortunately it is not possible
to do so with certainty. Arguments based on the resemblance between
this table and the nations mentioned in the books of Ezekiel and
Jeremiah are inconclusive; nor does the fact that the general tables
(verses 5‒9, 17) now form part of P, the “Priestly” document, help us
greatly, for we cannot argue from the date of the document as a whole
to the date of its component laws or traditions, which of course may
be much earlier. _Religiously_, the worth of this table is to be seen
in the conviction of the fundamental unity of the human race, which
is here expressed. The significance of this may best be felt if we
contrast the Greek traditions which display a keen interest in the
origins of their own peoples but none at all in that of the barbarians.
Ancient society in general was vitiated by failure to recognise the
moral obligation involved in our common humanity. Even Israel did not
wholly transcend this danger, and its sense of spiritual pre-eminence
may have taken an unworthy form in Jewish particularism; but at
least, as we here see, there lay beneath the surface the instinct that
ultimately the families of the earth are one, and their God one.
=5‒7= (=Genesis x. 2‒4).
THE SONS OF JAPHETH.
⁵The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan,
and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
=5.= _The sons of Japheth_] The writer begins with the northern peoples.
_Gomer_] to be identified with the _Gimirrai_ of the Assyrian monuments,
the Κιμμέριοι of the Greeks, who migrated from South Russia into Asia
Minor (Pontus and Cappadocia) under the pressure of the Scythians
(Herodotus I. 103; IV. 11, 12; compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, Revised
Version).
_Magog_] In Ezekiel xxxviii. 2 (Revised Version) judgement is denounced
on “Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal”
who is represented as accompanied in his migration by the “hordes” of
Gomer and Togarmah (verse 6), “all of them riding upon horses” (verse
15). Magog represents therefore one of several tribes of northern
nomads, possibly the Scythians.
_Madai_] i.e. Media or the Medes. Of the many allusions in the Old
Testament to this famous people, the first is found in 2 Kings xvii. 6;
compare also Isaiah xiii. 17; Jeremiah xxv. 25; Esther i. 3; Daniel i.
9. The Median Empire dates from the 7th century B.C., but the Medes are
referred to by Assyrian inscriptions of the 9th century, at which time
they seem to occupy the mountainous regions to the south and south-west
of the Caspian Sea. They were the first Aryan race to play an important
part in Semitic history.
_Javan_] the Ionians, a branch of the Greek peoples. They were already
settled in the Aegean islands and on the west coast of Asia Minor
at the dawn of Greek history. Being a seafaring nation and having a
slave-trade with Tyre (Ezekiel xxvii. 13; Joel iii. 6 [_Hebrew_ iv. 6
“Grecians”]), they became known to Israel at an early date. In some
late passages of the Old Testament (e.g. Zechariah ix. 13; Daniel viii.
21, xi. 2) _Javan_ denotes the world-power of the Greeks, established
by the conquests of Alexander the Great and maintained in part by his
successors, in particular the Seleucid kings of Syria.
_Tubal, and Meshech_] compare Isaiah lxvi. 19; Psalms cxx. 5. They are
mentioned together Ezekiel xxvii. 13, xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix.
1; and are to be identified with the Τιβαρηνοί and Μοσχοί of Herodotus
III. 94, who are the “Tabali” and “Muski” of the monuments. In the time
of the later Assyrian Empire they lived as neighbours in the country
north-east of Cilicia, but at a later period the Τιβαρηνοί (Tubal)
lived in Pontus, and the Μοσχοί (Meshech) further East towards the
Caspian. (The Meshech of this verse is to be distinguished from the
Meshech son of Shem mentioned in verse 17.)
_Tiras_] Not the Thracians (so Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_
I. 6), but most probably the Tyrseni, a piratical people frequenting
the coasts and islands of the north Aegean. They are mentioned among
the seafarers who assailed Egypt in the reign of Merenptah.
⁶And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Diphath¹, and Togarmah.
¹ In Genesis x. 3, _Riphath_.
=6.= _Ashkenaz_] In Jeremiah li. 27 “the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and
Ashkenaz” are to be summoned against Babylon. The home of the Ashkenaz
is therefore somewhere in the neighbourhood of Ararat (Armenia); and
they are apparently the Asguza of the monuments, and perhaps may be
identified with the Scythians.
_Diphath_] The LXX., Vulgate and some Hebrew MSS. have _Riphath_ (so
also Genesis x. 3), which is to be preferred. The identity of the place
or people is not yet ascertained.
_Togarmah_] Perhaps in Armenia, but the evidence is inconclusive. That
it was a neighbour of Gomer, Tubal, and Meshech appears probable from
Ezekiel xxvii. 14, where Togarmah is mentioned as trading with Tyre in
horses and mules. Compare also Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, and the note above
on _Magog_.
⁷And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and
Rodanim¹.
¹ In Genesis x. 4, _Dodanim_.
=7.= _Elishah_] Ezekiel (xxvii. 7) addressing Tyre, “Blue and purple
from the isles of Elishah was thine awning.” Elishah has not been
identified with certainty. It has been supposed to be _Carthage_.
Another suggestion is _Alashiya_ (of the Tell el-Amarna Letters) which
may be a Cilician district, or perhaps rather Cyprus; compare the note
on _Kittim_ below.
_Tarshish_] generally now identified with Tartessus, a Phoenician town
in the south of Spain. This is supported by the various references to
Tarshish as a Tyrian colony rich in minerals and far from Palestine
(see, e.g. Ezekiel xxvii. 12; Jonah i. 3; Psalms lxxii. 10; 2
Chronicles ix. 21). To identify it with Tarsus, the famous town in
Cilicia, is in some ways attractive, but is on the whole less probable.
_Kittim_] The inhabitants of Cyprus are meant, “Kittim” being derived
from Kition (modern _Larnaca_), the name of one of its oldest towns.
In later times Kittim (Chittim) is used vaguely of Western islands
(Jeremiah ii. 10; Ezekiel xxvii. 6) or nations; “the ships of Kittim”
(Daniel xi. 30) are the Roman ships; “the land of Chittim” (Χεττιείμ,
1 Maccabees i. 1) is Macedonia (1 Maccabees viii. 5).
_Rodanim_] No doubt the Rhodians are meant; their island was celebrated
even in the days of Homer. On the spelling _Dodanim_ (Revised Version
margin; Genesis x. 4), compare the note on _Diphath_ above. The Hebrew
letters _r_ (ר) and _d_ (ד) are easily confused.
=8, 9= (= Genesis x. 6, 7).
THE SONS OF HAM.
⁸The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
=8.= _The sons of Ham_] The southern peoples are next enumerated.
_Cush_] The Hebrew name here transliterated _Cush_ is several times
translated “Ethiopia” (e.g. 2 Kings xix. 9; Isaiah xviii. 1) no doubt
rightly. On the inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal frequent mention is
made of Ku-su (Ku-u-su) “Ethiopia” in connection with Mu-ṣur “Egypt.”
The Cushites were not Negroes but a brown race like the modern Nubians
(Soudanese). The “sons of Cush,” however, seem to be tribes located
mostly on the Arabian side of the Red Sea, verse 9 below.
_Mizraim_] is without doubt Egypt. In form the word may be dual, and it
is generally said to mean the two Egypts, Upper and Lower.
_Put_] This people is mentioned among the helpers of Egypt in Jeremiah,
in Ezekiel (twice), and in Nahum. In Ezekiel xxvii. 10 it appears among
the auxiliary troops of Tyre. Put used therefore to be identified with
the Libyans of the north coast of Africa, but more probably it denotes
the _Punt_ of the Egyptian monuments, i.e. the African coast of the Red
Sea.
_Canaan_] the eponym of the pre-Israelitish population of Palestine
west of Jordan. Actual racial affinities are here disregarded or
unperceived, for the Canaanites (except the Philistines and Phoenicians
on the strip of coastland) were Semites and spoke a language closely
resembling Hebrew. That they are here reckoned as Hamites and made a
“brother” of Egypt is due perhaps in part to the frequent dominations
of Palestine by Egypt, but more probably to the political and religious
antagonism between Israel and the Canaanites, which suggested that they
ought to be most closely associated with Egypt, Israel’s traditional
oppressor. Note that in Genesis ix. 25‒27 (where hostile feeling
against Canaan is prominent) “Canaan” is not said to be the son of Ham,
but takes Ham’s place as a son of Noah (Ryle, _Genesis_, p. 127).
⁹And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raama,
and Sabteca. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
=9.= _the sons of Cush_] According to some authorities Seba and
Havilah were tribes or districts on the African coast of the Red Sea,
whilst Sabta and Raama and Sabteca were in Arabia. It is somewhat more
probable that all (except Seba) were located on the Arabian side of the
Red Sea.
_Seba_] In Isaiah xliii. 3 and xlv. 14 Seba (the Sabeans) is mentioned
along with Egypt and Cush, and in Psalms lxxii. 10 along with Sheba.
Probably a district on the African side of the Red Sea is meant.
_Sheba, and Dedan_] Also in verse 32, where see note. Sheba is
frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (e.g. Jeremiah vi. 20;
1 Kings x. 1 ff. = 2 Chronicles ix. 1 ff.; Isaiah lx. 6) as a distant
land, rich in gold, frankincense, and precious stones. It was a
flourishing and wealthy state, at one period (_circa_ 700 B.C.) the
centre of power and civilisation in south Arabia. Dedan was probably
a merchant tribe, specially associated with Sheba (compare Ezekiel
xxxviii. 13).
=10‒16= (= Genesis x. 8‒18b).
APPENDIX. OTHER DESCENDANTS OF HAM.
¹⁰And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the
earth.
=10.= _And Cush begat Nimrod_] From the parallel passages in Genesis (x.
10, 11) it is apparent that Nimrod is the name of an individual, the
traditional founder of the Babylonian-Assyrian Empire. As Cush is here
called the father of Nimrod and in verse 8 is the son of Ham, Hebrew
tradition would appear to have regarded Hamites as the founders of the
Babylonian power. Possibly the Redactor of Genesis who _combined_ these
verses which belong to the tradition of J with verses 5‒9 which are
from “P” may have thought so. But in the independent “J” narrative
it is very probable that Cush, father of Nimrod, represents the third
or Kassite dynasty (Κοσσαῖοι) which held sway in Babylon from about
1750‒1200 B.C. Even so, the identification of Nimrod himself remains a
puzzle, and it is not yet possible to say whether he is a legendary or
an historical character, or partly both.
_began to be a mighty one in the earth_] i.e. was the first grand
monarch (for the idiom, compare Genesis ix. 20). In Genesis x. 9, he is
further and quaintly described as “a mighty hunter before the Lord.”
¹¹And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and
Naphtuhim,
=11.= _Ludim_] reckoned in Jeremiah xlvi. 9 and Ezekiel xxx. 5
(Revised Version “Lud”) among the auxiliary troops of Egypt (_Mizraim_).
Probably not the Lydians of Asia Minor are meant, but a people of north
Africa not yet known. Both this word and _Lehabim_ may be variants for
the Libyans, tribes west of Cyrene (compare 2 Chronicles xii. 3, xvi.
8). See also verse 17, note on _Lud_. Of the _Anamim_, _Naphtuhim_,
nothing is certainly known.
¹²and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (from whence came the Philistines¹),
and Caphtorim.
¹ Hebrew _Pelishtim_.
=12.= _Pathrusim_] the inhabitants of Pathros (Isaiah xi. 11), i.e.
Upper Egypt.
_Casluhim_] not identified.
_from whence came the Philistines_] Elsewhere (Jeremiah xlvii. 4; Amos
ix. 7; compare Deuteronomy ii. 23) the Philistines are said to have
come from Caphtor. It is natural therefore to think that an accidental
transposition has taken place, and that this clause, _whence ...
Philistines_, originally followed _Caphtorim_. Note, however, that the
same order is found in Genesis x. 14.
_Caphtorim_] i.e. the inhabitants of Caphtor, which has usually been
taken to mean the island of Crete, but is also plausibly identified
with “Keftiu,” the south-west coastlands of Asia Minor. Compare
Macalister, _The Philistines_, pp. 4 ff.
¹³And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth;
=13.= _Canaan begat_] Of the four sons of Ham――viz. Cush, Mizraim,
Put, Canaan――note that the sons of Put are omitted. After the sons of
Cush (verse 9), and of Mizraim (verse 11), we here pass to the sons of
Canaan.
_Zidon his firstborn_] From the time of David downwards Tyre takes
precedence of Zidon in any mention of the Phoenician cities in the
Old Testament, but Zidon was the older of the two cities, as is here
implied and as the Roman historian Justin (XVIII. 3) asserts. So we
find the Phoenicians in the earlier books of the Old Testament called
Zidonians, not Tyrians (e.g. Judges iii. 3; 1 Kings v. 6). Homer also
refers not to Tyre but to Zidon.
_Heth_] i.e. the Hittites, a northern non-Semitic race, who from about
1800‒700 B.C. were a great power, extending over part of Asia Minor
and northern Syria from the Orontes to the Euphrates. The references
to them in the Old Testament make it probable that Hittite settlements
were to be found in various parts of Palestine. This fact and their
dominant influence, _circa_ 1300 B.C., throughout Canaan and Phoenicia
probably accounts for their inclusion as a “son” of Canaan.
¹⁴and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite;
=14.= _the Jebusite_] the ancient population of Jerusalem, compare
Judges i. 21; 2 Samuel v. 6.
_the Amorite_] compare Numbers xiii. 29, xxi. 21; Judges i. 35. The
name (probably a racial one) was frequently used of the pre-Israelitish
inhabitants of Canaan (“Canaanites” being the geographical description).
In a more restricted sense it was used to denote the people of Sihon,
east of the Jordan.
¹⁵and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite; ¹⁶and the
Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.
=15.= _the Hivite_] In Joshua xi. 3, the Hivites are placed in the
extreme north of the land, “the Hivite under Hermon,” but the word
may be an error for Hittite (see above verse 13). In Joshua ix. 7 and
Genesis xxxiv. 2 they are located at Gibeon and Shechem. The _Arkite_
and _Sinite_ lived in Lebanon, the _Arvadite_ (compare Ezekiel xxvii.
8) on the sea-coast north of Gebal (Byblus), the _Zemarite_ a little to
the south of the Arvadite, and the _Hamathite_ furthest to the north on
the Orontes.
=17= (= Genesis x. 22, 23).
THE SONS OF SHEM.
¹⁷The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud,
and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech¹.
¹ In Genesis x. 23, _Mash_.
=17.= _The sons of Shem_] These occupied the middle geographical “zone.”
_Elam_] is the name of a land and nation north of the Persian Gulf
and east of Babylonia, and is often referred to in the Old Testament.
Though settled by Semites at a very early date, it was subsequently,
_circa_ 2280 B.C., possessed by a non-Semitic race, who even extended
their power over Babylonia itself. The inclusion of Elam among the
Semites is doubtless due to its proximity to Asshur, and, though not
strictly correct, is very natural.
_Asshur_] The Assyrians, who are so frequently referred to in the Old
Testament, were mainly, if not entirely Semitic: a martial and ruthless
people whose conquests in the 14th‒7th centuries have made them
world-famous.
_Arpachshad_] a somewhat obscure name. In the last part (_chshad_)
the same consonants occur as in the name “Chasdim,” the “Chaldees” of
the Old Testament. _Possibly_ two names have been run together, the
second being that of the Chaldees or Chaldeans, a Semitic race who from
_circa_ 900 B.C. dominated Babylonia, assimilating with the earlier
Semitic inhabitants. This conjecture has some support in the surprising
fact that the Chaldeans are not otherwise mentioned in the table; it
is opposed by the fact that _Arpachshad_ occurs elsewhere, verse 24;
Genesis x. 24, xi. 10 ff.
_Lud_] the name suggests the Lydians, but how this non-Semitic people
situated on the west coast of Asia Minor comes to be included with
Asshur and Aram as a son of Shem is a mystery. Possibly therefore a
Semitic region, called _Lubdu_, between Tigris and Euphrates is meant.
_Aram_] the “Syrians” of the Authorized Version; better called Arameans.
They were widely settled in the lands to the north and north-east
of Palestine, with important centres in Damascus (Syria proper) and
the north of the Euphrates valley (the _Aram-Naharaim_ of the Old
Testament). So great and lasting was their influence on Israel that
the Aramean dialect eventually superseded Hebrew and was the ordinary
language of Palestine in the time of Christ.
_Uz_] From Genesis x. 23 it appears that in Chronicles the words “And
the children of Aram¹” have dropped out, so that “Uz” etc. appear as
the immediate descendants of Shem.
¹ The Alexandrine MS. (A) of the LXX. has the words.
Neither Uz nor the three following names have been satisfactorily
identified. For “Meshech” Genesis x. 23 (Hebrew but _not_ LXX.) reads
“Mash.”
=18‒23= (= Genesis x. 24‒29).
APPENDIX TO THE SONS OF SHEM. SOUTH ARABIAN TRIBES.
¹⁸And Arpachshad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.
=18.= _Eber_] The Hebrew word usually means “the land beyond” and
may have originated as a personification of the population beyond the
Euphrates. It is further possible that Eber is an eponym, not merely of
the Hebrews, but of the Habiri, a much wider stock of Semitic nomads,
of whom the Hebrews formed an element, and who overran and harassed the
settled peoples of Palestine in the fifteenth century B.C.
¹⁹And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was
Peleg; for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s
name was Joktan.
=19.= _two sons_] one (Peleg) representing, roughly speaking, the
northern or Mesopotamian Semites; the other (Joktan), the south Arabian
tribes.
_Peleg_] see below on verse 25.
²⁰And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and
Jerah; ²¹and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah; ²²and Ebal¹, and
Abimael, and Sheba; ²³and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All
these were the sons of Joktan.
¹ In Genesis x. 28, _Obal_.
=20.= _Joktan begat Almodad_] All the names of the sons of Joktan here
given, so far as they have been identified, represent peoples situated
in south Arabia or on the west coast of the Red Sea lying over against
south Arabia. The only familiar name is that of the unidentified Ophir,
which possibly but not certainly may be the “El Dorado” to which
Solomon sent his fleet for gold.
=24‒27.=
THE DESCENT OF ABRAHAM FROM SHEM.
These verses are compressed within the smallest limits from Genesis xi.
10‒26. For another example of this extreme abbreviation compare verses
1‒4 (= Genesis v. 3‒32).
²⁴Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah; ²⁵Eber, Peleg, Reu; ²⁶Serug, Nahor,
Terah; ²⁷Abram (the same is Abraham).
=25.= _Peleg_] the name perhaps signifies “Division” (see verse 19),
and may refer to some great period of migration among the Semitic
tribes.
=28‒31= (= Genesis xxv. 12‒16).
THE DESCENT OF THE ISHMAELITE TRIBES FROM ABRAHAM
²⁸The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.
²⁹These are their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael,
Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
=29.= _Nebaioth_] Compare Isaiah lx. 7.
_Kedar_] Isaiah xxi. 13‒17.
³⁰Mishma, and Dumah, Massa; Hadad, and Tema,
=30.= _Dumah_] Isaiah xxi. 11.
_Massa_] Proverbs xxxi. 1 (Revised Version margin).
_Hadad_] The name begins with the Hebrew letter _Ḥēth_ and therefore
differs from the Hadad of verse 46 and of verse 50 and of 2 Chronicles
xvi. 2 in which the first letter is _Hē_, a softer guttural than _Ḥeth_.
_Tema_] Isaiah xxi. 14.
³¹Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.
=31.= _Jetur, Naphish_] compare v. 18‒22.
=32, 33= (= Genesis xxv. 1‒4).
THE DESCENT OF ARABIAN TRIBES FROM ABRAHAM THROUGH KETURAH
³²And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare
Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and
Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
=32.= _Keturah_] called a _wife_ of Abraham in Genesis xxv. 1. The
Chronicler by calling her a concubine may imply that he considered that
the tribes descended from her were not so closely akin to Israel as the
Ishmaelites, or possibly he held that Sarah ought to be the only wife
of Abraham, and “corrects” his source accordingly.
_Medan_, _Midian_] Kindred tribes often bore names only slightly
differing in form.
_Midian_] In Judges viii. 14 the Midianites are reckoned as Ishmaelites.
_Sheba, and Dedan_] Sheba and Dedan in verse 9 (which belongs to
the same source P) are included among the Hamitic peoples. Doubtless
the names in the present passage, which comes from J, refer to the
same tribes; but J follows a different tradition as to their origin.
Possibly there is truth in both views, and the people of Sheba were of
mixed African and Arabian descent.
³³And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and
Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the sons of Keturah.
=33.= _Ephah_] Isaiah lx. 6.
_Hanoch_] as Genesis xxv. 4. Compare verse 3.
=34‒37= (compare Genesis xxxvi. 10‒14).
THE DESCENT OF THE TRIBES OF EDOM FROM ABRAHAM.
³⁴And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau, and Israel.
³⁵The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jalam, and
Korah.
=34.= _Esau_] “Esau is Edom,” Genesis xxxvi. 1, 8.
³⁶The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi¹, and Gatam,
Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. ³⁷The sons of Reuel; Nahath,
Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.
¹ In Genesis xxxvi. 11, _Zepho_.
=36.= _Teman_] Amos i. 11, 12; Habakkuk iii. 13. The word means _South_,
and is applied in the first passage to Edom itself, in the second to
the wilderness of Edom, both being south of Canaan.
_Kenaz_] Other references (Judges i. 13, iii. 9, 11) show a close
connection with Caleb, which in turn implies that the Calebites were
closely related to the Edomites (compare iv. 13).
_Amalek_] the eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites who lived in the
south and south-east of Palestine, see iv. 42 f.
=38‒42= (compare Genesis xxxvi. 20‒28).
THE GENEALOGY OF THE HORITE INHABITANTS OF SEIR.
³⁸And the sons of Seir; Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah,
and Dishon and Ezer and Dishan. ³⁹And the sons of Lotan; Hori
and Homam¹: and Timna was Lotan’s sister.
¹ In Genesis xxxvi. 22, _Hemam_.
=38.= _The sons of Seir_] Chronicles omits the further description
given in Genesis “the Horite, the inhabitants of the land,” words which
show clearly that these “sons of Seir” were not descendants of Esau,
but aboriginal inhabitants of the land.
_Lotan_] perhaps to be connected with Lot, a name anciently associated
with the land or people dwelling east of the Jordan (compare Genesis
xix. 30).
⁴⁰The sons of Shobal; Alian¹ and Manahath and Ebal, Shephi² and
Onam. And the sons of Zibeon; Aiah and Anah. ⁴¹The sons of Anah;
Dishon. And the sons of Dishon; Hamran³ and Eshban and Ithran
and Cheran. ⁴²The sons of Ezer; Bilhan and Zaavan, Jaakan⁴. The
sons of Dishan; Uz and Aran.
¹ In Genesis xxxvi. 23, _Alvan_.
² In Genesis xxxvi. 23, _Shepho_.
³ In Genesis xxxvi. 26, _Hemdan_.
⁴ In Genesis xxxvi. 27, _and Akan_.
=40.= _Aiah and Anah_] See Genesis xxxvi. 24.
=43‒51a= (compare Genesis xxxvi. 31‒39).
THE EARLY KINGS OF EDOM.
⁴³Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel: Bela
the son of Beor; and the name of his city was Dinhabah. ⁴⁴And
Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his
stead. ⁴⁵And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites
reigned in his stead.
=43.= _kings_] Note that the kings are of different families and
localities. They may be compared with the “judges” of early Israel.
_in the land of Edom_] In early times the mountainous region of Seir,
extending from the south-east of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba,
but the precise territory of the Edomites is uncertain and of course
must have varied from time to time. In the post-exilic period Edomites
(Idumeans) pressed up into the south of Judah (compare ii. 42), and
Edom (Idumea) continued to play an important and often sinister part
in the history of Israel till long after the Chronicler’s lifetime.
See (e.g.) 1 Maccabees v. 65; 2 Maccabees x. 14‒17. The Herods were of
Edomite descent.
_before ... Israel_] i.e. before Saul; or possibly “before David,” if
the phrase means before the reign of the first Israelitish king over
Edom. For the use made of this statement in the discussion of the date
of the Hexateuch, see Chapman, _Introduction to the Pentateuch_, p. 40,
in this series.
_Bela the son of Beor_] possibly the same as the familiar Balaam son of
Beor, the consonants of the names differing in Hebrew only by the final
_m_. See, however, Gray, _Numbers (International Critical Commentary)_,
pp. 315, 324.
⁴⁶And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote
Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name
of his city was Avith. ⁴⁷And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah
reigned in his stead.
=46.= _smote Midian in the field of Moab_] An isolated historical
notice, interesting as showing the power of Edom at some period. The
Midianites centred round the lands east of the Gulf of Akaba, but
bands of them were constantly pushing northwards and harassing the
territories of Edom, Moab, and Israel (compare Numbers xxii. 4; Judges
vi.; etc.).
⁴⁸And Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in
his stead. ⁴⁹And Shaul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor
reigned in his stead.
=48.= _Rehoboth by the River_] not “the River,” _par excellence_ (i.e.
the Euphrates), as the Revised Version translators supposed; but either
the _Wady el-Arish_, the stream on the boundary of Egypt or Palestine;
or else a river in north Edom, Rehoboth being distinguished from other
places of the same name by being the city on its banks.
⁵⁰And Baal-hanan died, and Hadad¹ reigned in his stead; and the
name of his city was Pai²: and his wife’s name was Mehetabel,
the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-zahab.
¹ In Genesis xxxvi. 39, _Hadar_.
² In Genesis xxxvi. 39, _Pau_.
=50.= _Hadad_] As in verse 46; in Genesis xxxvi. 39, “Hadar.” Possibly
the king whom David overthrew, 2 Samuel viii. 14, compare 1 Kings xi.
14 (perhaps a son of this Hadad).
⁵¹And Hadad died.
=51a.= _And Hadad died_] repeated by a copyist’s error from verse 47;
the words are not found in Genesis.
=51b‒54= (compare Genesis xxxvi. 40‒43).
THE “DUKES” OF EDOM.
And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timna, duke Aliah¹, duke
Jetheth; ⁵²duke Oholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon; ⁵³duke Kenaz,
duke Teman, duke Mibzar; ⁵⁴duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are
the dukes of Edom.
¹ In Genesis xxxvi. 40, _Alvah_.
=51b.= _dukes_] The word means “leader of a thousand.” The list which
follows is probably topographical, not chronological. It seems to give
the names of the districts into which Edom was divided at the time when
the list was drawn up.
_duke Timna_, etc.] Render, =the duke of Timna=, etc.
_Aliah_] In Genesis xxxvi. 40, “Alvah.”
CHAPTERS II.‒VIII.
THE GENEALOGIES OF THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.
Attention is now narrowed down to those in the true line of descent,
from Abraham through Isaac (“in Isaac shall thy seed be called,”
Genesis xxi. 12) and from Isaac through Jacob = Israel, Genesis xxxii.
28 (compare Genesis xxvi. 2‒4).
The Chronicler deals very unequally with the tribes in their
genealogies; as the following table shows:
ii. 1‒iv. 23. Judah (102 verses).
iv. 24‒43. Simeon (20 verses).
v. 1‒26. Reuben, Gad, and Eastern Manasseh (26 verses).
vi. 1‒81. Levi (81 verses).
vii. 1‒40. Issachar, Zebulun, and Dan (according to a correction
of the text, vii. 6‒11, and 12), Naphtali, Eastern
Manasseh (again), Ephraim, and Asher (40 verses).
viii. 1‒40. Benjamin (40 verses).
It may easily be seen that the tribes in which the Chronicler is really
interested are the three southern tribes, Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin,
together with the priestly tribe, Levi.
The order in which the tribes are mentioned is geographical, Judah and
Simeon the southern tribes first, then the eastern tribes, Reuben, Gad,
Manasseh; then (conveniently) Levi, and then the northern tribes of
western Palestine, ending with Benjamin (viii., ix. 35‒44) and the list
of inhabitants of Jerusalem (in ix. 1‒34).
CHAPTER II.
=1, 2= (compare Genesis xxxv. 22b‒26).
THE SONS OF ISRAEL.
¹These are the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah,
Issachar and Zebulun; ²Dan, Joseph and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad
and Asher.
=II. 3‒IV. 23.=
GENEALOGIES OF JUDAH.
=3‒17.=
DESCENDANTS OF JUDAH TO THE SONS OF JESSE.
³The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three
were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess. And Er, Judah’s
firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him.
⁴And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Perez and Zerah. All the
sons of Judah were five. ⁵The sons of Perez; Hezron and Hamul.
=5.= _The sons of Perez; Hezron and Hamul_] So Genesis xlvi. 12. The
only reference in the Old Testament to Hamulites is Numbers xxvi. 21.
On the other hand Hezron, a south Judean tribe (Joshua xv. 3), is
a clan of the first importance in the genealogies. From Hezron are
descended not only the family of David (verse 15), but also the great
Calebite and Jerahmeelite clans (verses 18‒24, 25‒33, etc.). The name
_Hezron_ might bear the significance “an enclosed place” as opposed
to movable encampments, and _Atarah_ (verse 26) who is said to be the
mother of certain Jerahmeelite families has much the same meaning. Both
names therefore may not be eponymous either of individuals or places,
but may originate in the desire to preserve the fact that the families
named as their sons were nomads who had abandoned wandering for settled
life. If so, it might help to explain the fact that Hezron (compare
_Carmi_, ii. 7, iv. 1, v. 3) is also mentioned as a son of Reuben (v. 3;
Genesis xlvi. 9, etc.).
⁶And the sons of Zerah; Zimri¹, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol,
and Dara²: five of them in all.
¹ In Joshua vii. 1, _Zabdi_.
² Many ancient authorities read, _Darda_. See 1 Kings iv. 31.
=6.= _the sons of Zerah_] This genealogy appears only in Chronicles.
_Zimri_] LXX. (B) Ζαμβρεί (β being merely euphonic) here and also
Joshua vii. 1 where Hebrew has “Zabdi.” LXX. is probably right in
identifying the two. Either form might arise from the other by easy
textual corruption.
_Ethan ... Dara_] Read, =Darda= with Vulgate, Targum, Peshitṭa The
same four names in the same order occur 1 Kings iv. 31 as the names
of wise men whom Solomon surpassed in wisdom. They are there called
sons of “Mahol” who may have been either a nearer or remoter ancestor
than Zerah. Ethan however is there called the Ezrahite (= probably
“son of Zerah”). [Psalms lxxxviii., lxxxix. bear respectively the names
“Heman the Ezrahite,” “Ethan the Ezrahite,” but these (it seems) were
_Levites_ (compare xv. 17, 19, where see note).]
⁷And the sons of Carmi; Achar¹, the troubler of Israel, who
committed a trespass in the devoted thing. ⁸And the sons of
Ethan; Azariah.
¹ In Joshua vii. 1, _Achan_.
=7.= _the sons of Carmi_] Carmi is probably to be taken as the son of
Zimri (= Zabdi, Joshua vii. 1). Targum however has “Carmi who is Zimri.”
See note on _Zimri_, verse 6.
_Achar_] This form of the name (instead of “Achan,” Joshua vii. 1) is
used by the Chronicler to bring out better the play on the Hebrew word
for “troubler.” The Hebrew runs, “Achar ocher Israel.”
⁹The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel,
and Ram, and Chelubai.
=9.= _Jerahmeel_] For his descendants see verses 25‒41. The descendants
of his younger brother Ram are given first. They purport to be the
ancestry of David and his family.
_Chelubai_] Another form of “Caleb”; see note on verse 42.
¹⁰And Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince
of the children of Judah; ¹¹and Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma
begat Boaz; ¹²and Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse;
=10.= _Ram_] The descent of David from Judah is given also in Ruth iv.
18‒22 and Matthew i. 3‒6. _Ram_ as a clan parallel with the great clans
of Caleb and Jerahmeel is strange; for it is not known otherwise in
the Old Testament Further, as the descendants of Ram given in verses
10‒12 are the family tree of David (contrast the clans and cities in
the lines of Caleb and Jerahmeel) it may be supposed that Ram owes his
position here simply to the Chronicler’s desire to incorporate Ruth iv.
19, where also this pedigree of David is given. Note also that in verse
25 a _Ram_ is mentioned as a son of Jerahmeel and grandson of Hezron.
_Nahshon, prince_, etc.] See Numbers i. 4, 7, ii. 3.
¹³and Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second,
and Shimea the third;
=13.= _Shimea_] so also xx. 7; but “Shammah” 1 Samuel xvi. 9.
¹⁴Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth;
=14.= _Nethanel_] the same name as Nathanael (John i. 45). The fourth,
fifth and sixth brothers are not elsewhere named.
¹⁵Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:
=15.= _David the seventh_] Jesse had eight sons (1 Samuel xvii. 12;
compare xvi. 10, 11). Here one seems deliberately passed over, perhaps
because he had no children. (The Elihu “one of David’s brethren” of
1 Chronicles xxvii. 18 is probably to be identified with Eliab and not
to be regarded as an eighth brother.)
¹⁶and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of
Zeruiah; Abishai¹, and Joab, and Asahel, three.
¹ Hebrew _Abshai_.
=16.= _sons of Zeruiah_] Joab and his brothers are always thus named
after their mother; perhaps their father died while they were young,
or we may have a relic here of the ancient method of tracing kinship
through the mother.
¹⁷And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the
Ishmaelite.
=17.= _the Ishmaelite_] 2 Samuel xvii. 25, “the Israelite,” an error
yielding no satisfactory sense.
=18‒24= (compare verses 42‒55.)
DESCENDANTS OF CALEB.
¹⁸And Caleb the son of Hezron begat _children_ of Azubah _his_
wife, and of Jerioth: and these were her sons; Jesher, and
Shobab, and Ardon. ¹⁹And Azubah died, and Caleb took unto him
Ephrath, which bare him Hur.
=18.= _Caleb_] a clan dwelling in southern Judea, and probably distinct
from Judah in the time of David (1 Samuel xxv. 3, xxx. 14). Other
references to them or rather their reputed founder Caleb ben Jephunneh
the Kenizzite (Numbers xxxii. 12; Joshua xiv. 6, 14; 1 Chronicles i.
36, where see note on _Kenaz_) point to an original connection with
the Edomites. Their importance in these lists is explained by the fact
that they were incorporated in Judah, and, after the exile, occupied
townships close to Jerusalem (verses 50‒55) “forming possibly the bulk
of the tribe in post-exilic Judah, since the Chronicler knows so few
other families” (Curtis, _Chronicles_ p. 89). See also W. R. Smith,
_Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, p. 279 _ad fin._
_begat_ children _of Azubah_ his _wife, and of Jerioth_] the Hebrew
seems to be corrupt. Read perhaps =begat children of Azubah, his wife,
daughter of Jerioth=; or =took Azubah the wife of Jerioth=. The name
_Azubah_ = _forsaken_ is significant: see the note on verse 42, _Caleb_,
_ad fin._
²⁰And Hur begat Uri, and Uri begat Bezalel.
=20.= _Bezalel_] the Chronicler is naturally pleased to give prominence
in his list to Bezalel, who in Exodus xxx. (P) is mentioned as the
artificer of the Tabernacle.
²¹And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the
father of Gilead; whom he took _to wife_ when he was threescore
years old; and she bare him Segub.
=21.= The table of Caleb is broken off at this point to introduce
verses 21‒23 a statement of further descendants of Hezron (verse 9) by
another wife, the daughter of Machir. The interruption is not unnatural,
for it is convenient to refer to Hezron’s “son of old age” immediately
before the notice of his death (verse 24).
_Machir_] the most important clan of Manasseh (compare Numbers xxvi.
29; Judges v. 14). The affinity of Judean Hezronites with members of
the tribe of Manasseh, implied by this verse, is surprising. Whether
the tradition has a basis in fact, or arose through some genealogical
confusion, cannot as yet be determined. There is however considerable
evidence in favour of the view that the relationship between Machir and
Caleb is at least “no isolated detail, still less is it the invention
of the Chronicler’s age,” and there may be real historical ground for a
tradition that besides the northern movement of the Hezronites upwards
to Judah there was also at some time a movement across the northern
end of Edom into the lands east of Jordan, ending in the settlements
of Machir and Jair in Gilead here recorded; compare Numbers xxxii. 39,
and for discussion of the problem see Cook, _Notes on Old Testament
History_, pp. 92, 93, etc.
²²And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the
land of Gilead.
=22.= _Jair_] one of the Judges (Judges x. 3, 4 where thirty cities,
not twenty-three, are assigned him).
_the land of Gilead_] This name is sometimes restricted to that part of
the land east of Jordan which lies south of the wady Yarmuk. Here, as
often, it is applied to all the land east of Jordan occupied by Israel.
²³And Geshur and Aram took the towns¹ of Jair from them, with
Kenath, and the villages² thereof, even threescore cities. All
these were the sons of Machir the father of Gilead.
¹ Or, _Havvoth-jair_.
² Hebrew _daughters_.
=23.= _And Geshur and Aram_] Geshur was an Aramean kingdom east of
Jordan on the north-east border of Manasseh. Aram, commonly translated
“Syria” or “the Syrians,” probably here signifies the kingdom of which
Damascus was the capital. The conquest of Manassite territory by the
Arameans (“Syrians”) here described probably took place before the days
of Ahab, for in his reign they were already established as far south as
Ramoth-gilead (1 Kings xxii. 3).
_the towns of Jair_] note margin _Havvoth-jair_, compare Deuteronomy
iii. 14; Judges x. 4. The name perhaps means “the tent-villages of
Jair” (Arabic _Ḥĭvâ_ = “a collection of tents near together”).
²⁴And after that Hezron was dead in Caleb-ephrathah, then Abijah
Hezron’s wife bare him Ashhur the father of Tekoa.
=24.= _And after that Hezron was dead in Caleb-ephrathah_] The Hebrew
is certainly corrupt, but can easily be emended with the help of
the LXX. Read =And after Hezron was dead Caleb went in to Ephrath=
(verse 19) =his father Hezron’s wife and she bare him=, etc. Ephrath
(= Ephrathah, verse 50, iv. 4) is a name of Bethlehem (Ruth iv. 11;
Micah v. 2). “The taking of a father’s wife signified a claim to
inherit the father’s possessions (compare 2 Samuel xvi. 22), and the
phrase here expresses the legitimacy of Caleb’s residence in northern
Judea” (see note on verse 42).
_Ashhur_] compare iv. 4, 5. Ashhur might be a younger brother of Hur
(verses 19, 50); but quite possibly they are one and the same (compare
the contraction of Jehoahaz into Ahaz); see also iv. 5.
_the father of Tekoa_] i.e. the founder of the town or the eponymous
ancestor of its inhabitants. For _Tekoa_ see 2 Chronicles xx. 20, note.
=25‒41.=
THE GENEALOGY OF THE JERAHMEELITES.
²⁵And the sons of Jerahmeel the firstborn of Hezron were Ram the
firstborn, and Bunah, and Oren, and Ozem, Ahijah.
=25.= _Jerahmeel_] In David’s time they were, like Caleb, a
semi-nomadic clan in the south of Judah; compare 1 Samuel xxvii. 10;
xxx. 29. They shared in the northern movements of Caleb (see note
on verse 42), and eventually formed part of the post-exilic Jewish
community; hence their records do not appear in earlier parts of the
Old Testament, but are known to the Chronicler.
_Ozem, Ahijah_] By a slight change in the Hebrew we get =Ozem his
brother= (so LXX.); compare xxvi. 20 for a similar confusion of reading.
²⁶And Jerahmeel had another wife, whose name was Atarah; she
was the mother of Onam. ²⁷And the sons of Ram the firstborn
of Jerahmeel were Maaz, and Jamin, and Eker. ²⁸And the sons of
Onam were Shammai, and Jada: and the sons of Shammai; Nadab, and
Abishur. ²⁹And the name of the wife of Abishur was Abihail; and
she bare him Ahban, and Molid. ³⁰And the sons of Nadab; Seled,
and Appaim: but Seled died without children¹.
¹ Or, _sons_.
=26.= _Atarah_] see note on Hezron, verse 5.
³¹And the sons of Appaim; Ishi. And the sons of Ishi; Sheshan.
And the sons of Sheshan; Ahlai. ³²And the sons of Jada the
brother of Shammai; Jether, and Jonathan: and Jether died
without children¹. ³³And the sons of Jonathan; Peleth, and Zaza.
These were the sons of Jerahmeel.
¹ Or, _sons_.
=31.= _the sons of Sheshan; Ahlai_] Ahlai is perhaps a gentilic name,
not the name of an individual, since in verse 34 Sheshan is said to
have had “no sons, but daughters.” More probably however the Chronicler
is using a different source for verses 34‒41.
³⁴Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a
servant, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha.
=34.= _an Egyptian_] Hebrew Miṣri. Render probably =a Muṣrite=, i.e.
inhabitant of the north Arabian district to the south of Palestine,
known as Muṣri and apparently confused at times with Miṣraim (Egypt).
For some suggestive conjectures regarding this table of Jarha’s
descendants see S. A. Cook, _Encyclopedia Biblica_ II. 2364.
³⁵And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant to wife;
and she bare him Attai. ³⁶And Attai begat Nathan, and Nathan
begat Zabad; ³⁷and Zabad begat Ephlal, and Ephlal begat Obed;
³⁸and Obed begat Jehu, and Jehu begat Azariah; ³⁹and Azariah
begat Helez, and Helez begat Eleasah; ⁴⁰and Eleasah begat Sismai,
and Sismai begat Shallum; ⁴¹and Shallum begat Jekamiah, and
Jekamiah begat Elishama.
=35.= _Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha_] This was equivalent to
making his servant his heir. Thus Abraham at first (Genesis xv. 2,
3) regarded Eliezer his steward as his heir. The list of thirteen
descendants of Jarha ending with Elishama (verse 41) is perhaps a
proper genealogy: at least the names may be those of individuals,
although it is impossible to say why this pedigree of Elishama should
have been so carefully preserved (so Curtis). On the other hand Cook
(see previous note) regards _Jarha_ as perhaps an eponym of _Jerahmeel_,
and, connecting _Sheshan_ with the Hebronite _Sheshai_, thinks the
genealogy may signify a northward movement of Jerahmeel from Muṣri to
the district of Hebron.
=42‒49= (compare verses 18‒24).
THE DESCENDANTS OF CALEB.
⁴²And the sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel were Mesha
his firstborn, which was the father of Ziph; and the sons of
Mareshah the father of Hebron. ⁴³And the sons of Hebron; Korah,
and Tappuah, and Rekem, and Shema. ⁴⁴And Shema begat Raham, the
father of Jorkeam; and Rekem begat Shammai.
=42.= _Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel_] Called _Chelubai_ (verse 9) and
_Caleb the son of Hezron_ (verse 18). As eponym of the tribe Caleb is
described as “son” of Hezron “son” of Judah, and of course is not to
be distinguished from the Caleb son of Jephunneh who is classed as a
Kenizzite in various passages (iv. 15; Numbers xiii. 6; Joshua xiv. 6).
Important features of the fortunes of the Caleb clan can be discerned
from the lists in this chapter, verses 18‒24, 42‒50. It appears that at
first their seats were in the southern parts of Judah――witness verses
42‒49, in which several of the names, viz. Ziph (Joshua xv. 24 or 25),
Mareshah (2 Chronicles xi. 8), Hebron, Tappuah (Joshua xv. 34), Maon
(Joshua xv. 55), and Beth-zur (Joshua xv. 58) are names of towns in the
south or south-west of Judah. From these, their pre-exilic homes, they
were driven northwards, and during the exilic period and afterwards
they occupied many of the townships not far from Jerusalem, e.g.
Bethlehem (see verses 50‒55). Apart from the names in verses 50‒55,
we have a testimony to this northward movement in verse 24 (where
see note), and probably also in verse 18, where the names _Jerioth_
(_tents_) and _Azubah_ (_forsaken_) hint at the abandonment first of
nomadic life and then of the south Judean settlements. This movement
was largely no doubt compulsory, under pressure from the Edomites to
the south (compare above i. 43, note) who in their turn were being
forced north by a strong and fairly constant encroachment of Arab
tribes (see Wellhausen, _De Gentibus_, and more recently Hölscher,
_Palästina_, pp. 22, 30, on the importance of such evidence as this
notice in Chronicles for determining the composition and conditions of
Palestine in the post-exilic period).
_Mesha_] The Moabite king whose deeds are recorded on the Moabite Stone
bore this name. LXX. reads _Mareshah_ (Μαρεισά) as in the latter part
of the verse.
⁴⁵And the son of Shammai was Maon; and Maon was the father of
Beth-zur. ⁴⁶And Ephah, Caleb’s concubine, bare Haran, and Moza,
and Gazez: and Haran begat Gazez. ⁴⁷And the sons of Jahdai;
Regem, and Jotham, and Geshan, and Pelet, and Ephah, and Shaaph.
⁴⁸Maacah, Caleb’s concubine, bare Sheber and Tirhanah.
=45.= _Maon_] Nabal who was a Calebite lived at the town of Maon
(1 Samuel xxv. 2, 3). It is improbable that _Maon_ was ever used as
the name of a person; compare Buchanan Gray, _Hebrew Proper Names_,
pp. 127 f. See note on verse 42.
⁴⁹She bare also Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father
of Machbena, and the father of Gibea; and the daughter of Caleb
was Achsah.
=49.= _the daughter of Caleb was Achsah_] Compare Judges i. 12.
=50‒55.= These verses give the post-exilic settlements of the Calebites
in the townships of northern Judea, not far from Jerusalem: see verse
42, note.
⁵⁰These were the sons of Caleb; the son¹ of Hur, the firstborn
of Ephrathah, Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim; ⁵¹Salma the
father of Beth-lehem, Hareph the father of Beth-gader.
¹ The Septuagint has, _sons_.
=50.= _the son of Hur_] Read with the LXX., =the sons of Hur=. Hur was
the son of Caleb (verse 19).
_the firstborn of Ephrathah_] see note verse 24.
⁵²And Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim had sons; Haroeh, half
of the Menuhoth.
=52.= _Haroeh, half of the Menuhoth_] The Hebrew is quite obscure, but
may perhaps be rendered, =who provided for half the resting-places=,
the description applying to Shobal, i.e. his work was to supervise
some of the halting stations of the caravans which passed through
the territory of Judah. Compare similar details in iv. 21‒23, and the
title _Prince of the resting-places_ (margin _quarter-master_) given to
Seraiah in Jeremiah li. 59. Almost certainly, however, the text in the
present passage is corrupt, and, following iv. 2 and verse 54, we may
read =Reaiah and half of the Manahathites=. For the latter see below,
verse 54.
⁵³And the families of Kiriath-jearim; the Ithrites, and the
Puthites, and the Shumathites, and the Mishraites; of them came
the Zorathites and the Eshtaolites.
=53.= _Zorathites, Eshtaolites_] for Zorah (_modern_ Surah) and Eshtaol
(_modern_ Eshua), compare Judges xiii. 25.
⁵⁴The sons of Salma; Beth-lehem, and the Netophathites,
Atrothbeth-Joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites.
=54.= _Manahathites, the Zorites_] The Manahathites of Zorah must
be associated with _Manoah_, the father of Samson, according to the
tradition of Judges xiii. 2, 25, and an inhabitant of Zorah (see Cooke,
_Judges_, pp. 131, 138, in this series).
⁵⁵And the families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the
Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the
Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.
=55.= _families of scribes_] an indication of post-exilic date.
_the Kenites that came of Hammath_] or perhaps, =the Kenites who came
in= (i.e. who attached themselves to Israel), =who were from Hammath=.
_father of the house of Rechab_] The verse is somewhat obscure, but it
is most probable that the Chronicler preserves a correct tradition in
the connection here alleged between the Rechabites and the Kenites. On
the ancient zeal for Jehovah displayed by the Rechabites, see 2 Kings
x. 15 ff.; and for their distinctive standpoint, Jeremiah xxxv.
CHAPTER III.
=1‒24.=
THE GENEALOGY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID.
=1‒4= (= 2 Samuel iii. 2‒5).
THE SONS BORN TO DAVID IN HEBRON.
¹Now these were the sons of David, which were born unto him in
Hebron: the firstborn, Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the
second, Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess;
=1.= _Daniel_] LXX. (B) Δαμνιήλ, (A) Δαλουιά. In 2 Samuel iii. 3
_Chileab_, but LXX. Δαλουιά. The real name of David’s second son
remains therefore uncertain.
²the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai
king of Geshur; the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith;
=2.= _Geshur_] Compare ii. 23, note.
³the fifth, Shephatiah of Abital; the sixth, Ithream by Eglah
his wife. ⁴Six were born unto him in Hebron; and there he
reigned seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned
thirty and three years.
=3.= _Eglah his wife_] In 2 Samuel iii. 5 “Eglah David’s wife,” where
however _David_ is probably a wrong reading for the name of a previous
husband of Eglah.
=5‒9= (= chapter xiv. 4‒7 and 2 Samuel v. 14‒16).
THE SONS BORN TO DAVID IN JERUSALEM.
⁵And these were born unto him in Jerusalem: Shimea, and Shobab,
and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bath-shua the daughter of
Ammiel:
=5.= _Shimea_] in xiv. 4 and 2 Samuel v. 14 (Revised Version) _Shammua_.
_Nathan_] Through him our Lord’s descent is traced in Luke iii. 31.
_Solomon_] Only here are other sons besides Solomon attributed to
Bath-sheba.
_Bath-shua_] is a slight variation in pronunciation of Bath-sheba.
_the daughter of Ammiel_] of _Eliam_ (perhaps a by-form of _Ammiel_)
in 2 Samuel xi. 3. An Eliam son of Ahithophel, David’s counsellor, is
mentioned in 2 Samuel xxiii. 34; Bath-sheba may therefore have been
grand-daughter to Ahithophel. Notice that the Chronicler does not
call Bath-sheba _the wife of Uriah the Hittite_; he nowhere refers to
David’s great sin; compare xx. 1‒3, where the silence of Chronicles on
this matter is specially to be noted.
⁶and Ibhar, and Elishama, and Eliphelet; ⁷and Nogah, and Nepheg,
and Japhia;
=6.= _Elishama_] in xiv. 5 and 2 Samuel v. 15 _Elishua_, no doubt the
right reading, for otherwise (compare verse 8) we have two sons of
David named _Elishama_.
_Eliphelet_] in xiv. 5 _Elpelet_. _Eliphelet_ cannot be right, for it
occurs again as the name of the thirteenth son in verse 8. _Elpelet_
may be right here and _Eliphelet_ in verse 8, for according to Hebrew
custom two brothers might bear names of similar sound and significance.
But both Eliphelet and Nogah, the following word, are lacking in 2
Samuel v. 15; and are probably only textual errors due to dittography.
⁸and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. ⁹All these were
the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines; and Tamar
was their sister.
=8.= _Eliada_] so in 2 Samuel v. 16, but in 1 Chronicles xiv. 7
_Beeliada_ (i.e. Baaliada, “The Lord――the Baal――knows”). This seems
to have been changed to _Eliada_ (i.e. God knows), when the title
_Baal_ had come to have only heathen associations, and was accordingly
repudiated by the Jews: see the note on viii. 33.
=10‒16.=
THE LINE OF DAVIDIC KINGS.
¹⁰And Solomon’s son was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son,
Jehoshaphat his son; ¹¹Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his
son;
Two things are to be noted in this list: (1) Johanan’s name is given in
verse 15, though he was never king, (2) Zedekiah’s name appears to be
_twice_ given, once among the sons of Josiah (verse 15) and again in
his place according to the succession (verse 16).
=10.= _Abijah_] called _Abijam_ in 1 Kings xiv. 31, xv. 1 ff. _Abia_ is
the Greek form of the name; Matthew i. 7 (Authorized Version).
¹²Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son; ¹³Ahaz his
son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son; ¹⁴Amon his son, Josiah
his son.
=12.= _Azariah_] This king is usually called _Uzziah_, compare Isaiah
vi. 1; see note on 2 Chronicles xxvi. 1.
¹⁵And the sons of Josiah; the firstborn Johanan, the second
Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
=15.= _the firstborn Johanan_] This son of Josiah never came to the
throne, nor is anything known of him except from this passage.
_Zedekiah_] Though reckoned third here, he was younger than Shallum
(= _Jehoahaz_); compare 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 2 (= 2 Kings xxiii. 31)
with 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 11 (= 2 Kings xxiv. 18).
_Shallum_] To be identified with _Jehoahaz_; compare 2 Chronicles
xxxvi. 1 with Jeremiah xxii. 11.
¹⁶And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.
=16.= _Jeconiah_] This name is sometimes shortened to _Coniah_
(Jeremiah xxii. 24) and written (with a slight change of meaning)
_Jehoiachin_ (2 Chronicles xxxvi. 8, 9; 2 Kings xxiv. 6 ff.).
_Zedekiah his son_] Zedekiah was heir, not son, to Jeconiah, whom he
succeeded in the kingdom. His relationship to Jeconiah was that of
uncle.
=17‒19a.=
THE DAVIDIC LINE FROM JECONIAH TO ZERUBBABEL.
Note that whereas Zerubbabel is here represented apparently as the son
of Pedaiah and consequently _nephew of Shealtiel_ (= _Salathiel_), he
is elsewhere called the _son of Shealtiel_ (Ezra iii. 2; Haggai i. 1,
ii. 2; compare Luke iii. 27‒31). The LXX. solves the difficulty by
reading _Salathiel_ (= _Shealtiel_) in verse 19. The view that the
names given in verse 18 (including _Pedaiah_) are the names of the sons
of Shealtiel is not probable. Another suggestion is that Zerubbabel was
_grand_-son both to Shealtiel and Pedaiah, according to such a scheme
as the following:
Pedaiah Shealtiel
| |
a daughter = a son
|
Zerubbabel.
A minor difficulty that Shealtiel (= Salathiel) is here connected
with David through Solomon, whereas in Luke iii. 27‒31 his descent
is traced through Solomon’s brother Nathan, could be explained by an
intermarriage at some point in the genealogy between the two Davidic
families.
¹⁷And the sons of Jeconiah, the captive¹; Shealtiel his son,
¹⁸and Malchiram, and Pedaiah, and Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama,
and Nedabiah.
¹ Or, _Assir_.
=17.= _the sons of Jeconiah_] That Jeconiah had sons is not at variance
with Jeremiah’s denunciation of him (Jeremiah xxii. 30). That passage
gives the answer to Jeconiah’s expectation of a speedy return to his
kingdom (Jeremiah xxii. verse 27); Jeremiah says that neither he nor
any of his seed shall recover the lost throne: “Reckon him childless,
for no son of his shall succeed him on his throne.”
_the captive_] Hebrew _assir_, which the Revised Version margin
(= Authorized Version), following the ancient Versions, has wrongly
taken to be a proper name. The Revised Version margin is here only a
survival of Authorized Version. The rendering of the text (_the captive_)
no doubt expresses the real judgment of the Revisers.
_Shealtiel_] the Greek form _Salathiel_ (Authorized Version) occurs in
Luke iii. 27 (Authorized Version).
¹⁹And the sons of Pedaiah; Zerubbabel, and Shimei: and the sons¹
of Zerubbabel;
¹ Hebrew _son_.
=19.= _the sons of Zerubbabel_] so the LXX. The Hebrew has =son=, as
Revised Version margin.
=19b‒24.=
THE DAVIDIC LINE FROM ZERUBBABEL.
The text of these verses is very uncertain. In verse 20 the names of
five sons are given, but their father’s name (perhaps _Meshullam_) is
wanting. In verses 21, 22 the LXX. differs from the Hebrew in such a
way as to affect the number of steps in the genealogy; the Hebrew seems
to reckon but _one_ generation between Hananiah and Shemaiah, the LXX.
on the contrary reckons _six_; the result on the whole genealogy being
that the LXX. counts _eleven_ generations after Zerubbabel as against
_six_ in the Hebrew In verse 22 again the sons of Shemaiah are reckoned
to be six, but only _five_ names are given in both Hebrew and LXX.
For the bearing of these verses upon the date of Chronicles, see the
Introduction § 3.
Meshullam, and Hananiah; and Shelomith was their sister: ²⁰and
Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed,
five.
=20.= _and Hashubah_] Perhaps we should read “The sons of Meshullam:
Hashubah.” See above.
_Jushab-hesed_] The name means “Mercy is restored.” Many such
significant names are found in the present list, and, in general, are
characteristic of the exilic and later periods.
²¹And the sons¹ of Hananiah; Pelatiah, and Jeshaiah: the sons
of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of
Shecaniah. ²²And the sons of Shecaniah; Shemaiah: and the sons
of Shemaiah; Hattush, and Igal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and
Shaphat, six.
¹ Hebrew _son_.
=21.= _and Jeshaiah ... Shecaniah_] The LXX. reads (with some blunders
in reproducing the names), “and Jeshaiah his son, Rephaiah his son,
Arnan his son, Obadiah his son, Shecaniah his son,” thus adding five
steps to the genealogy. The difference of reading in the Hebrew text
thus suggested is very slight. It is quite uncertain whether the Hebrew
or the reading of the LXX. is to be preferred: see the Introduction
§ 3, A 2.
²³And the sons¹ of Neariah; Elioenai, and Hizkiah, and Azrikam,
three. ²⁴And the sons of Elioenai; Hodaviah, and Eliashib, and
Pelaiah, and Akkub, and Johanan, and Delaiah, and Anani, seven.
¹ Hebrew _son_.
=23.= _Elioenai_] A name meaning, “Mine eyes are towards Jehovah,”
compare Psalms xxv. 15; compare _Jushab-hesed_ (verse 20) and
_Hodaviah_ (“Give thanks to Jehovah” = Hoduiah), verse 24.
CHAPTER IV.
=1‒23= (compare ii. 3 ff.)
GENEALOGIES OF THE TRIBES OF JUDAH.
The material contained in these verses gives rise to no little
perplexity, not only in itself but also when considered along with the
genealogies of Judah in ii. 3 ff. Whether the Chronicler himself could
have thrown any light on the points which puzzle us may well be doubted:
he was more concerned to preserve all available genealogical matter
than to consider or attempt to reconcile conflicting elements. Both the
date and relationship of these notices must be confessed to be as yet
uncertain, opinion being divided even on the question whether the list
represents pre-exilic or post-exilic conditions. Remark that the list
is essentially a Calebite one.
¹The sons of Judah; Perez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and
Shobal.
=1.= As Hezron was the son of Perez (chapter ii. 5) and (if the LXX. be
right) Shobal was the son of Hur (ii. 50, note), we have in this verse
five, if not six, generations.
_Carmi_] for the name, compare ii. 7, and v. 3. Here, however, Carmi
is certainly an error for =Caleb=: see ii. 4, 5, 9, 50 and also
the structure of the present chapter. Thus in accord with the usual
practice of the Chronicler the chief ancestors are first named (verse
1), and then, in _reverse_ order, their descendants――sons of Shobal and
Hur (verses 2‒10), and sons of Chelub (= Caleb) (verses 11‒15).
²And Reaiah the son of Shobal begat Jahath; and Jahath begat
Ahumai and Lahad. These are the families of the Zorathites.
=2.= _Reaiah_] Compare note on ii. 52.
_the Zorathites_] Compare note on ii. 53.
³And these were _the sons of_ the father of Etam; Jezreel, and
Ishma, and Idbash: and the name of their sister was Hazzelelponi:
=3.= _these were_ the sons of _the father of Etam_] The Hebrew has not
got the words _the sons of_, and is certainly corrupt. The LXX. reads,
_These were the sons of Etam._ Correction is difficult, largely owing
to the obscurity of Etam. If Etam had been named as a son of Shobal in
verse 2, we might follow the LXX. It is perhaps best to suppose that
Etam begins the list of descendants of Hur, and to read “these were
=the sons of Hur= the father of Etam.” Etam was a place, but whether
near Bethlehem (the _Etam_ of 2 Chronicles xi. 6) or in southern Judah
(the Simeonite _Etam_ of verse 32) is uncertain.
⁴and Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah.
These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah, the
father of Beth-lehem.
=4.= _Hur_] the first born of Ephrathah (= Ephrath) one of the wives
of Caleb (ii. 19). Hur was _father of Bethlehem_ through his son Salma
(ii. 50, 51, LXX.). For the name of the city compare Genesis xxxv. 19
(_Ephrath the same is Bethlehem_) and Micah v. 2 (Revised Version _Thou,
Bethlehem Ephrathah_).
⁵And Ashhur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
⁶And Naarah bare him Ahuzzam, and Hepher, and Temeni, and
Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah. ⁷And the sons of
Helah were Zereth, Izhar¹, and Ethnan.
¹ Another reading is, _and Zohar_.
=5.= _Ashhur the father of Tekoa_] Ashhur is probably only a variant of
Hur (see note ii. 24). Hur then is the exilic or post-exilic “father”
(founder) of the Calebite population of Tekoa (5 miles from Bethlehem),
and of Bethlehem, etc., through his sons (ii. 50‒52).
_Helah and Naarah_] Neither the names of the wives nor those of the
children yield any certain information.
⁸And Hakkoz begat Anub, and Zobebah, and the families of Aharhel
the son of Harum.
=8.= _And Hakkoz_] But Hebrew =Koz=. The absence of connection with the
preceding verse is striking. Perhaps Koz was properly one of the sons
of Helah (verse 7), and a motive for the severance of his name may be
found in the wish to make less obvious his Calebite (i.e. non-Levitical)
origin, in case he were identified with the priestly Hakkoz of xxiv. 10;
Ezekiel ii. 61, a family who were unable to prove an untainted pedigree.
⁹And Jabez was more honourable than his brethren: and his mother
called his name Jabez, saying. Because I bare him with sorrow.
=9.= The connection of this verse also does not appear. According to
Targum (on verse 13) _Jabez_ = _Othniel_, the nephew or brother of
Caleb.
_And Jabez_, etc.] Render, =And Jabez came to be honoured above his
brethren, but his mother had called his name Jabez, saying, Because
I bare him with pain.= _Jabez_ suggests a somewhat similar word spelt
with the same consonants but in a different order, and meaning “he
giveth pain.” The stylistic similarity between this verse and many
passages in Genesis (e.g. Genesis xxx.) cannot fail to be noticed, and
it is important to observe that a tradition of this popular character
was current in the style of the patriarchal narratives of Genesis
in the Chronicler’s time. Compare also vii. 23. The man with the
ill-omened name staved off ill-fortune by his prayer which is given in
the following verse.
¹⁰And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou
wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my border, and that thine
hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil,
that it be not to my sorrow! And God granted him that which he
requested.
=10.= _that thou wouldest keep me from evil_] Literally _that thou
wouldest make ... from evil_. The Hebrew is therefore strange, though
not indefensible. Perhaps some words have fallen out, and it may
originally have read somewhat as follows, that _thou wouldest make_
[_room_ (merḥābh) _for me, and wouldest redeem_ (phādīthā) _me_] _from
evil_.
_that it be not to my sorrow_] or =so that no pain befell me=.
=11‒15= for _Chelub_ (verse 11) = Caleb (see on ii. 9, 42)
SONS OF CALEB.
¹¹And Chelub the brother of Shuhah begat Mehir, which was the
father of Eshton. ¹²And Eshton begat Beth-rapha, and Paseah, and
Tehinnah the father of Ir-nahash¹. These are the men of Recah.
¹ Or, _the city of Nahash_.
=12.= _These are the men of Recah_] Recah is unknown. Perhaps the true
reading is that of the LXX. (B), _the men of Rechab_, i.e. Rechabite
families; compare ii. 55, note.
¹³And the sons of Kenaz; Othniel, and Seraiah: and the sons of
Othniel; Hathath.
=13.= _Othniel_] Eponym of a Kenizzite clan, closely connected with the
Calebites. Compare note on i. 36, and Judges i. 13 and iii. 9‒11.
¹⁴And Meonothai begat Ophrah: and Seraiah begat Joab the father
of Ge-harashim¹; for they were craftsmen.
¹ Or, _the valley of craftsmen_.
=14.= _Meonothai_] perhaps a son of Othniel.
_Ge-harashim_] or, as margin, =the valley of craftsmen=. It is
mentioned Nehemiah xi. 35 along with _Lod_ (the _Lydda_ of Acts ix. 32)
and therefore was probably near Lydda.
¹⁵And the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh; Iru, Elah, and
Naam: and the sons of Elah; and Kenaz.
=15.= _Caleb the son of Jephunneh_] Compare ii. 42, note.
_the sons of Elah; and Kenaz_] The _sons of Elah_ and _Kenaz_ seem to
be co-ordinated, as each represented a family descended from Caleb; but
perhaps the text is faulty.
¹⁶And the sons of Jehallelel; Ziph, and Ziphah, Tiria, and
Asarel.
=16‒20.= The connection of these names with Judah does not appear. In
accordance with the structure of this section (see note on Carmi, verse
1) we might expect here to find “the sons of Hezron or Perez”; and,
since the relationship between Jehallelel (16) and Ezrah (17) is not
indicated, it has been suggested that we should insert in verse 16 “And
the sons of Perez and Jehallelel and Ezrah.” No certainty can be felt
in the matter.
_Ziph_] in south Judah, 1 Samuel xxiii. 15. Ziphah, a feminine form of
the same name.
¹⁷And the sons of Ezrah; Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon:
and she bare Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah the father of
Eshtemoa.
=17.= _and Jalon: and she bare Miriam_] As the text stands _she_ has
no antecedent. It has therefore been proposed to transfer from verse 18
the words _And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh,
which Mered took_, and put them after _Jalon_. Bithiah then appears as
the mother of _Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah_, and the difficulty of the
absence of her sons’ names from verse 18 disappears. For _father of
Eshtemoa_ see ii. 24 note, and for _Eshtemoa_ see Joshua xxi. 14.
¹⁸And his wife the Jewess¹ bare Jered the father of Gedor, and
Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.
And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which
Mered took.
¹ Or, _Hajehudijah_.
=18.= _his wife_] the wife of Mered, if the transposition mentioned in
the last note be accepted.
_his wife the Jewess_] so called in contrast to his Egyptian wife.
_Gedor_] compare verse 4, where a different person is perhaps by a
different tradition called father of Gedor. _Gedor_ is to be identified
with the ruins of Jedur on the road between Jerusalem and Hebron,
compare verse 39.
_Soco ... Zanoah_] The Soco (Joshua xv. 48) and Zanoah (Joshua xv. 56)
here mentioned were situated to the south-west of Hebron. They are to
be distinguished from a Soco near the valley of Elah (Joshua xv. 35,
2 Chronicles xi. 7, xxviii. 18) and Zanoah near Beth-shemesh (Joshua
xv. 34).
_these are the sons of Bithiah_] See note on verse 17. A “daughter of
Pharaoh” is somewhat strange in such surroundings. For an interesting
emendation and interpretation, see Macalister, _Palestine Exploration
Fund, Quarterly Statement_, 1905, p. 252.
¹⁹And the sons of the wife of Hodiah, the sister of Naham, were
the father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maacathite.
²⁰And the sons of Shimon; Amnon, and Rinnah, Ben-hanan, and
Tilon. And the sons of Ishi; Zoheth, and Ben-zoheth.
=19.= _Keilah_] a town of the Shephelah (Joshua xv. 44), the scene of
one of David’s exploits (1 Samuel xxiii. 1‒5).
_Eshtemoa the Maacathite_] The epithet distinguishes this Eshtemoa from
that of verse 17. _The Maacathite_ may mean the descendant of Maacah
(ii. 48), the concubine of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel.
=21‒23.= These verses purport to give some fragmentary information
of the descendants of _Shelah_. It must be owned that they are most
obscure, and much more difficult than they appear at first. In the
_Palestine Exploration Fund Statement_, 1905, pp. 243 ff., 328 ff.,
R. A. S. Macalister gives a highly ingenious reinterpretation of
this passage in the light of certain jar handles inscribed with names
similar to those mentioned here and in certain other passages of the
Chronicler’s genealogies; and conjectures that throughout the chapter
we have a (mutilated) genealogy of a family of craftsmen, tracing
descent from two individuals, a Jerahmeel and a Caleb. In a text so
obscure it is no objection that the theory involves several textual
emendations, and is too intricate for further treatment here. It is
rejected by Driver, _Modern Research_, p. 77.
²¹The sons of Shelah the son of Judah; Er the father of Lecah,
and Laadah the father of Mareshah, and the families of the house
of them that wrought fine linen, of the house of Ashbea;
=21.= _Shelah_] mentioned in ii. 3 as a son of Judah. As there is
no reference to him in iv. 1, perhaps these difficult verses are an
addition. For other references to his descendants, see ix. 5, Nehemiah
xi. 5.
_Mareshah_] ii. 42; 2 Chronicles xi. 8; Joshua xv. 44 (mentioned with
Keilah). A town in the south of Judah.
_the house of Ashbea_] Nothing is known of such a family. Render
perhaps _Beth-Ashbea_, but the place is otherwise unknown.
²²and Jokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who
had dominion in Moab, and Jashubi-lehem. And the records¹ are
ancient.
¹ Hebrew _words_.
=22.= _and Joash, and Saraph, who_, etc.] We find no other trace of
these two as rulers of Moab. The Targum fancifully identified them with
Mahlon and Chilion of Ruth i. 2, 4. For a conjecture as to the cause of
their presence in Moab, see Macalister, _Palestine Exploration Fund,
Quarterly Statement_, 1905, p. 340.
_and Jashubi-lehem_] render, with _Vulgate_, =who returned to
Bethlehem=, a translation which requires only an easy emendation of the
present Hebrew text.
²³These were the potters, and the inhabitants¹ of Netaim and
Gederah: there they dwelt with the king for his work.
¹ Or, _those that dwelt among plantations and hedges_.
=23.= _there they dwelt with the king for his work_] In the days of the
kingdom the families were clients of the king and did his work; compare
1 Kings vii. 46. The simplicity of this statement seems to have been
a stumbling-block to the early translators who paraphrase; LXX., _They
were strong in his kingdom and dwelt there_; Targum, _They made their
dwelling there with the Shekinah of the King of the World for the
practice of the Law._
=24‒27.=
THE GENEALOGY OF SIMEON.
²⁴The sons of Simeon; Nemuel¹, and Jamin, Jarib², Zerah³,
Shaul: ²⁵Shallum his son, Mibsam his son, Mishma his son. ²⁶And
the sons of Mishma; Hammuel his son, Zaccur his son, Shimei his
son. ²⁷And Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters; but his
brethren had not many children, neither did all their family
multiply, like to the children of Judah.
¹ In Genesis xlvi. 10, Exodus vi. 15, _Jemuel_.
² In Genesis xlvi. 10, _Jachin_.
³ Genesis xlvi. 10, _Zohar_.
=24‒27.= _The sons of Simeon_] With unimportant variations in the
names, the five sons of Simeon are mentioned also in Genesis xlvi. 10,
Exodus vi. 15, and Numbers xxvi. 12, 13. A sixth son, Ohad, is given
by the list in Genesis. As the mother of one, Shaul, was a Canaanitess
(Genesis xlvi. 10) and Mibsam and Mishma are also reckoned Ishmaelites
(i. 29, 30), the tribe of Simeon contained marked non-Israelite
elements. This is the more natural by reason of its location in the
extreme south of Palestine.
=27.= _six daughters_] LXX. _three daughters_.
=28‒33= (= Joshua xix. 2‒8).
THE TERRITORY OF SIMEON.
²⁸And they dwelt at Beer-sheba, and Moladah, and Hazar-shual;
=28.= _Beer-sheba_] at the southern extremity of Palestine, as Dan was
at the northern (1 Samuel iii. 20).
²⁹and at Bilhah, and at Ezem, and at Tolad;
=29.= _Tolad_] In Joshua xix. 4 _Eltolad_.
³⁰and at Bethuel, and at Hormah, and at Ziklag;
=30.= _Bethuel_] compare Genesis xxii. 22. In Joshua xix. 4 _Bethul_.
In 1 Samuel xxx. 27 _Bethel_ (not the famous Bethel near Jerusalem).
_Hormah_] Numbers xiv. 45, xxi. 3; Judges i. 17.
_Ziklag_] 1 Samuel xxvii. 6. The site is not certainly identified.
³¹and at Beth-marcaboth, and Hazar-susim, and at Beth-biri, and
at Shaaraim. These were their cities unto the reign of David.
=31.= _Beth-marcaboth ... Hazar-susim_] perhaps royal chariot-cities, 1
Kings ix. 19. The names mean _House of chariots_ and _Court of horses_.
_Shaaraim_] 1 Samuel xvii. 52.
_These were their cities unto the reign of David_] either a reference
to David’s census; or else it is implied that these cities ceased to
belong to Simeon after David’s day. The clause breaks the connection of
verses 31, 32; and is perhaps a late gloss.
³²And their villages were Etam, and Ain, Rimmon, and Tochen, and
Ashan, five cities:
=32.= _And their villages were Etam_] more probably =and their villages=
(end of verse 31). =Etam=, etc. (continuing the list of cities as in
verse 31). By _villages_ (_Ḥăṣērīm_) are meant small hamlets dependent
on larger towns and generally unwalled (Leviticus xxv. 31).
_Ain, Rimmon_] so also in the parallel passage, Joshua xix. 7; but
certainly only one place is meant, _Ain-Rimmon_ (see the commentaries
on Joshua xv. 42 and xix. 7). The number of the cities here ought
therefore to be reckoned four, not five.
³³and all their villages that were round about the same cities,
unto Baal. These were their habitations, and they have their
genealogy.
=33.= _unto Baal_] _Baal_ (“lord”) standing by itself is an unlikely
name for a town. Read _Baalath-beer, Ramah of the South_ (“the mistress
of the well, the high place of the South”), as in Joshua xix. 8.
=34‒43.=
THE HEROES OF SIMEON AND THEIR EXPLOITS.
It seems probable that the exploits mentioned in these verses are
derived from some old, though obscure, tradition, and are therefore of
historical value for the movements of the tribe of Simeon. Apparently
we are to understand that in the time of Hezekiah a band of the wild
semi-nomadic tribe of Simeon made a successful raid upon a fertile
valley near Gerar (a correction for _Gedor_, see verse 39), a township
on the Philistine border, taking by surprise its peaceful population
who were partly Canaanites, partly settlers who had come originally
from a place _Maon_ (see verse 41). _Gedor_, the reading of the Hebrew
text, was a town just north of Hebron. A raid by Simeonites on such a
town is a startling, but not incredible, episode in Hezekiah’s time;
but see also note on verse 40. Finally verses 42, 43 record a further
assault by Simeonites, this time against Edomite territory. For full
discussion see Hogg in _Encyclopedia Biblia_ iv. 4527 ff.; also
Macalister, _Palestine Exploration Fund Statement_, 1905, 335 ff.
³⁴And Meshobab, and Jamlech, and Joshah the son of Amaziah;
³⁵and Joel, and Jehu the son of Joshibiah, the son of Seraiah,
the son of Asiel; ³⁶and Elioenai, and Jaakobah, and Jeshohaiah,
and Asaiah, and Adiel, and Jesimiel, and Benaiah; ³⁷and Ziza
the son of Shiphi, the son of Allon, the son of Jedaiah, the son
of Shimri, the son of Shemaiah; ³⁸these mentioned by name were
princes in their families: and their fathers’ houses increased
greatly.
=38.= _their fathers’ houses_] See note on chapter v. 13.
³⁹And they went to the entering in of Gedor, even unto the east
side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks.
=39.= _the entering in of Gedor_] Compare verse 18. The Gedor of Joshua
xv. 58 is identified with _Jedur_, _Ijdur_ (north of Hebron, Bädeker,
_Palestine_⁵, p. 112). See Macalister, _Palestine Exploration Fund,
Quarterly Statement_, 1905, 335. LXX. has _Gerar_ (compare Genesis xx.
1; xxvi. 1), on the Philistine border.
⁴⁰And they found fat pasture and good, and the land was wide,
and quiet, and peaceable; for they that dwelt there aforetime
were of Ham.
=40.= _they ... of Ham_] i.e. Canaanites, who had long been settled
in the district (compare the security felt by the people of Laish,
Judges xviii. 27). Their presence would seem natural in _Gerar_ on the
Philistine border but strange in _Gedor_ near Hebron. If therefore the
reading _Gedor_ be preferred above, there is something to be said for
the suggestion of Macalister (p. 335) that we should here read “of
Menahem” (a change of one letter in Hebrew), some unwarlike Hebrew
family, perhaps potters.
⁴¹And these written by name came in the days of Hezekiah king
of Judah, and smote their tents, and the Meunim that were found
there, and destroyed¹ them utterly, unto this day, and dwelt in
their stead: because there was pasture there for their flocks.
⁴²And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred
men, went to mount Seir, having for their captains Pelatiah, and
Neariah, and Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi.
¹ Hebrew _devoted them_.
=41.= _written by name_] Apparently those mentioned in verses 34‒37;
but the names there are of a late character, and have perhaps been
artificially connected with the old tradition of the raiders in verses
41 ff.
_in the days of Hezekiah_] The Hebrew is ambiguous, but the clause
should probably be connected with the verb “came,” not with “written”:
the raid, not the record, was made in the days of Hezekiah.
_and the Meunim_] Here, and in 2 Chronicles xx. 1 (see note), xxvi.
7, the LXX. has Minaeans, an Arabian people who from the 8th or 9th
century B.C. or perhaps much earlier exercised great authority in South
Arabia (see _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹ II. 264). The Meunim of _the
present_ passage are to be connected with an Edomitic city or tribe
not far from Petra, south of the Dead Sea; or (so Macalister, p. 336)
are simply the people of Maon, a township near Hebron in Judah.
2 Chronicles xx. 1 (note) and xxvi. 7, Revised Version.
_destroyed them utterly_] or, as margin, =devoted them= (compare Joshua
vi. 18, 21, Revised Version). See note 2 Chronicles xx. 23.
⁴³And they smote the remnant of the Amalekites that escaped, and
dwelt there, unto this day.
=43.= _the remnant of the Amalekites_] i.e. the descendants of those
who had escaped the attacks of Saul and David (1 Samuel xiv. 48, xv.
3 ff.). They had apparently found refuge in some part of the Edomite
territory, for _mount Seir_ is a synonym for _the land of Edom_.
CHAPTER V.
=1‒10.=
THE GENEALOGY OF REUBEN.
¹And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was
the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch,
his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of
Israel; and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the
birthright.
=1.= _he defiled_] Genesis xxxv. 22, xlix. 4.
_his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph_] Compare Genesis
xlviii. 5, “Ephraim and Manasseh, even as Reuben and Simeon, shall
be mine,” words of Jacob which might be interpreted to mean that the
rights of the firstborn were to pass from Reuben and Simeon to Ephraim
and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph.
_the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright_] i.e. though
the birthright of Reuben has been given to Joseph, yet the genealogy
of Joseph is not to be given before that of Reuben. Verse 2 intimates
that, though Joseph possessed the birthright, Judah had a primacy as
supplying the royal family. In this confusion of claims the natural
order is followed and the genealogy of Reuben is given first.
²For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the
prince¹; but the birthright was Joseph’s:)
¹ Or, _leader_.
=2.= _Judah prevailed above his brethren_] Compare Genesis xlix. 8
(Jacob to Judah) “Thy father’s children shall bow down before thee.”
_the prince_] The Hebrew word is _nāgīd_. The immediate reference is to
David (Saul being virtually ignored by the Chronicler).
³the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel; Hanoch, and Pallu,
Hezron, and Carmi.
=3.= _the sons of Reuben_] The same four names (with one unimportant
variation in spelling in Authorized Version) appear Genesis xlvi. 9;
Exodus vi. 14.
_Hanoch_] the correct spelling of the familiar name _Enoch_; compare
i. 3.
_Hezron, and Carmi_] also given as sons of Judah: for Hezron, compare
ii. 5 (note); for Carmi ii. 7, iv. 1.
⁴The sons of Joel; Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei his son;
⁵Micah his son, Reaiah his son, Baal his son;
=4.= _sons of Joel_] the connection, if any, with the preceding verse
is not known.
⁶Beerah his son, whom Tilgath-pilneser² king of Assyria carried
away captive: he was prince of the Reubenites. ⁷And his brethren
by their families, when the genealogy of their generations was
reckoned; the chief, Jeiel, and Zechariah,
² In 2 Kings xv. 29, xvi. 7, _Tiglath-pileser_.
=6.= _Beerah ... captive_] The deportation of Beerah is recorded only
here, but there is no reason why the tradition should not be historical.
The information is of very slight importance in itself, but since there
is absolutely no motive to make the Chronicler invent the statement,
this is precisely the _kind_ of notice which implies that he had
some sources oral or traditional at his command outside the canonical
material (see Introduction. § 5).
_Tilgath-pilneser_] called _Tiglath-pileser_ (2 Kings xv. 29), and no
doubt identical with _Pul_ (see below, verse 26).
⁸and Bela the son of Azaz, the son of Shema, the son of Joel,
who dwelt in Aroer, even unto Nebo and Baal-meon: ⁹and eastward
he dwelt even unto the entering in of the wilderness from the
river Euphrates: because their cattle were multiplied in the
land of Gilead.
=8.= _Aroer_] now _‘Ar‘āir_, a heap of ruins near the _wādy Mojib_, i.e.
the _Arnon_ (Joshua xii. 2). According to Joshua xiii. 9‒16 it passed
from Sihon king of the Amorites into the hands of the Reubenites. See
Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵, p. 153.
_Nebo and Baal-meon_] A line drawn due north from Aroer (see last note)
passes close first to _Ma‘in_ (which may be _Baal-meon_) and then to
_Jebel Nebā_, which evidently preserves the name of Mount Nebo.
_Baal-meon_] called more correctly Beth-baal-meon Joshua xiii. 17.
¹⁰And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagrites, who
fell by their hand: and they dwelt in their tents throughout all
the _land_ east of Gilead.
=10.= _in the days of Saul_] Saul’s victory over the Ammonites (1
Samuel xi.) may have paved the way for the expansion of Israel east of
Jordan, but see also the note on verse 19.
_the Hagrites_] compare Psalms lxxxiii. 6 (Revised Version margin).
They were an Arab people. See further the note on verse 19.
_the_ land _east of Gilead_] i.e. the land between Gilead and the
Euphrates (compare verse 9). On Gilead, see note, ii. 22.
=11‒17.=
THE GENEALOGY AND SETTLEMENTS OF GAD.
¹¹And the sons of Gad dwelt over against them, in the land of
Bashan unto Salecah:
=11.= _Bashan_] the wide district extending from the Jabbok on the
south to Hermon in the north and from the Sea of Galilee on the west to
the mountains of Hauran on the east (compare verse 23). Remark that in
Numbers xxxii. 33; Deuteronomy iii. 12; Joshua xiii. 25, Gad is located
in Gilead (south of Bashan) where the Chronicler has placed Reuben.
_Salecah_] is probably represented at the present day by the ruins of
_Salkhad_ due south of the _Jebel Hauran_ and almost due east of Boṣra.
¹²Joel the chief, and Shapham the second, and Janai, and Shaphat
in Bashan: ¹³and their brethren of their fathers’ houses;
Michael, and Meshullam, and Sheba, and Jorai, and Jacan, and
Zia, and Eber, seven. ¹⁴These were the sons of Abihail the son of
Huri, the son of Jaroah, the son of Gilead, the son of Michael,
the son of Jeshishai, the son of Jahdo, the son of Buz; ¹⁵Ahi
the son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, chief of their fathers’
houses.
=12.= _and Janai, and Shaphat_] LXX. “Janin the scribe”; Targum, “Janai
the judge.”
_of their fathers’ houses_] This rather awkward phrase means clans
or patriarchal families (πατριαί). Sometimes it is used to denote the
whole tribe, compare Numbers xvii. 17.
¹⁶And they dwelt in Gilead in Bashan, and in her towns¹, and in
all the suburbs² of Sharon, as far as their borders³.
¹ Hebrew _daughters_.
² Or, _pasture lands_
³ Hebrew _goings forth_.
=16.= _in Gilead in Bashan_] a contradictory phrase, since _Gilead_
means the southern and _Bashan_ the northern part of Israel’s
trans-Jordanic territory. Perhaps _in Bashan_ is here an addition
made by the Chronicler or a later hand to harmonise _in Gilead_
(the territory usually assigned to Gad――see note on verse 11 above)
with verses 11 and 23. The emendation “in Gilead in Jabesh” has been
suggested.
_Sharon_] some place, unidentified, to the east of Jordan. LXX. (B) has
_Sirion_. (The well-known _Sharon_ lay in the maritime plain between
Joppa and Caesarea.)
¹⁷All these were reckoned by genealogies in the days of Jotham
king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel.
=17.= _reckoned by genealogies ... and in the days of Jeroboam_]
“Reckoning by genealogy” is a phrase used only in the writings of the
Chronicler (Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah), but the practice probably
resembled what is called in other books “numbering the people”: see
the example in Nehemiah vii. 5‒65. The object however was different and
corresponded with the circumstances of the returned exiles, who found
themselves in the midst of a Gentile population in Judea. The people
were “reckoned by genealogy” not so much to take a census of them,
as to inquire into the purity of their Israelite descent. The ancient
term “numbering” would be a more suitable description of a transaction
belonging to the days of Jotham. For _Jotham_ see 2 Chronicles xxvii.
and for _Jeroboam_ 2 Kings xiv. 23‒29. The last years of the reign of
Jeroboam II probably synchronized with part of the reign of Jotham.
=18‒22.=
THE WAR OF THE TRANS-JORDANIC TRIBES AGAINST ARABIAN TRIBES.
¹⁸The sons of Reuben, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of
Manasseh, of valiant men, men able to bear buckler and sword,
and to shoot with bow, and skilful in war, were forty and four
thousand seven hundred and threescore, that were able to go
forth to war.
=18.= _skilful in war_] compare xii. 8, 21.
_forty and four thousand_] According to Joshua iv. 13 “about forty
thousand” from these tribes crossed the Jordan with Joshua.
¹⁹And they made war with the Hagrites, with Jetur, and Naphish,
and Nodab.
=19.= _made war with the Hagrites..._] Possibly this war described
in verses 18‒22 is only a midrashic variation of the war briefly
noted in verse 10; possibly we have traditions of separate conflicts.
That fighting against Arabian tribes took place in the time of Saul
(verse 10) is quite probable, and perhaps there is here a definite
recollection of the fact. Yet conflicts on the eastern borders were no
doubt frequent, and the ancient fights may have been overlaid with the
memories and details of more recent struggles, and especially the names
assigned may be those of later foes. Though the Hagrites are mentioned
in inscriptions of Sennacherib, they seem to have grown more prominent
and powerful in later days (compare Psalms lxxxiii. 7), and their name
in the Chronicler’s time may have been somewhat loosely and generally
applied to the Arabian tribes near Palestine.
_Jetur, and Naphish, and Nodab_] Other Bedouin tribes, _Jetur_,
_Naphish_, _Kedemah_ are given as sons of Ishmael in i. 31.
²⁰And they were helped against them, and the Hagrites were
delivered into their hand, and all that were with them: for
they cried to God in the battle, and he was intreated of them;
because they put their trust in him. ²¹And they took away their
cattle; of their camels fifty thousand, and of sheep two hundred
and fifty thousand, and of asses two thousand, and of men¹ an
hundred thousand.
¹ Hebrew _souls of men_.
=20.= _they were helped_] with Divine assistance; compare xv. 26.
²²For there fell many slain, because the war was of God. And
they dwelt in their stead until the captivity.
=22.= _was of God_] i.e. was prompted by God; compare 1 Samuel xv. 2, 3.
=23, 24.=
THE HALF TRIBE OF MANASSEH.
²³And the children of the half tribe of Manasseh dwelt in
the land: they increased from Bashan unto Baal-hermon and
Senir and mount Hermon. ²⁴And these were the heads of their
fathers’ houses; even Epher, and Ishi, and Eliel, and Azriel,
and Jeremiah, and Hodaviah, and Jahdiel, mighty men of valour,
famous men, heads of their fathers’ houses.
=23.= For the genealogy of Manasseh, see vii. 14 ff.
_Baal-hermon_] In Judges iii. 3 a mount Baal-hermon is mentioned. Here
probably a city is meant, possibly _Banias_, on the eastern slope of
Hermon.
_Senir_] an Amorite name for Mt Hermon or a peak of the range
(Deuteronomy iii. 9).
=25, 26.=
THE CAPTIVITY OF THE TRANS-JORDANIC TRIBES.
²⁵And they trespassed against the God of their fathers, and
went a whoring after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom
God destroyed before them.
=25.= _they trespassed_] The Hebrew verb has a special reference
to unlawful or idolatrous worship and also to the violation of a
consecrated thing; compare Joshua xxii. 16, 20, 31.
²⁶And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of
Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and
he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and
the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and
Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan, unto this day.
=26.= _stirred up the spirit_] Compare 2 Chronicles xxi. 16, where see
note; xxxvi. 22.
_Pul ... and ... Tilgath-pilneser_] Both here and in 2 Kings xv. 19,
29 (_Pul ... Tiglath-pileser_) the two names are used as though two
different persons were meant, but there is no doubt that _Pul_ is the
earlier and _Tiglath-pileser_ the royal name of the same king; compare
verse 6.
_unto Halah_, etc.] In 2 Kings xv. 29 it is said only, _to Assyria_; in
2 Kings xvii. 6 it is said that the _Western_ tribes (“Samaria”) were
carried away and placed _in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan
and in the cities of the Medes_.
_Halah_] probably a district of Mesopotamia, but it has not yet been
convincingly identified.
_Habor_] a river flowing into the Euphrates from the east, known to the
Greeks as Χαβώρας or Ἀβόρρας.
_and Hara_] No place of this name is known and the word is omitted in
LXX. The reading may be corrupt for _and in the cities of the Medes_
(2 Kings xvii. 6, compare LXX.; xviii. 11).
_the river of Gozan_] Gozan was a district of Mesopotamia.
CHAPTER VI.
=1‒81= (= v. 27‒vi. 66 according to the Hebrew division).
GENEALOGIES AND SETTLEMENTS OF LEVI.
=1‒15.=
THE SONS OF LEVI, AND THE HIGH-PRIESTS TO THE CAPTIVITY.
The identity of interests and standpoint between the Chronicler and
the Levitical order has been noted in the Introduction § 6 _ad fin._ It
follows that the contents of the present chapter were to him of primary
importance, and doubtless these lists represent not his own view only
but the developed and accepted opinion of the Levitical and priestly
classes as a whole, who believed that their institution, duties,
and privileges generally were of Mosaic origin, whilst to David they
ascribed the particular arrangements in connection with the Temple
and especially the development of the choral services. The attempt
to express their faith in concrete genealogical form was inevitable
and indeed commendable. But the actual facts regarding the growth
of the Levitical system (see the Additional Note at the end of this
chapter, pp. 51 f.) were so very different from this theory that the
artificiality of the lists is apparent to modern analysis, despite
the zeal and ingenuity with which they have been compiled. Some points
which indicate the unhistorical nature of the genealogies, together
with questions raised by the internal structure of the chapter, will
be indicated in the head-notes to the several sections. It must not
be thought that such inconsistencies were equally (if at all) present
to the mind of the Chronicler. For him the actual existence of the
pedigree uniting the priests and Levites of his day with Aaron and
finally with Levi was an axiom of thought; the _one_ problem was to
trace it out: and he was not restrained in his search by the spirit of
scientific caution which is second nature to us. Thus in the ancestry
of the singers (verses 34‒47), where the lack of information to supply
the necessary links in the genealogy was acutely felt, Curtis (p. 135)
points out that current genealogical matter seems to have been naïvely
pressed into this particular service on the ground of the identity of
even a single name! Great allowance must be made for the Chronicler
and his contemporaries. Even if part of the lists was _consciously_
fabricated, that proves no more than that he was a man of his age and
under the dominance of a theory. As Torrey remarks (_Ezra Studies_,
p. 65), “he was not writing history for us but for the good of his
people.” There is no case for a charge of religious insincerity. Rather
the opposite is true, and his failings as a historian constantly reveal
the measure of his faith as a religious man. He was so profoundly
sure of the truth of the doctrine that its presuppositions, if not
discoverable in historical records, might (he felt) legitimately be
conjectured. For further information showing how natural and how free
was the manipulation of genealogies in ancient times reference may
be made to the _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹, s.v. _Genealogy_, or to
MᶜLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_ (2nd series, 1896), chapter ix.
=1‒15.= In the finished system of the Jewish hierarchy, the Levitical
order is found to be in three main divisions, “families,” who in
the prevailing fashion, believed themselves to be descended from the
sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. In verses 1‒3 this view is
expressed, and the connection is traced from Levi to Aaron, the first
of the traditional line of high-priests, which in verses 4‒15 is given
through Zadok down to the time of the Captivity. (1) The intention of
the list in verses 4‒15 is clear. It is given to declare the legitimacy
of Jehozadak the high-priest who went into exile at the fall of
Jerusalem and was accounted the father of Jeshua the high-priest of the
Return (see Ezra iii. 2, etc.; Nehemiah xii. 26; Haggai i. 1; Zechariah
vi. 11). Thus upon Jehozadak’s legitimacy depended the legitimacy of
the post-exilic priesthood of Jerusalem. (2) The mechanical nature
of the list is very evident when it is considered chronologically.
Allowing the standard 40 years for each of the twenty-three priests
in the list we get 40 × 12 + 40 × 11 = 920 years. This is in agreement
with the unhistorical but beautifully regular chronology of the
Priestly conception of the history, which allowed 480 years from
the Exodus (Aaron) to Solomon’s Temple, and again 480 years to the
foundation of the second Temple (Jeshua)――the Captivity (Jehozadak)
being reckoned as taking place in the _eleventh_ generation of the
second period. (3) The list presents some noteworthy features. The line
of high-priests from Eli to Abiathar is ignored, but this is natural,
since the ascendancy of the Zadokite line was ascribed to the Divine
anger against the house of Eli (1 Samuel iii. 12‒14; 1 Kings ii. 27).
It is curious, however, that this list of the high-priests omits
Jehoiada (mentioned in 2 Kings xi. 9; 2 Chronicles xxii. 11) and
Urijah (2 Kings xvi. 11 ff.) and an Azariah in the reign of Uzziah (2
Chronicles xxvi. 20) who should come between Amariah of Jehoshaphat’s
reign and Hilkiah in the time of Josiah. (4) Finally note that the
list of high-priests as far as the reign of David is repeated in verses
50‒53. It is a very difficult problem to determine the relation between
the two lists (see the head-note to verse 50).
¹The sons of Levi; Gershon¹, Kohath, and Merari.
¹ In verse 16, _Gershom_.
=1.= _The sons of Levi_] So Genesis xlvi. 11; Exodus vi. 16; Numbers
iii. 17, xxvi. 57――all from P.
²And the sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel.
=2.= _the sons of Kohath_] So Exodus vi. 18; Numbers iii. 19.
³And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. And
the sons of Aaron; Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
=3.= _Aaron, and Moses_] The same order in Exodus vi. 20. Aaron was the
elder (Exodus vii. 7).
_And the sons of Aaron_] So Exodus vi. 23. Nadab and Abihu perished
childless; Leviticus x. 1 ff.
⁴Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua; ⁵and Abishua
begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi; ⁶and Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and
Zerahiah begat Meraioth; ⁷Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah
begat Ahitub;
=4.= _Phinehas_] Numbers xxv. 7 ff., xxxi. 6; Joshua xxii. 13 ff.
⁸and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz;
=8.= _Ahitub begat Zadok_] So also xviii. 16, but wrongly. The
assertion that Ahitub was father of Zadok was derived by the Chronicler
from 2 Samuel viii. 17, but the text of that passage has undoubtedly
been altered (see Commentaries _ad loc._) and it read originally “and
Zadok, and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub.” Actually
there were two leading priestly families in David’s day represented
respectively by Zadok and Abiathar. Of these Solomon deposed Abiathar
(thus fulfilling the curse which was laid on the house of Eli, from
whom Abiathar was descended――see 1 Kings ii. 27), and thereafter the
line of Zadok became the sole representatives of the supreme priestly
office. See also the note on xv. 11.
_Ahimaaz_] 2 Samuel xv. 27, xvii. 17‒21, xviii. 19 ff.
⁹and Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan; ¹⁰and
Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest’s
office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)
=9.= _Azariah_] This Azariah rather than the Azariah of verse 10 would
have been contemporary with Solomon, and therefore the notice attached
to the name Azariah in verse 10 (_he it is that executed the priest’s
office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem_) belongs to verse
9. Compare 1 Kings iv. 2.
¹¹and Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub; ¹²and
Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum¹;
¹ In chapter ix. 11, _Meshullam_.
=11.= _Amariah_] apparently the contemporary of Jehoshaphat mentioned
in 2 Chronicles xix. 11.
¹³and Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah;
=13.= _Hilkiah_] The high-priest in Josiah’s reign; 2 Kings xxii. 8; 2
Chronicles xxxiv. 14.
¹⁴and Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak; ¹⁵and
Jehozadak went _into captivity_, when the LORD carried away
Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.
=14.= _Seraiah_] slain soon after the capture of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.;
2 Kings xxv. 18‒21; Jeremiah lii. 24‒27.
_Jehozadak_] _Jozadak_ in Ezra iii. 2, v. 2. His son Jeshua was the
first high-priest after the exile; Haggai i. 1, etc.
=16‒30= (= vi. 1‒15 according to the Hebrew division).
THE THREE SONS OF LEVI AND THEIR CLANS.
=16‒19.=
THE SONS OF LEVI.
¹⁶The sons of Levi; Gershom¹, Kohath, and Merari.
¹ In verse 1, _Gershon_.
=16.= _Gershom_] elsewhere _Gershon_. _Gershom_ was the name of Moses’
son; Exodus ii. 22.
¹⁷And these be the names of the sons of Gershom; Libni and
Shimei.
=17.= _Libni and Shimei_] Exodus vi. 17; _Libni_ is called _Ladan_
in xxiii. 7, xxvi. 21, and is to be connected with the Judean town
_Libnah_.
¹⁸And the sons of Kohath were Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and
Uzziel.
=18.= _Amram_] through whom the line of high-priests is traced above,
verse 2 ff.
¹⁹The sons of Merari; Mahli and Mushi. And these are the
families of the Levites according to their fathers’ _houses_.
=19.= _Mahli and Mushi_] xxiii. 21, xxiv. 26; Exodus vi. 19. Mushi
is probably a derivative of Moses. For discussion of this point and
of other evidence (compare verses 16, 17) indicating a relationship
between the Levites and clans from south Judah, see _Encyclopedia
Britannica_¹¹, s.v. _Levites_, vol. xvi. p. 513.
=20, 21.=
A PEDIGREE FROM GERSHOM.
²⁰Of Gershom; Libni his son, Jahath his son, Zimmah his son;
²¹Joah¹ his son, Iddo² his son, Zerah his son, Jeatherai³ his
son.
¹ In verse 42, _Ethan_.
² In verse 41, _Adaiah_.
³ In verse 41, _Ethni_.
=20, 21.= See notes on verses 39‒43.
=22‒28.=
THE SONS OF KOHATH TO SAMUEL.
=22‒28.= See notes on verses 33‒38.
²²The sons of Kohath; Amminadab¹ his son, Korah his son, Assir
his son;
¹ In verse 2, 18, 38, _Izhar_.
=22.= _Amminadab_] In Exodus vi. 23, the father-in-law of Aaron.
Perhaps an error here for _Izhar_ (LXX.ᴬ), through whom the line is
traced in verse 38, as in Numbers xvi. 1.
²³Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son, and Assir his son;
=23.= _Assir his son; Elkanah_] perhaps redundant here, or omitted in
verse 37, where Ebiasaph is the son of Korah.
²⁴Tahath his son, Uriel¹ his son, Uzziah his son, and Shaul his
son. ²⁵And the sons of Elkanah; Amasai, and Ahimoth.
¹ In verse 36, _Zephaniah_, _Azariah_, _Joel_.
=24.= _Shaul_] apparently corresponds with Joel, verse 36. The
difference in Hebrew is slight, and might easily arise in transcription.
Shaul is to be taken as father of Elkanah (compare verse 36), although
the connection is strangely omitted.
²⁶As for Elkanah: the sons of Elkanah; Zophai¹ his son, and
Nahath² his son;
¹ In verse 35, _Zuph_.
² In verse 34, _Toah_.
=26.= _As for Elkanah: the sons of Elkanah; Zophai his son_] Read
simply, following LXX., =Elkanah his son; Zophai his son=.
_Zophai_] From _Zophai_ to Samuel’s sons the list can be compared
not only with verses 33‒35 but with 1 Samuel i. 1 and with viii. 2.
Such differences as appear in corresponding names are doubtless due to
transcriptional errors.
²⁷Eliab¹ his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son.
¹ In verse 34, _Eliel_.
=27.= _Elkanah his son_] add probably, =Samuel his son=.
²⁸And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn _Joel_¹, and the second
Abijah.
¹ So the Syriac. See verse 33, and 1 Samuel viii. 2. The
Hebrew text has, _Vashni_, _and Abiah_.
=28.= _the firstborn_ Joel, _and the second Abijah_] See the marginal
note above. In the Hebrew text the name _Joel_ has been accidentally
omitted, and _Vashni_ is merely a corruption of the Hebrew for _and the
second_: an interesting example of error in textual transmission.
=29, 30.=
SONS OF MERARI.
²⁹The sons of Merari; Mahli, Libni his son, Shimei his son,
Uzzah his son; ³⁰Shimea his son, Haggiah his son, Asaiah his son.
=29, 30.= See notes on verses 44‒47.
=29.= _Libni_ and _Shimei_ are given above (verse 17) as sons of
Gershom.
=31‒47= (= 16‒32 in the Hebrew division).
THE SINGERS APPOINTED BY DAVID, AND THEIR ANCESTRY.
=31‒47.= The three singers, _Heman_, _Asaph_, and _Ethan_ (= _Jeduthun_
elsewhere except xv. 17 ff.) were the reputed founders of the three
choral guilds of the post-exilic period. That these guilds were
very gradually formed and in the form known to the Chronicler were
a late post-exilic development is certain, but the precise stages
of their growth are obscure, see Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_
IV. 36 end‒37. Possibly the singers for a considerable time were not
necessarily Levites, but eventually they all claimed Levitical origin,
and the pedigrees here given are the supposed justification of the
claim. As the elaborated system of the Temple service (xxiii. ff.)
was thought to have been instituted by David, the genealogies of
the three singers are so arranged as to make them contemporaries of
David. Comparing these verses with verses 4‒15, it is evident that the
genealogy from Korah has been used for constructing the pedigree of
Heman (33‒38), that of Gershom (20‒22) for Asaph (39‒43), and to a less
extent that of Merari (29, 30) for Ethan (44‒47). But in the line of
Gershom and in that of Merari further names were required, five in the
former and eight in the latter case, in order to make the genealogies
sufficiently long to reach down to the time of David and thus make
Asaph and Ethan his contemporaries. When these further names are
examined they are found to be of a definitely post-exilic character;
and it is evident that the Chronicler or whoever constructed the
pedigrees utilised recent genealogies of the singers, which for some
reason seemed to him suitable. The identity of a single name in the two
lists was apparently deemed sufficient cause for making the connection
(see note on verses 44‒47).
³¹And these are they whom David set over the service of song
in the house of the LORD, after that the ark had rest.
=31.= _the ark had rest_] i.e. was brought into the city of David for a
permanent resting-place, compare Psalms cxxxii. 8, 14.
³²And they ministered with song before the tabernacle of the
tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of the LORD
in Jerusalem: and they waited¹ on their office according to
their order.
¹ Hebrew _stood_.
=32.= _they waited ... order_] a phrase characteristic of the
Chronicler. For _waited_ render rather, as margin, =stood= (compare
Psalms cxxxv. 2): i.e. Heman the leader stood in the central position,
Asaph on his right hand (verse 39) and Ethan on his left (verse 44).
=33‒38.=
THE DESCENT OF HEMAN, DAVID’S SINGER,
THROUGH KOHATH FROM LEVI.
³³And these are they that waited¹, and their sons. Of the sons
of the Kohathites: Heman the singer, the son of Joel, the son
of Samuel; ³⁴the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of
Eliel, the son of Toah²; ³⁵the son of Zuph³, the son of Elkanah,
the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai; ³⁶the son of Elkanah, the
son of Joel⁴, the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah;
¹ Hebrew _stood_.
² In verse 26, _Nahath_.
³ In verse 26, _Zophai_.
⁴ In verse 24, _Shaul_, _Uzziah_, _Uriel_.
=33.= _Heman_] the guild of Heman, as the present pedigree indicates,
is reckoned (with what measure of historical ground is uncertain) to
be of Levitical descent and of the Kohathite family: see also _Korah_
below, verse 37.
³⁷the son of Tahath, the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the
son of Korah;
=37.= _Korah_] the sons of Korah figure in the titles of various Psalms
(e.g. Psalms 44‒49, 84, 85) and probably represent an earlier stage
in the development of choral worship of the Temple. With this Korahite
guild the guild of Heman evidently was associated, though whether by a
process of development or of amalgamation it is impossible to say. It
is noteworthy that other references to Korah (compare Genesis xxxvi. 5;
1 Chronicles ii. 43) indicate that the clan was originally of Edomite
(Calebite) blood.
³⁸the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son
of Israel.
=38.= _Izhar_] see note on Amminadab, verse 22.
=39‒43.=
THE DESCENT OF ASAPH, DAVID’S SINGER,
THROUGH GERSHOM FROM LEVI.
³⁹And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, even Asaph
the son of Berechiah, the son of Shimea; ⁴⁰the son of Michael,
the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchijah;
=39, 40.= _Berechiah ... Shimea ... Michael ... Baaseiah ...
Malchijah_] these are the five additional names inserted to lengthen
the pedigree and so make Asaph contemporary with David (see head-note
above).
=40.= _Baaseiah_] Read, as LXX., =Maaseiah=.
⁴¹the son of Ethni, the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah; ⁴²the
son of Ethan, the son of Zimmah, the son of Shimei; ⁴³the son of
Jahath, the son of Gershom, the son of Levi.
=41.= _Ethni_] = Jeatherai, verse 21. Here, and in the following
names, the divergences from the corresponding names in verses 20, 21
are not nearly so great in Hebrew and can be easily accounted for.
The correspondence fails in the case of the son and father of Jahath
(compare verse 20 with 43). This however may be due simply to the
omission of the names in question, Shimei in 20, Libni in 43; and other
explanations could be given.
=44‒47.=
THE DESCENT OF ETHAN, DAVID’S SINGER,
THROUGH MERARI FROM LEVI.
⁴⁴And on the left hand their brethren the sons of Merari: Ethan¹
the son of Kishi², the son of Abdi, the son of Malluch; ⁴⁵the
son of Hashabiah, the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah; ⁴⁶the
son of Amzi, the son of Bani, the son of Shemer;
¹ In chapter ix. 16, _Jeduthun_.
² In chapter xv. 17, _Kushaiah_.
=44‒47.= Only the first three names of the table of Merari in verse 29
are used by the compiler of Ethan’s pedigree. In place of the last four
names he utilised a late list of nine names, the point of connection
being found in the first, _Shemer_ (verse 46), which was identified
with the _Shimei_ of verse 29.
_Ethan_] = Jeduthun: see note on xvi. 41.
⁴⁷the son of Mahli, the son of Mushi, the son of Merari, the son
of Levi.
=47.= _Mahli, the son of Mushi_] According to xxiii. 23, xxiv. 30,
Mushi had a son Mahli, named after Mahli, his brother (verse 19);
and the natural conclusion is that the names in these verses (44‒47)
are the line of descent from Merari through Mushi, as those in verses
29, 30 are through Mahli. Against this simple explanation is the late
character of several names from Kishi to Bani (44‒46), and therefore
the more complex statement made in the previous note may be correct.
=48, 49= (= 33, 34 according to the Hebrew division).
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEVITES AND AARONITES.
⁴⁸And their brethren the Levites were appointed¹ for all the
service of the tabernacle of the house of God.
¹ Hebrew _given_. See Numbers iii. 9.
=48.= _their brethren the Levites_] i.e. other Levites, who were
neither singers nor priests.
_appointed_] Hebrew, as margin, =given=, in allusion to Numbers iii. 9,
xviii. 6.
⁴⁹But Aaron and his sons offered¹ upon the altar of burnt
offering, and upon the altar of incense, for all the work of the
most holy place, and to make atonement for Israel, according to
all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.
¹ Or, _burnt incense_.
=49.= _Aaron and his sons_] i.e. the priests as opposed to the
Levites, in accordance with the distinction characteristic of the
later legislation. See the Additional Note, pp. 51, 52.
_the altar of burnt offering_] Exodus xxvii. 1‒8.
_the altar of incense_] Exodus xxx. 1‒10.
_to make atonement_] compare Leviticus iv. 31, xvi.; 2 Chronicles
xxix. 24.
=50‒53= (= 35‒38 according to the Hebrew division).
THE LINE OF AARON TO AHIMAAZ.
⁵⁰And these are the sons of Aaron; Eleazar his son, Phinehas his
son, Abishua his son; ⁵¹Bukki his son, Uzzi his son, Zerahiah
his son; ⁵²Meraioth his son, Amariah his son, Ahitub his son;
⁵³Zadok his son, Ahimaaz his son.
This is a fragment, slightly changed in wording, of the genealogy
given in verses 4‒14. It goes as far as the reign of David. Some
writers maintain that verses 4‒14 are an interpolation in the text
of Chronicles, and that the present passage is the primary list of
high-priests. But the arguments in favour of that view seem to the
present writer outweighed by the two considerations adduced by Curtis,
_Chronicles_, p. 127: (1) “that a list of high-priests thus inserted
between verse 49 (the duties of all the sons of Aaron) and verses
54 ff. (the cities of all the Aaronidae), seems out of place,” as it
breaks the thread of the Chronicler’s arrangement of the material; and
(2) that its insertion might well be due to a scribe who “expected a
list of the sons of Aaron after the verse describing their duties――just
as the list of Levites precedes the verse detailing their duties.”
=54‒81= (= 39‒66 according to the Hebrew division).
THE FORTY-EIGHT LEVITIC CITIES.
This section has been adopted with some rearrangement from the parallel
passage in Joshua. In Joshua the number of cities taken from each group
of tribes and given to its respective division of the Levites is first
stated, no city being named; and next the names of the cities are given
under each division of the Levites and under the name of the tribe
from which the cities were taken. In Chronicles the cities given to the
Aaronites are first mentioned by name and reckoned to be thirteen in
number (verses 55‒60); next the cities given to each remaining division
of the Levites are reckoned shortly by number only (verses 61‒63);
lastly, these cities are separately reckoned at length by name only
(verses 66‒81). This rearrangement is not happy; perhaps the Chronicler
originally intended to give the Aaronite cities only by name as well as
number, and so verses 66‒81 (containing the names of the non-Aaronite
cities) may be a supplement to the original text. Notice that no names
of cities taken from Simeon are given; but this apparently arises
through the Chronicler’s rearrangement of the parallel passage in
Joshua; for verse 65, which here follows the list of Aaronite cities,
mentions Simeon, and in the original context (Joshua xxi. 9) it
_precedes_ the list.
(CRITICAL NOTE ON =54‒81=.)
The text of the passage has suffered in transcription. In verses 55‒60
eleven names are given, but thirteen are reckoned (verse 60), the
explanation being that the names _Juttah_ and _Gibeon_ (Joshua xxi. 16,
17) have fallen out. In verse 61, after or before _Manasseh_, the names
of _Ephraim_ and _Dan_ have fallen out (compare verse 66 and Joshua xxi.
5); Manasseh contributed only two out of the ten cities. Before verse
69 we must restore from Joshua xxi. 23 the words, _And out of the tribe
of Dan, Eltekeh with her suburbs, Gibbethon with her suburbs_. In verse
77 or immediately before verse 78 two names of cities of Zebulun have
fallen out; compare verse 63 (“twelve cities”) with verses 77‒81 (ten
cities only are named).
=54‒60= (= Joshua xxi. 10‒19).
THE [THIRTEEN] CITIES OF THE AARONITES.
⁵⁴Now these are their dwelling places according to their
encampments in their borders: to the sons of Aaron, of the
families of the Kohathites, for theirs was the _first_ lot,
=54.= _Now these ... borders_] the words are supplied by the Chronicler.
Owing to his rearrangement of the material, the original introduction
(i.e. Joshua xxi. 9) appears in this chapter as verse 65 (where see
note).
_encampments_] Properly, the circular encampments of a nomadic tribe;
here used more freely = habitations.
⁵⁵to them they gave Hebron in the land of Judah, and the suburbs
thereof round about it;
=55.= _suburbs_] compare xiii. 2, note.
⁵⁶but the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they
gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
=56.= _to Caleb_] Joshua xxi. 12; Judges i. 20.
⁵⁷And to the sons of Aaron they gave the cities of refuge,
Hebron; Libnah also with her suburbs, and Jattir, and Eshtemoa
with her suburbs;
=57.= _the cities of refuge, Hebron_] Read, =the city of refuge, Hebron=
(compare Joshua xxi. 13), Hebron being the only city of refuge here
mentioned (Joshua xx. 7).
_Libnah_] in the south-west of Judah, Joshua x. 29; 2 Kings viii. 22,
xix. 8.
_Eshtemoa_] the modern es-Semu‘a, south of Hebron. Compare iv. 17.
⁵⁸and Hilen¹ with her suburbs, Debir with her suburbs;
¹ In Joshua xxi. 15, _Holon_.
=58.= _Hilen_] In Joshua xxi. 15, _Holon_.
_Debir_] identified with modern Dāharījeh, south-west of Hebron. It
is called _Kiriath-sepher_ (Judges i. 11) and _Kiriath-sannah_ (Joshua
xv. 49).
⁵⁹and Ashan¹ with her suburbs, and Beth-shemesh with her suburbs:
¹ In Joshua xxi. 16, _Ain_.
=59.= _Ashan with her suburbs_] Joshua xxi. 16 has _Ain_ for _Ashan_,
and adds, _and Juttah with her suburbs_. Compare the Critical Note
above.
_Beth-shemesh_] Joshua xv. 10; 1 Samuel vi. 9; 2 Kings xiv. 11, 13
(= 2 Chronicles xxv. 21, 23). A town in the north-west of Judah, now
_‘Ain Shems_, situated at the point at which the hill-country of Judah
begins, as one goes by the railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem (Bädeker,
_Palestine_⁵, p. 14).
⁶⁰and out of the tribe of Benjamin; Geba with her suburbs, and
Allemeth³ with her suburbs, and Anathoth with her suburbs. All
their cities throughout their families were thirteen cities.
³ In Joshua xxi. 18, _Almon_.
=60.= _of Benjamin; Geba_] In Joshua xxi. 17 _Gibeon and her suburbs_
is inserted before _Geba_. Compare the Critical Note above. Geba was
situated by the pass of Michmash, some six miles from Jerusalem;
compare 1 Samuel vi. 9 ff.
_Allemeth_] In Joshua xxi. 18, _Almon_.
_thirteen cities_] Compare the Critical Note above.
=61‒65= (compare Joshua xxi. 26, 33, 40).
DISTRIBUTION OF THIRTY-FIVE OTHER CITIES
TO THE REST OF THE LEVITES.
⁶¹And unto the rest of the sons of Kohath _were given_ by lot,
out of the family of the tribe, out of the half tribe, the half
of Manasseh, ten cities.
=61.= _the rest of the sons of Kohath_] i.e. the Kohathites who were
not _sons of Aaron_ (verse 54).
_out of the family ... Manasseh_] read =out of the families of the
tribe of Ephraim and out of the tribe of Dan and out of the half tribe
of Manasseh=. See the Critical Note on verses 54‒81.
⁶²And to the sons of Gershom, according to their families, out
of the tribe of Issachar, and out of the tribe of Asher, and out
of the tribe of Naphtali, and out of the tribe of Manasseh in
Bashan, thirteen cities.
=62.= _the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan_] i.e. the half tribe of
Manasseh beyond Jordan.
⁶³Unto the sons of Merari _were given_ by lot, according to
their families, out of the tribe of Reuben, and out of the tribe
of Gad, and out of the tribe of Zebulun, twelve cities. ⁶⁴And
the children of Israel gave to the Levites the cities with their
suburbs.
=63.= _twelve cities_] The total number of Levitic cities (verse
60 thirteen, verse 61 ten, verse 62 thirteen, verse 63 twelve) was
forty-eight (so Joshua xxi. 41), of which the Kohathites, as the
largest division (compare xv. 5, note), received twenty-three or nearly
half.
⁶⁵And they gave by lot out of the tribe of the children of Judah,
and out of the tribe of the children of Simeon, and out of the
tribe of the children of Benjamin, these cities which are
mentioned by name.
=65.= _by lot_] as a means of gaining Divine sanction for the
assignment of cities. This verse (= Joshua xxi. 9) is plainly
unsuitable in its present context. In Joshua it is the introduction
to the list of Aaronic cities (here verses 54‒60). The Chronicler,
having rearranged the material of his source, nevertheless preferred
to transcribe this verse, despite the lack of harmony with the context;
or possibly, if verses 66‒81 are an addition to the original text of
Chronicles (see the head-note on verses 54‒81), verse 65 may also be
a later insertion intended to help as a connecting link between verses
64 and 66 ff.
=66‒81.=
CITIES OF THE LEVITES.
=66‒70= (= Joshua xxi. 20‒25).
THE [TEN] CITIES OF THE NON-AARONITE KOHATHITES.
⁶⁶And some of the families of the sons of Kohath had cities of
their borders out of the tribe of Ephraim.
=66.= _of their borders_] rather, as Joshua xxi. 20, =of their lot=
(the difference in Hebrew is very slight).
⁶⁷And they gave unto them the cities of refuge, Shechem in the
hill country of Ephraim with her suburbs; Gezer also with her
suburbs;
=67.= _the cities of refuge, Shechem_] Read (a slight change in Hebrew)
=the city of refuge, Shechem=. Compare verse 57, note.
_Shechem_] Genesis xii. 6, xxxiii. 18; Joshua xxiv. 1; Judges ix. 1;
1 Kings xii. 1. Shechem is the modern Nabulus, situated almost in the
middle of Palestine.
_Gezer_] Joshua xvi. 3; Judges i. 29; 1 Kings ix. 16. It is the
modern Tell Jezer about 18 miles north-west of Jerusalem. The site
has recently been excavated with excellent results――see Macalister,
_The Excavation of Gezer_, or Driver, _Modern Research Illustrating
the Bible_ (Schweich Lectures, 1908).
⁶⁸and¹ Jokmeam with her suburbs, and Beth-horon with her suburbs;
¹ See Joshua xxi. 22‒39, where some of the names are different.
=68.= _Jokmeam_] In Joshua xxi. 22, _Kibzaim_. The two words resemble
one another more closely in Hebrew, and are to be taken as various
readings of the same name. Nothing is known of a _Kibzaim_ in Ephraim.
A _Jokmeam_ is mentioned 1 Kings iv. 12.
_Beth-horon_] Joshua x. 10, 11, xvi. 3, 5; 1 Maccabees iii. 24. There
were two cities, a lower and an upper Beth-horon, the modern _Beitur_,
“near the head and the foot respectively of the ascent from the
Maritime Plain to the plateau of Benjamin.”
⁶⁹and Aijalon with her suburbs, and Gath-rimmon with her suburbs:
=69.= _and Aijalon_] _Aijalon_ and _Gath-rimmon_ were in Dan near the
Jaffa road some 13 miles from Jerusalem; compare Joshua xxi. 23, 24.
See also the Critical Note on verses 54‒81.
⁷⁰and out of the half tribe of Manasseh; Aner with her suburbs,
and Bileam with her suburbs, for the rest of the family of the
sons of Kohath.
=70.= _the half tribe of Manasseh_] the western half tribe; the eastern
is mentioned verse 71.
_Aner_] Read probably =Taanach=, as in vii. 29; Joshua xxi. 25; Judges
v. 19. Taanach was situated in the plain of Esdraelon, some four miles
south of Megiddo.
_Bileam_] read =Ibleam=, compare Judges i. 27; 2 Kings ix. 27. In
Joshua xxi. 25, _Gath-rimmon_, an error of dittography.
_for the rest ... Kohath_] a fragment of Joshua xxi. 26.
=71‒76= (= Joshua xxi. 27‒32).
THE THIRTEEN CITIES OF THE SONS OF GERSHOM.
⁷¹Unto the sons of Gershom _were given_, out of the family of
the half tribe of Manasseh, Golan in Bashan with her suburbs,
and Ashtaroth with her suburbs:
=71.= _Golan_] a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 27. The name of this city
is still preserved in _Jolan_ (_Jaulan_), the name of a district east
of Jordan extending from Hermon to the Jarmuk.
_Ashtaroth_] mentioned with Edrei in Joshua ix. 10 as the capital of
Og, king of Bashan. The name testifies to the worship of Ashtoreth.
⁷²and out of the tribe of Issachar; Kedesh with her suburbs,
Daberath with her suburbs;
=72.= Kedesh] Read =Kishion= with Joshua xxi. 28 (so Joshua xix. 20).
_Daberath_] the modern Dabūriyeh at the foot of Mount Tabor.
⁷³and Ramoth with her suburbs, and Anem with her suburbs:
=73.= _Ramoth_] _Jarmuth_, Joshua xxi. 29; or perhaps _Remeth_, Joshua
xix. 21.
_Anem_] Read =En-gannim= with Joshua xxi. 29. Probably the modern large
village of _Jenîn_ on the edge of the plain of Esdraelon.
⁷⁴and out of the tribe of Asher; Mashal with her suburbs, and
Abdon with her suburbs;
=74.= _Mashal_] _Mishal_, Joshua xxi. 30 (compare Joshua xix. 26,
Revised Version).
⁷⁵and Hukok with her suburbs, and Rehob with her suburbs:
=75.= _Hukok_] Read =Helkath= with Joshua xxi. 31 (compare Joshua xix.
25).
⁷⁶and out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her
suburbs, and Hammon with her suburbs, and Kiriathaim with her
suburbs.
=76.= _Kedesh in Galilee_] called _Kedesh-naphtali_ in Judges iv. 6;
it is the modern _Kedes_, situated on a lofty plateau overlooking the
waters of _Ḥūleh_ (_Merom_). It was a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 32.
_Hammon ... Kiriathaim_] In Joshua xxi. 32, _Hammoth-dor ... Kartan_.
=77‒81= (= Joshua xxi. 34‒39).
THE [TWELVE] CITIES OF THE SONS OF MERARI.
⁷⁷Unto the rest of _the Levites_, the sons of Merari, _were
given_, out of the tribe of Zebulun, Rimmono with her suburbs,
Tabor with her suburbs:
=77.= _Rimmono ... Tabor_] Read =Rimmon= or =Rimmonah=. Against these
two names there are four in Joshua xxi. 34, 35; _Jokneam_, _Kartah_,
_Dimnah_ and _Nahalal_. As regards the number of the cities the text
of Joshua is certainly right. See Critical Note on verses 54‒81.
_Tabor_] No city, but only a mountain named _Tabor_ is known to us, as
having certainly existed in Old Testament times. A city however named
_Tabor_ existed on the mountain as early as 218 B.C., and it may have
been as old as the times of the Chronicler. Mount Tabor was in Issachar
near the border of Zebulun. For _Nahalal_, the reading in Joshua,
compare Joshua xix. 15; Judges i. 30. Compare Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵,
p. 250.
⁷⁸and beyond the Jordan at Jericho, on the east side of Jordan,
_were given them_, out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer in the
wilderness with her suburbs, and Jahzah with her suburbs, ⁷⁹and
Kedemoth with her suburbs, and Mephaath with her suburbs:
=78.= _at Jericho_] The crossing-place of the Jordan nearest to Reuben
was at Jericho. For the phrase _Jordan at Jericho_ compare Joshua xvi.
1.
_in the wilderness_] further defined by the addition _in the
table-land_ (Deuteronomy iv. 43, Revised Version margin). Bezer was
among the high pasture lands of Reuben. It was a city of refuge.
_Jahzah_] also called _Jahaz_. Compare Judges xi. 20; Isaiah xv. 4.
⁸⁰and out of the tribe of Gad; Ramoth in Gilead with her suburbs,
and Mahanaim with her suburbs,
=80.= _Ramoth in Gilead_] a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 38. See 1 Kings
xxii. 3; 2 Kings ix. 1.
_Mahanaim_] Genesis xxxii. 2.
⁸¹and Heshbon with her suburbs, and Jazer with her suburbs.
=81.= _Heshbon_] Numbers xxi. 25, 26; Isaiah xv. 4.
_Jazer_] Numbers xxi. 32 (Revised Version); Isaiah xvi. 8.
NOTE ON THE LEVITES.
The priestly organisation known to the Chronicler represents the latest
stage of a system, the development of which can to some extent be
traced in the Old Testament records. (1) It appears from the earliest
sources that the great “priestly” duty of sacrifice at one period did
not require a priest for its due performance but might be, and was,
undertaken by any responsible male. For example in Exodus xxiv. 5, an
occasion of the deepest solemnity, sacrifices are spoken of as offered
by “young men of the children of Israel.” In Exodus xxxiii. 7‒11 it is
clear that the other great function of early religion, charge of the
responses given by the Divine oracle, is regarded as being under the
control of Moses. In fact it would seem that in the earlier period
there were neither priests nor Levites as a religious order; at any
rate, as an order exercising a _monopoly_ in the religious functions
which they afterwards claimed the sole right of discharging. (2) In
course of time those who administered the oracle and offered sacrifices
at the manifold shrines and high places of Palestine gained importance
and were recognised as a distinct religious class, _priests_; and
persons claiming descent from Levi were numerous or prominent among
them. But the _right_ of offering sacrifices was still by no means
confined to these priests of the shrines. The priesthood of the various
shrines was often hereditary, passing on from father to son; and,
even apart from that fact, it was most natural that members of this
religious order, or perhaps one should say “profession,” should be
thought of as connected by blood-relationship. Eventually they were all
reckoned descendants of Levi. (3) After the exile and the suppression
of the local shrines of Judah, the pre-eminence of the priests or
Levites of _Jerusalem_ was definitely established, and (as Ezekiel
had suggested) such priests of the local shrines as were satisfied
to migrate to Jerusalem became subordinate to the original ministers
of the Temple there. All were accounted sons of Levi; but only the
original Jerusalem priests, who traced their descent through the
Levitical family of Aaron, were entitled to rank as _priests_: the
rest were Levites but not priests. Thus there arose a distinction
in the ranks of the religious officials. (4) Finally, the functions
and privileges of priests as distinct from Levites were carefully
discriminated, and the tradition that their origin as a religious order
was due to Moses became firmly established, whilst the complex system
of their organisation, in particular the subdivisions of the Levites as
singers and doorkeepers, was confidently ascribed to David. Chronicles
consistently represents this latest stage of development. For a concise
statement of the facts see MᶜNeile, _Numbers_, pp. xiv ff. in the
present series; and for further discussion the appropriate articles in
the Dictionaries; especially Cook in _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹, s.v.
_Levites_.
CHAPTER VII.
=1‒40.=
GENEALOGIES OF SIX REMAINING TRIBES.
The treatment of the several tribes in this chapter is very unequal. In
the case of Issachar (=1‒5=), Zebulun (=6‒12=, see note verse 6), and
Asher (=30‒40=), genealogies are given and the number of fighting-men
of each tribe is stated. To Naphtali is devoted a single verse (=13=),
giving only the names of his sons. For Manasseh and Ephraim (=14‒29=)
genealogies are given and their possessions are shortly enumerated. The
mention of Dan is obliterated, owing to the state of the text of verse
12.
=1‒5.=
THE GENEALOGY OF ISSACHAR.
¹And of the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Puah¹, Jashub, and
Shimron, four.
¹ In Genesis xlvi. 13, _Puvah, and Iob_.
=1.= _the sons of Issachar_] Genesis xlvi. 13; Numbers xxvi. 23, 24.
verses 2‒5 are from an unknown source, or from the Chronicler himself.
_Tola_] the name of one of the minor Judges (Judges x. 1). He is there
described as “Tola the son of Puah, dwelling [Hebrew _josheb_] in
Shamir.” No descendants are mentioned from Puah, Jashub, and Shimron,
but only from Tola; and it has been suggested that these four sons
of Issachar are imaginary, being simply deduced from the statement
in Judges――Jashub = _josheb_, and Shimron = _Shamir_. This is very
ingenious but by no means convincing.
_Puah_] In Genesis and Numbers _Puvah_ (Revised Version).
_Jashub_] So in Numbers, but in Genesis _Iob_.
²And the sons of Tola; Uzzi, and Rephaiah, and Jeriel, and
Jahmai, and Ibsam, and Shemuel, heads of their fathers’ houses,
_to wit_, of Tola; mighty men of valour in their generations:
their number in the days of David was two and twenty thousand
and six hundred.
=2.= _of their fathers’ houses_] i.e. clans or families; see note on
v. 13.
_in their generations_] Render, =after= (or =according to=) =their
generations=, the rendering given to the same phrase in Genesis x. 32,
xxv. 13.
_their number_] i.e. of the divisions which claimed _Tola_ as ancestor.
_in the days of David_] xxi. 1 ff. (= 2 Samuel xxiv. 1 ff.).
³And the sons of Uzzi; Izrahiah: and the sons of Izrahiah;
Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Isshiah, five: all of them chief
men.
=3.= _five_] i.e. reckoning the four grandsons as sons.
⁴And with them, by their generations, after their fathers’
houses, were bands of the host for war, six and thirty thousand:
for they had many wives and sons.
=4.= _by their generations_] i.e. according to descent. Each head
commanded men that were his kinsfolk.
⁵And their brethren among all the families of Issachar, mighty
men of valour, reckoned in all by genealogy, were fourscore and
seven thousand.
=5.= _fourscore and seven thousand_] In Numbers ii. 6 Issachar is
reckoned at 54,400, and in Numbers xxvi. 25 at 64,300.
=6‒12.=
THE GENEALOGY OF ZEBULUN.
=6‒12.= According to the existing text these verses are a genealogy of
Benjamin; but, as such, they present most serious difficulties. Notice
(1) that the customary “sons of” is lacking in the Hebrew text before
Benjamin: (2) that the sons of Benjamin here number _three_, whereas
in Numbers xxvi. 38, 39, they are _five_ (_five_ also in 1 Chronicles
viii. 2!), and in Genesis xlii. 21 _ten_; and further that one of
the sons here mentioned, Jediael, is nowhere else referred to as a
Benjamite: (3) that the sons of Bela (verse 7) are entirely different
in viii. 3: and (4) that in general the names in the list (with only
three certain exceptions and two of them place-names) are not elsewhere
found in lists of Benjamite names――a startling fact. (5) Finally and
most important of all, a genealogy of Benjamin is given in chapter
viii., exactly where we might expect to find it according to the order
in which the Chronicler describes the tribes.
The first of these points could be (and has usually been) explained
by the elision of some letters; for the words “the sons of” (Bᵉnê)
in Hebrew writing most closely resemble “Ben” the first syllable of
Benjamin. For a few other minor difficulties tentative suggestions have
been put forward, but are very unsatisfying, whilst for most of the
features noted above, and especially for the most important of them, no
proper explanation can be given on the supposition that the list really
is a genealogy of Benjamin. It is therefore most probable that the view
urged by Curtis, _Chronicles_, p. 127, should be adopted. He finds in
these verses the genealogy of _Zebulun_, the absence of which otherwise
is a striking feature of the genealogies in these chapters. The letters
which are now taken to be the first part of the word _Benjamin_ should
be read _Bᵉnê_ (i.e. _the sons of_), and the following letters are a
corruption of Zebulun, which was originally followed by the names of
Zebulun’s three sons, Sered and Elon and Jahleel, as given in Genesis
xlvi. 14. The changes involved by this suggestion may seem violent in
English, but they are by no means so in the Hebrew, and moreover it
must be understood that they all follow inevitably or at least most
naturally upon the slight initial error whereby “the sons of Zebulun”
was corrupted into “Benjamin.” The development and details of Curtis’
reasoning cannot be set forth except in connection with the Hebrew text,
and it must therefore suffice here to indicate the one essential point,
and to remark that the convincing feature of his hypothesis is that it
furnishes a clear and natural explanation of all the difficulties noted
above.
⁶_The sons of_ Benjamin; Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three.
=6.= _Bela, and Becher, and Jediael_] Contrast viii. 2. Read, following
Genesis xlvi. 14, =Sered and Elon and Jahleel=.
⁷And the sons of Bela; Ezbon, and Uzzi, and Uzziel, and Jerimoth,
and Iri, five; heads of fathers’ houses, mighty men of valour;
and they were reckoned by genealogy twenty and two thousand and
thirty and four.
=7.= _the sons of Bela_] Contrast viii. 3; and read instead the =sons
of Sered=. These are differently stated in viii. 3‒5.
⁸And the sons of Becher; Zemirah, and Joash, and Eliezer, and
Elioenai, and Omri, and Jeremoth, and Abijah, and Anathoth,
and Alemeth. All these were the sons of Becher. ⁹And they were
reckoned by genealogy, after their generations, heads of their
fathers’ houses, mighty men of valour, twenty thousand and two
hundred.
=8.= _Becher_] Read =Elon=.
_Anathoth, and Alemeth_] both names of places in Benjamin; vi. 60 (45,
_Hebrew_, “Allemeth”); Jeremiah i. 1. These are the only place-names in
the list, and they are admittedly Benjamite: as to the significance of
this fact see note on _Ehud_, verse 10.
¹⁰And the sons of Jediael; Bilhan: and the sons of Bilhan; Jeush,
and Benjamin, and Ehud, and Chenaanah, and Zethan, and Tarshish,
and Ahishahar.
=10.= _Jediael_] or rather _Jahleel_.
_Benjamin, and Ehud_] The error in verse 6 by which this Zebulunite
list becomes ostensibly Benjamite must have been very early. When
once it had arisen, the tendency to introduce names which were to be
expected in a Benjamite genealogy was inevitably strong. This is the
ground on which the names _Anathoth_ and _Alemeth_ (verse 8) are to
be explained, as also _Shuppim_ and _Huppim_ (verse 12). Most clearly,
however, is the tendency illustrated by the present verse, where the
reading _Benjamin and Ehud_ most probably has its origin in a marginal
addition “and Ehud the Benjamite” (from Judges iii. 15) which was later
inserted in the text as two separate names.
_Tarshish_] It is said of Zebulun in Genesis xlix. 13 that he shall
be “a haven for ships,” and _Tarshish_, absolutely unknown as a Hebrew
personal name, is regularly used in the Old Testament in connection
with ships and commerce by sea. It would be astonishingly out of
place in a genealogy of Benjamin, but is appropriate in one of Zebulun
(compare Genesis xlix. 13 “Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the
sea”).
¹¹All these were sons of Jediael, according to the heads
of their fathers’ _houses_, mighty men of valour, seventeen
thousand and two hundred, that were able to go forth in the host
for war.
=11.= _able to go forth_] the total number of warriors is here 59,434;
compare 50,000 in xii. 33; and compare Numbers i. 37, xxvi. 41.
¹²Shuppim¹ also, and Huppim, the sons of Ir², Hushim, the sons
of Aher³.
¹ In Numbers xxvi. 39, _Shephupham_ and _Hupham_.
² In verse 7, _Iri_.
³ In Numbers xxvi. 38, _Ahiram_.
=12.= _Shuppim also, and Huppim_] for the spelling compare viii. 5,
Numbers xxvi. 39, and Genesis xlvi. 21. These Benjamite names are an
addition, and illustrate the tendency referred to above in the note on
_Benjamin and Ehud_, verse 10.
=12b.=
THE GENEALOGY OF DAN.
_Ir_] compare verse 7, Iri. But see following note.
_Hushim, the sons of Aher_] In _Aher_ (literally “another”) some
commentators find the word _Dan_. More probably _Ir_ is a corruption
for Dan, and the word _Aher_ an error for “one” (the differences are
small in Hebrew). Following the indication of Genesis xlvi. 23 and the
LXX., read therefore =the sons of Dan, Hushim his son, one=.
=13.= (= Genesis xlvi. 24).
THE GENEALOGY OF NAPHTALI.
¹³The sons of Naphtali; Jahziel¹, and Guni, and Jezer, and
Shallum², the sons of Bilhah.
¹ In Genesis xlvi. 24, _Jahzeel_.
² In Genesis xlvi. 24, _Shillem_.
=13.= _Jahziel ... Shallum_] In Genesis _Jahzeel ... Shillem_.
=14‒19.=
THE GENEALOGY OF MANASSEH.
A difficult section. The text is much disturbed in verses 14, 15; and
there is hardly any material available for the illustration of verses
16, 17.
¹⁴The sons of Manasseh; Asriel, whom¹ _his wife_ bare: (his
concubine the Aramitess bare Machir the father of Gilead:
¹ Or, according to the Septuagint, _whom his concubine the
Aramitess bare; she bare &c._
=14.= _Asriel, whom_ his wife _bare_: (_his concubine the Aramitess
bare_] Compare Numbers xxvi. 31. Probably, however, the name is due to
an error of dittography. Read simply as margin, following LXX., =whom
his concubine the Aramitess bare=; =she bare=, etc.
_his concubine the Aramitess_] The inhabitants of Gilead were thus in
part Arameans (Syrians) by descent. A different tradition is preserved
in Genesis 1. 23.
¹⁵and Machir took a wife of¹ Huppim and Shuppim, whose² sister’s
name was Maacah;) and the name of the second was Zelophehad: and
Zelophehad had daughters.
¹ Or, _for_.
² Or, _and his_.
=15.= _took a wife of Huppim and Shuppim_] i.e. allied himself by
marriage to these two families.
_whose sister’s name_] Render, =and his= (Machir’s) =sister’s name=.
The statement regarding Maacah is ethnographical, and means that the
people of Maacah (a district at the foot of Hermon) were related by
blood to Machir (the Eastern Manassites).
_Zelophehad had daughters_] Numbers xxvii. 1‒11.
¹⁶And Maacah the wife of Machir bare a son, and she called his
name Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh; and his
sons were Ulam and Rakem.
=16.= _wife of_] But in verse 15, Maacah is sister of Machir. The text
of verses 15, 16 has probably suffered some disturbance.
¹⁷And the sons of Ulam; Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead the
son of Machir, the son of Manasseh.
=17.= _the sons of Ulam_] Sons of Ulam are mentioned (viii. 40) among
the descendants of Benjamin: a variation in the tradition of their
descent.
¹⁸And his sister Hammolecheth bare Ishhod, and Abiezer¹, and
Mahlah.
¹ In Numbers xxvi. 30, _Iezer_.
=18.= _Abiezer_] Gideon’s family; Judges vi. 11; compare Joshua xvii. 2.
¹⁹And the sons of Shemida were Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi,
and Aniam.
=19.= _Shechem_] This name represents the Israelite portion of the
inhabitants of Shechem: the rest of the inhabitants were Hivites or
Canaanites. See Judges ix.
=20‒27.=
THE LINE OF EPHRAIM TO JOSHUA.
=20‒27.= The section presents several difficulties, arising either
from the attempt to combine various threads of traditions or possibly
from textual corruption. Note that Ezer and Elead, who in verse 21 are
removed by several generations from Ephraim, are in verse 22 f. treated
as his immediate sons.
²⁰And the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and
Tahath his son, and Eleadah his son, and Tahath his son,
=20.= _Shuthelah ... Bered ... Tahath ... Eleadah_] These four names
appear to correspond with _Shuthelah ... Becher ... Tahan ... Eran_ in
Numbers xxvi. 35, 36.
²¹and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and Elead,
whom the men of Gath that were born in the land slew, because
they came down to take away their cattle.
=21.= _the men of Gath that were born in the land_] i.e. the Philistine
population.
_they came down_] This phrase suits a descent from the hills of Ephraim
into the Philistine lowlands. The raid presumably took place after the
period of the Exodus and the settlement of Israel in Canaan. Yet it is
also possible that the story should be classed with certain traditions
which ignore the narrative of the Egyptian sojourn and the Exodus――see
Cook, _Encyclopedia Britannica_¹¹, s.v. _Genesis_, p. 584, col. 2.
²²And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren
came to comfort him.
=22.= _And Ephraim their father_] i.e. the tribe, or district, to which
the clans, _Ezer_ and _Elead_, belonged.
²³And he went in to his wife, and she conceived, and bare a son,
and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his
house.
=23.= _Beriah, because it went evil_] Hebrew =Beri‘ah because it
went berā‘ah=, a play on the sound of the name. This is a feature
characteristic of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis, compare
Genesis xxx. 11, etc. It is interesting to find it in the tradition
upon which the Chronicler here depends. Compare also iv. 9 (note).
²⁴And his daughter was Sheerah, who built Beth-horon the nether
and the upper, and Uzzen-sheerah. ²⁵And Rephah was his son, and
Resheph, and Telah his son, and Tahan his son; ²⁶Ladan his son,
Ammihud his son, Elishama his son; ²⁷Nun¹ his son, Joshua his
son.
¹ Hebrew _Non_.
=24.= _Beth-horon_] See vi. 68, note.
=28, 29.=
SETTLEMENTS OF THE SONS OF JOSEPH.
The writer of these verses does not intend to give a full list of the
seats of Ephraim (verse 28) and Manasseh (verse 29); but apparently
to indicate the area and position of their territory by the mention of
towns on the borders.
²⁸And their possessions and habitations were Beth-el and the
towns¹ thereof, and eastward Naaran², and westward Gezer, with
the towns thereof; Shechem also and the towns thereof, unto
Azzah³ and the towns thereof:
¹ Hebrew _daughters_.
² In Joshua xvi. 7, _Naarah_.
³ Many MSS. read, _Ayyah_.
=28.= _Beth-el_] the southern boundary. Beth-el is the modern _Beitîn_,
ten miles north of Jerusalem (Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵, p. 217). The
city was on the border of Ephraim and Benjamin and in Joshua xviii.
22 is assigned to Benjamin, but it was originally conquered by Ephraim
(Judges i. 22), and during the division of the kingdom it belonged to
the North: compare 1 Kings xii. 29, 32; 2 Chronicles xiii. 19, note.
_Naaran_] the eastern boundary. In Joshua xvi. 7, _Naarath_ (Revised
Version _Naarah_).
_Gezer ... Shechem_] On Gezer the western, and Shechem the northern
boundary――see the note on vi. 67.
_Azzah_] or _Ayyah_, has not yet been identified. Probably, like
Shechem, it serves to define the northern border between Ephraim and
Manasseh.
²⁹and by the borders of the children of Manasseh, Beth-shean and
her towns, Taanach and her towns, Megiddo and her towns, Dor and
her towns. In these dwelt the children of Joseph the son of
Israel.
=29.= For Manasseh four important towns are enumerated: Beth-shean on
the east in the valley of the Jordan, Taanach and Megiddo in the plain
of Esdraelon or Megiddo, and Dor on the Mediterranean coast, south of
Mt Carmel.
_Beth-shean_] In 1 Samuel xxxi. 10, 12 spelt Beth-shan. It is the Greek
_Scythopolis_, the modern _Beisan_.
_Taanach_] See vi. 70, note on _Aner_.
_Megiddo_] Judges v. 19; 2 Kings xxiii. 29; Zechariah xii. 11.
_Dor_] modern _Tantura_. Compare Joshua xvii. 11.
=30‒40.=
THE GENEALOGY OF ASHER.
³⁰The sons of Asher; Imnah, and Ishvah, and Ishvi, and Beriah,
and Serah their sister.
=30.= _The sons of Asher_] The names in verses 30, 31 are derived from
Genesis xlvi. 17 (compare Numbers xxvi. 44‒46). There is no variation
in the Hebrew spelling of the names, but _Ishvah_ is missing in Numbers
Either Ishvah or Ishvi must be regarded as an error of dittography.
_Beriah_] _Beriah_ is mentioned above, verse 23, as a clan of Ephraim,
and appears also as a family of Benjamin, viii. 13, 16.
³¹And the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel, who was the
father of Birzaith. ³²And Heber begat Japhlet, and Shomer¹, and
Hotham, and Shua their sister. ³³And the sons of Japhlet; Pasach,
and Bimhal, and Ashvath. These are the children of Japhlet.
¹ In verse 34, _Shemer_.
=31.= _Heber, and Malchiel_] The antiquity of these two names seems
to be attested by the mention of “Habiri and Malchiel” in the Amarna
tablets (_circa_ 1400 B.C.).
_Birzaith_] probably the name of a place, “The well of the olive-tree.”
³⁴And the sons of Shemer¹; Ahi, and Rohgah, Jehubbah, and Aram.
³⁵And the sons² of Helem his brother; Zophah, and Imna, and
Shelesh, and Amal. ³⁶The sons of Zophah; Suah, and Harnepher,
and Shual, and Beri, and Imrah; ³⁷Bezer, and Hod, and Shamma,
and Shilshah, and Ithran, and Beera. ³⁸And the sons of Jether;
Jephunneh, and Pispah, and Ara. ³⁹And the sons of Ulla; Arah,
and Hanniel, and Rizia.
¹ In verse 32, _Shomer_.
² Hebrew _son_.
=34, 35.= _Shemer ... Helem_] Read perhaps =Shomer ... Hotham=, to
agree with verse 32.
⁴⁰All these were the children of Asher, heads of the fathers’
houses, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes.
And the number of them reckoned by genealogy for service in war
was twenty and six thousand men.
=40.= _twenty and six thousand_] In xii. 36 the men of war of Asher
are reckoned at forty thousand (compare Numbers i. 41, xxvi. 47, where
still higher reckonings are given). The numbers here and in verses 5, 7,
9, 11 (as well as in verse 2, which see) are perhaps supposed to refer
to the time of David. The numbers may be based on family traditions,
but no important conclusions ought to be drawn from them.
CHAPTER VIII.
=1‒40= (compare vii. 6‒12).
THE GENEALOGY OF BENJAMIN.
=1‒40.= Various indications combine to show that the names in this list
reflect post-exilic conditions. It has generally been compared with
the “Benjamite” genealogy in vii. 6‒12 which was supposed to express
the relationships and strength of the tribe at the time of David. If,
however, according to the view adopted in this volume, the passage vii.
6‒12 is in reality a genealogy of Zebulun, comparison between it and
this list is futile. Such parallels as can justly be made between the
names in the two lists are due to the Benjamite colouring which has
been imparted to vii. 6‒12 after the initial error in vii. 6 turned the
“sons of Zebulun” into “Benjamin.”
This, the real genealogy of Benjamin, unfortunately presents not a few
problems for which as yet no convincing solution can be offered. The
difficulties are due in large measure to the corrupt state of the text
in several verses: especially verses 6‒14.
¹And Benjamin begat Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, and
Aharah the third;
=1.= _Benjamin begat ..._] Compare Genesis xlvi. 21.
_firstborn_] = _Becher_ in Genesis xlvi. 21. In the unvocalised Hebrew
text the noun and proper name are represented by the same letters,
_BKR_.
_Ashbel_] literally “man of Baal.” Compare note on Eshbaal, verse 33.
²Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.
=2.= _Nohah ... Huram_] the list is assuredly based on Genesis xlvi.
21 and Numbers xxvi. 38‒40, despite the surface divergences. Several
of the changes are due to textual errors, e.g. Aharah and Ahoah are
probably both variants of Ahiram (Genesis xlvi. 21).
³And Bela had sons, Addar¹, and Gera, and Abihud; ⁴and Abishua,
and Naaman, and Ahoah;
¹ In Genesis xlvi. 21, _Ard_.
=3.= _Abihud_] read perhaps (a slight change in the Hebrew) =Gera,
father of Ehud=.
⁵and Gera, and Shephuphan¹, and Huram.
¹ In Numbers xxvi. 39, _Shephupham_.
=5.= _Shephuphan, and Huram_] See vii. 12, note on _Shuppim_.
=6‒28.= Apparently a list of five post-exilic families [Elpaal (verses
11, 18), Beriah (verses 13, 16), Shema (verses 13, 21), Shashak (verses
14, 25), and Jeroham (verses 14, 27)], whose genealogy seems to be
traced from Ehud, and whose descendants reside in Jerusalem (so verse
28, but see note _ad loc._). The uncertainty on the former point is the
inevitable consequence of the corrupt state of the text in verses 6‒14.
⁶And these are the sons of Ehud; these are the heads of fathers’
_houses_ of the inhabitants of Geba, and they carried them
captive to Manahath:
=6.= _Ehud_] _Ehud_ (the deliverer of Israel from Moab) was descended
from _Gera_ (verse 5; Judges iii. 15).
_Geba_] Compare vi. 60.
_they carried them captive_] an utterly obscure phrase, most probably
due to textual error. It is a plausible suggestion that the phrase is
a corruption of proper names commencing the list which we should expect
to follow the preceding words: “_these are the heads of_,” etc. Hogg,
_Jewish Quarterly Review_ xi. 102 ff., therefore conjectured the names
“=Iglaam and Alemoth=”; and similarly in verse 7, in place of the
equally obscure words “_he carried them captive; and he_,” he would
read “=and Iglaam begat=.”
⁷and Naaman, and Ahijah, and Gera, he carried them captive; and
he begat Uzza and Ahihud.
=7.= _Naaman, and Ahijah, and Gera_] perhaps to be deleted, as a
repetition of verse 5.
⁸And Shaharaim begat children in the field of Moab, after he had
sent¹ them away; Hushim and Baara were his wives. ⁹And he begat
of Hodesh his wife, Jobab, and Zibia, and Mesha, and Malcam;
¹⁰and Jeuz, and Shachia, and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads
of fathers’ _houses_.
¹ Or, _sent away Hushim and Baara his wives_.
=8, 9.= Again the Hebrew text appears to be in disorder, and the verses
in consequence are so obscure that conjectures are all precarious.
_Hushim_] is elsewhere the name of a man. Hence verse 11 below should
perhaps read =And Hushim begat....=
¹¹And of Hushim he begat Abitub and Elpaal.
=11.= _Abitub_] no sons of his are recorded.
¹²And the sons of Elpaal; Eber, and Misham, and Shemed, who
built Ono and Lod, with the towns thereof:
=12.= _sons of Elpaal_] Elpaal’s sons are given also and more fully
in verses 17, 18; and, as the three names in the present verse appear
to be transcriptional variants of three mentioned in 17, 18, it is
probable that this verse is a marginal note which has crept into the
text.
_who built Ono and Lod_] the subject is not _Shemed_, but _Elpaal_;
“built,” i.e. entered into possession of. Ono and Lod (= Lydda), some
seven and eleven miles respectively south of Jaffa, are referred to in
Nehemiah vii. 35, xi. 35, and Ezra ii. 33. The Targum adds, _which the
sons of Israel laid waste and burnt with fire, when they made war in
Gibeah with the tribe of Benjamin_.
¹³and Beriah, and Shema, who were heads of fathers’ _houses_ of
the inhabitants of Aijalon, who put to flight the inhabitants of
Gath;
=13.= _Aijalon_] compare Joshua x. 12. It was situated near the Jaffa
road, about thirteen miles from Jerusalem.
_who put ... Gath_] an interesting remark, which should be compared
with vii. 21, 23――note the name _Beriah_ in both passages. The relation
of the two passages is, however, uncertain.
¹⁴and Ahio, Shashak, and Jeremoth; ¹⁵and Zebadiah, and Arad, and
Eder; ¹⁶and Michael, and Ishpah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah;
¹⁷and Zebadiah, and Meshullam, and Hizki, and Heber; ¹⁸and
Ishmerai, and Izliah, and Jobab, the sons of Elpaal; ¹⁹and Jakim,
and Zichri, and Zabdi;
=14.= _And Ahio, Shashak, and Jeremoth_] Read, following LXX., =And
their brethren Shashak and Jeremoth=. The pronoun of course refers to
_Beriah_ and _Shema_ (verse 13), and to _Abitub_ and _Elpaal_ (verse
11)――these four, with _Shashak_ and _Jeremoth_, being sons of _Hushim_,
if verse 11 be emended and verses 12, 13 be regarded as a marginal
addition, as is suggested above.
²⁰and Elienai and Zillethai, and Eliel;
=20.= _Elienai_] Read, perhaps, _Elioenai_, a name meaning “My eyes
look towards Jehovah,” compare iii. 23.
²¹and Adaiah, and Beraiah, and Shimrath, the sons of Shimei¹;
²²and Ishpan, and Eber, and Eliel; ²³and Abdon, and Zichri, and
Hanan;
¹ In verse 13, _Shema_.
=21.= _Shimei_] = _Shema_ (verse 13).
²⁴and Hananiah, and Elam, and Anthothijah; ²⁵and Iphdeiah, and
Penuel, the sons of Shashak; ²⁶and Shamsherai, and Shehariah,
and Athaliah;
=24.= _Anthothijah_] The name is a trace of an ancient Egyptian
war-goddess _‘Anath_, apparently associated with Jehovah in the Jewish
temple at Elephantine (see _‘Anath-bethel_ in the papyri). Compare also
_Anathoth_ near Jerusalem.
²⁷and Jaareshiah, and Elijah, and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham.
=27.= _Jeroham_] = Jeremoth (verse 14).
²⁸These were heads of fathers’ _houses_ throughout their
generations, chief men: these dwelt in Jerusalem.
=28.= _these dwelt in Jerusalem_] i.e. in the writer’s day the heads of
families enumerated in verses 15‒27 dwelt in Jerusalem. Compare ix. 2,
3; Nehemiah xi. 1‒8. But the words may be a gloss brought in from ix.
34 along with the following verses (see below).
=29‒38= (= chapter ix. 35‒44).
THE GENEALOGY OF THE HOUSE OF SAUL.
=29‒38.= These verses, which set forth the ancestors and descendants of
Saul, are found also in ix. 35‒44, where they serve as the introduction
to the account of Saul’s death in ch. x. The latter passage would
naturally seem to be the original place of these verses, but the
arguments in favour of that view are not conclusive, and the point must
be allowed to be doubtful.
²⁹And in Gibeon there dwelt the father of Gibeon, _Jeiel_, whose
wife’s name was Maacah:
=29.= _Gibeon_] some six miles north of Jerusalem, was apparently the
residence in post-exilic days of families which claimed descent from
the house of Saul. Compare 2 Chronicles i. 3.
_Jeiel_] added in accordance with ix. 35.
³⁰and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur, and Kish, and Baal, and
Nadab;
=30.= _and Baal_] Add with LXX. (A) and ix. 36 =and Ner=. LXX. (B)
shows that a word is missing after _Baal_ for it reads Βααλακαίμ
(= Βαὰλ καὶ Ν....?).
³¹and Gedor, and Ahio, and Zecher¹.
¹ In chapter ix. 37, _Zechariah_.
=31.= _and Zecher_] Read with ix. 37, =and Zechariah, and Mikloth=.
³²And Mikloth begat Shimeah¹. And they also dwelt with their
brethren in Jerusalem, over against their brethren.
¹ In chapter ix. 38, _Shimeam_.
=32.= _with their brethren_, etc.] i.e. with some of their brethren
in Jerusalem over against other of their brethren in Gibeon and other
places. “They” would seem to refer to _Mikloth_ and _Shimeah_, but the
clause is far from clear, and it may be noted that verse 32b looks like
the heading of a list that has been lost.
³³And Ner begat Kish; and Kish begat Saul; and Saul begat
Jonathan, and Malchi-shua, and Abinadab¹, and Eshbaal².
¹ In 1 Samuel xiv. 49, _Ishvi_.
² In 2 Samuel ii. 8, _Ishbosheth_.
=33.= _begat Kish_] here and in ix. 39, read =begat Abner=――as in 1
Samuel xiv. 51, etc.
_Jonathan ... Abinadab_] Slain with Saul on Mt Gilboa; x. 2; 1 Samuel
xxxi. 2.
_Eshbaal_] In 2 Samuel ii. 8 called _Ish-bosheth_. In the (more
generally read) Samuel text the offensive name _Eshbaal_, “Man (i.e.
worshipper) of Baal,” has been changed to _Ishbosheth_, “Man of the
Shameful-thing” (i.e. of the idol), but it has been left standing
in the less-used text of Chronicles The title _Baal_ (“Lord”) was
applied in early days (e.g. in the days of Saul) to the national God
of Israel, but in later days the prophets objected to it because of
its general use in designation of the heathen gods also. Hosea (ii.
17), for example, declares that the true worshippers of Jehovah must no
longer call him “My Baal” (_Baali_). Thus to Saul and Samuel the name
_Eshbaal_ was acceptable as meaning “Man of the Lord,” i.e. of Jehovah,
but to the late reviser of the book of Samuel it was offensive as
signifying “Man of Baal,” i.e. of one of the gods worshipped by the old
Canaanite peoples or by the neighbouring nations. Since the text of
Chronicles has retained such forms as Eshbaal (here), Ashbel (verse 1),
it seems that the conscientious alterations of such forms in the books
of Samuel, Kings, etc., are later than the time of the Chronicler.
³⁴And the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal¹; and Merib-baal begat
Micah.
¹ In 2 Samuel iv. 4, ix. 6, 10, _Mephibosheth_.
=34.= _Merib-baal_] A name meaning “Baal pleadeth”; in chapter ix. 40b
(Hebrew) it is written _Meri-baal_, i.e. “Man of Baal.” The person
meant seems to be _Mephibosheth_ (2 Samuel ix. 6, 12).
³⁵And the sons of Micah; Pithon, and Melech, and Tarea¹, and
Ahaz.
¹ In chapter ix. 41, _Tahrea_.
=35.= _Tarea_] In ix. 41, _Tahrea_.
³⁶And Ahaz begat Jehoaddah¹; and Jehoaddah begat Alemeth, and
Azmaveth, and Zimri; and Zimri begat Moza:
¹ In chapter ix. 42, _Jarah_.
=36.= _Jehoaddah_] In ix. 42, _Jarah_.
³⁷and Moza begat Binea; Raphah¹ was his son, Eleasah his son,
Azel his son: ³⁸and Azel had six sons, whose names are these;
Azrikam, Bocheru, and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and Obadiah, and
Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel. ³⁹And the sons of Eshek
his brother; Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second, and Eliphelet
the third. ⁴⁰And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valour,
archers, and had many sons, and sons’ sons, an hundred and fifty.
All these were of the sons of Benjamin.
¹ In chapter ix. 43, _Rephaiah_.
=37.= _Raphah_] In ix. 43, _Rephaiah_.
CHAPTER IX.
=1‒17= (compare Nehemiah xi. 1‒19).
THE HEADS OF THE FAMILIES WHICH DWELT IN JERUSALEM.
Verses 2‒17 contain the lists of the heads of families of Judah
(=3‒6=), of Benjamin (=7‒9=), of the priests (=10‒13=), of the Levites
(= 14‒16=), and of the porters (=17=), who dwelt in Jerusalem at some
period after the Return (compare note on verse 2). A similar list (with
some variations which are recorded in their places in the following
notes) occurs in Nehemiah xi. 3‒19. The partial agreement coupled with
the partial divergence of the two lists may be explained by supposing
that both are extracts independently made from the same document, and
have been inserted, one in Chronicles, the other in Nehemiah, lest
the peculiarities of either list should be lost. We may conclude from
Nehemiah xi. 1, 2 that both lists represent the population of Jerusalem,
after Nehemiah had taken measures for increasing it. Another way of
accounting for the divergences in the two lists is to suppose that the
present list represents the Jerusalem of a later period than the list
in Nehemiah See also verse 17.
¹So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they
are written in the book of the kings of Israel: and Judah was
carried away captive to Babylon for their transgression.
=1.= _in the book of the kings of Israel_] See Introduction § 5, B (3).
The LXX., however, reads “in the book of the kings of Israel _and
Judah_.” With the LXX. reading, _all Israel_ must be taken as subject
of the verb _was carried away_, but of course the phrase must still be
taken as meaning an “Israel” = Judah.
²Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in
their cities were, Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the
Nethinim.
=2.= _the first inhabitants_] It has been thought that the word
“first” here refers to _pre-eminence_ (compare Nehemiah xi. 3), and
that the list which follows (verses 4 ff.) is a list of _chief men_.
It is better, however, to take “first” in a temporal sense, meaning
“pre-exilic,” and to suppose that the Chronicler or whoever placed
this chapter here mistakenly imagined this list to be a pre-exilic
register. That it is not really pre-exilic is certain by reason of
its vital connection with the post-exilic list in Nehemiah xi. 3‒19.
The suggestion that the resemblances are due to the continuity
of population in Jerusalem before and after the exile is utterly
improbable.
_in their cities_] The phrase is apparently an abridgment of words in
Nehemiah xi. 3, and is really meaningless in the present context. In
Nehemiah it signifies “townships in Judah” where certain persons, who
now elected to dwell in Jerusalem, had formerly resided.
_Israel_] i.e. laymen as distinguished from men of Levitical descent.
According to verse 3 _Israel_ included at least Judah, Benjamin,
Ephraim, and Manasseh (compare Psalms lxxx. 2, where Judah――the
speaker――associates Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh with herself in
her appeal to the God of _Israel_, See also note on 2 Chronicles xxx.
18). This is a totally different usage from that of earlier times,
when _Israel_ meant the Northern kingdom, and _Judah_ the Southern.
_Nethinim_] These were a class of Temple servants reckoned as inferior
to the Levites. Perhaps they were of foreign extraction and included
the Gibeonites (compare Joshua ix. 23). They are mentioned nowhere else
in the Old Testament except in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
³And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the
children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and
Manasseh;
=3.= _of Ephraim and Manasseh_] See note on 2 Chronicles xxx. 18.
=4‒6= (compare Nehemiah xi. 4‒6).
THE SONS OF JUDAH.
⁴Uthai the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the
son of Bani, of the children of Perez the son of Judah.
=4.= _Uthai_] In Nehemiah _Athaiah_. The two words are more alike in
Hebrew than in English and are perhaps various readings of one name.
_Perez_] compare ii. 4, 5. We have here (verses 4‒6) a threefold
division of the tribe of Judah into the descendants of Perez, Shelah,
and Zerah, just as in Numbers xxvi. 20.
⁵And of the Shilonites; Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons.
=5.= _Shilonites_] Or _Shelanites_ as Numbers xxvi. 20; they were
descendants of Shelah, who is mentioned as a son of Judah in ii. 3.
For other descendants, see iv. 21 f., and Nehemiah xi. 5.
_Asaiah_] In Nehemiah xi. 5 _Maaseiah_, a kindred name.
⁶And of the sons of Zerah; Jeuel, and their brethren, six
hundred and ninety.
=6.= _Jeuel_] In Nehemiah xi. 5 the “sons of Zerah” are missing.
_six hundred and ninety_] Compare Nehemiah xi. 6 (_four hundred
threescore and eight_ sons of _Perez_) where _Perez_ may be an error
for _Zerah_.
=7‒9= (compare Nehemiah xi. 7‒9).
THE SONS OF BENJAMIN.
⁷And of the sons of Benjamin; Sallu the son of Meshullam, the
son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah;
=7.= _Sallu_] His genealogy is differently stated in Nehemiah xi. 7,
but see next note.
_the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah_] Read perhaps =Judah, the
son of Hassenuah= (compare Nehemiah xi. 9). _Hodaviah_ and _Judah_
could easily be confused in Hebrew.
⁸and Ibneiah the son of Jeroham, and Elah the son of Uzzi, the
son of Michri, and Meshullam the son of Shephatiah, the son of
Reuel, the son of Ibnijah;
=8.= _Ibneiah, Elah, Meshullam_] Not mentioned in Nehemiah xi.
⁹and their brethren, according to their generations, nine
hundred and fifty and six. All these men were heads of fathers’
_houses_ by their fathers’ houses.
=9.= _nine hundred and fifty and six_] 928 in Nehemiah xi. 8.
=10‒13= (compare Nehemiah xi. 10‒14).
THE PRIESTS.
¹⁰And of the priests; Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, and Jachin;
=10.= _Jehoiarib_] Spelt _Joiarib_ in Nehemiah xi. 10. _Jehoiarib_ and
_Jedaiah_ occur as names of the first and second courses of the priests
in xxiv. 7; Nehemiah xii. 6, 19. The Maccabees were of the course of
Joarib (= Jehoiarib); 1 Maccabees ii. 1.
_Jachin_] The name of the twenty-first course; xxiv. 17.
¹¹and Azariah¹ the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son
of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, the ruler of
the house of God;
¹ In Nehemiah xi. 11, _Seraiah_.
=11.= _Azariah_] In Nehemiah xi. 11, _Seraiah_.
_the ruler of the house of God_] This title could perhaps be borne by
the high-priest (2 Chronicles xxxi. 10, 13), but in any case it was not
confined to him (2 Chronicles xxxv. 8, where several such “rulers” are
mentioned; compare also Jeremiah xx. 1; Acts iv. 1).
¹²and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pashhur, the son of
Malchijah, and Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the
son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith, the son of Immer;
=12.= _Malchijah_] The name of the fifth course; xxiv. 9.
_Maasai_] The reading of Nehemiah xi. 13 _Amashsai_ is corrupt. The
form given in Chronicles is open to suspicion. Probably the true
reading is lost.
_Adiel_] In Nehemiah _Azareel_.
_Immer_] The name of the sixteenth course; xxiv. 14.
¹³and their brethren, heads of their fathers’ houses, a thousand
and seven hundred and threescore; very able men for the work of
the service of the house of God.
=13.= _a thousand and seven hundred and threescore_] Only the five
“courses” of priests mentioned above (viz. Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and
Jachin, verse 10, and Malchijah and Immer, verse 12) seem to be
included in this reckoning. Some commentators, however, regard Azariah
(= Seraiah) in verse 11 as the name of a new course, which took the
place of one of the courses reckoned in xxiv. 7‒18. If this be right we
have here the sum of _six_ courses.
In Nehemiah xi. 12‒14 the number of the priests is given on a different
plan; _eight hundred and twenty-two_ “did the work of the house”; _two
hundred and forty-two_ were “chiefs of fathers’ houses”; _an hundred
and twenty-eight_ were “mighty men of valour.” The total falls far
short of the _thousand and seven hundred and threescore_ of Chronicles
We have not sufficient data on which to base any explanation of the
different totals.
_very able men_] The Hebrew is the same as in Nehemiah xi. 14 and is
usually rendered _mighty men of valour_. The sense, however, is no
doubt correctly given by Revised Version _very able_, or _efficient_.
Compare 2 Chronicles xxvi. 17.
=14‒16= (compare Nehemiah xi. 15‒18).
THE LEVITES.
¹⁴And of the Levites; Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of
Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, of the sons of Merari;
=14.= _of the sons of Merari_] In Nehemiah _the sons of Bunni_, which
is probably a corruption of the reading of Chronicles Otherwise of the
three great Levitical families, Merari, Asaph, and Jeduthun, mentioned
here, only the last two appear in Nehemiah.
¹⁵and Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal, and Mattaniah the son of
Mica, the son of Zichri¹, the son of Asaph;
¹ In Nehemiah xi. 17, _Zabdi_.
=15.= _Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal_] The reading appears to be corrupt,
for the analogy of the latter half of the verse as well as of verses 14,
16 leads us to expect something more than bare names. Neither the LXX.
nor the Vulgate gives any real help for emending the clause. The
corresponding words in Nehemiah (xi. 17) are _Bakbukiah the second
among his brethren_.
¹⁶and Obadiah² the son of Shemaiah³, the son of Galal, the son
of Jeduthun, and Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah,
that dwelt in the villages of the Netophathites.
² In Nehemiah xi. 17, _Abda_.
³ In Nehemiah xi. 17, _Shammua_.
=16.= _Obadiah the son of Shemaiah_] In Nehemiah _Abda the son of
Shammua_. Which was the reading of the original document cannot be
determined.
_Jeduthun_] See note on xvi. 41.
_Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah_] Not mentioned in
Nehemiah He probably represented the Kohathite division of the singers;
compare vi. 33‒38 (18‒23 _Hebrew_), where the name _Elkanah_ occurs
several times in the genealogy of the Kohathites.
_the villages of the Netophathites_] Compare Nehemiah xii. 28, 29
(Revised Version), whence it appears that these villages were close to
Jerusalem. The exact site is uncertain.
=17‒27= (compare Nehemiah xi. 19; 1 Chronicles xxvi. 1‒19).
ORGANISATION AND DUTIES OF THE PORTERS (DOORKEEPERS).
=17‒27.= The same subject is treated in xxvi. 1‒19, and this fact has
been urged as an argument for the view that chapter ix. is an addition
to the Chronicler’s work (see Introduction p. xxiii). But it is also
reasonable to suppose that the Chronicler would here give a register
of inhabitants of Jerusalem (which could not be included in the list of
the separate tribes), and such a register would probably give a survey
of the Levitical classes.
The verses present on analysis several confusing features, see notes on
verses 17, 22, 25, 33.
¹⁷And the porters; Shallum, and Akkub, and Talmon, and Ahiman,
and their brethren: Shallum was the chief;
=17.= _And the porters_] Render, =doorkeepers= as in xvi. 38 and xxvi.
1. In Solomon’s Temple there were “keepers of the threshold,” three in
number (2 Kings xxv. 18), priests in rank (2 Kings xii. 9).
A distinction between the doorkeepers and the Levites (verse 14) seems
to be implied, but in verses 19, 26 the doorkeepers, or at any rate
their leaders, are called Levites (compare Nehemiah xi. 15, 19 with
1 Chronicles xxvi.). The supposed distinction may have died out before
the Chronicler’s period, or perhaps earlier and later stages are
reflected in the chapter (see also the note on verse 26).
_Shallum...Ahiman_] These two names are absent from Nehemiah xi. 19
together with the clause _Shallum was the chief_. This omission of all
reference to Shallum must be accidental.
_Shallum, and Akkub, and Talmon_] The three names represent families,
not individuals; compare Ezra ii. 42 = Nehemiah vii. 45, where the
fuller form is given, _the children of Shallum, ... the children of
Talmon, the children of Akkub...._ These names persist in the five
lists of porters which refer to post-exilic times; Ezra ii. 42 =
Nehemiah vii. 45; Nehemiah xi. 19 = 1 Chronicles ix. 17 (_Shallum_
is to be supplied in Nehemiah from Chronicles); Nehemiah xii. 5
(_Meshullam_ = _Shallum_). For the Chronicler’s traditions of Levites,
singers, and doorkeepers of the Davidic period, see chapters xv.,
xxiv. ff.
_Ahiman_] Elsewhere in the Old Testament this name occurs only among
the names of the sons of Anak, and it is probable that the Chronicler
(or some scribe) made here an error of transcription, and that AHIMAN
has arisen from the word AHEIHEM “their brethren” which follows. A
fourth name was probably given in the original text, for see verse 26.
¹⁸who hitherto _waited_ in the king’s gate eastward: they were
the porters for the camp of the children of Levi.
=18.= _who_] i.e. _Shallum_ (verse 17), called _Shelemiah_ in xxvi. 14
(= Meshelemiah, xxvi. verse 1). As mentioned above, a family is meant.
_hitherto_] i.e. to the time of the Chronicler.
_the king’s gate eastward_] That the king had an entrance into the
Temple named after him appears from 2 Kings xvi. 18, and that this gate
was on the east from Ezekiel xlvi. 1, 2.
_for the camp of the children of Levi_] i.e. the Temple; but the phrase,
which is derived from Numbers ii. 17, in its original context of course
signifies the Tabernacle of the Mosaic period. Doubtless it is used
with the implication that the institution of the gatekeepers dated back
to that age: compare verse 19 _ad fin._, and contrast verse 22.
¹⁹And Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of
Korah, and his brethren, of his father’s house, the Korahites,
were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates¹ of the
tabernacle²: and their fathers had been over the camp of the
LORD, keepers of the entry;
¹ Hebrew _thresholds_.
² Hebrew _Tent_.
=19.= _over the camp of the LORD, keepers_] We might expect the
reference to the Temple or Tabernacle to be continued; but, as nothing
is said in the Pentateuch of “keepers of the entry _to the tabernacle_,”
probably the entry _to the camp_, not to the tabernacle, is meant
in the present phrase. With this view agrees the mention of Phinehas
(verse 20), for it apparently was the profanation of the camp in
general, not of the tabernacle, which Phinehas avenged (Numbers xxv.
6‒8), thus earning a blessing (Numbers xxv. 11‒13).
²⁰and Phinehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them in time
past, _and_ the LORD was with him.
=20.= and _the LORD was with him_] Render, =May the Lord be with him=,
a pious exclamation, customary on mentioning the name of a famous
and righteous person deceased. The phrase is common in later Jewish
literature; but this passage seems to be the earliest instance of its
use.
²¹Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was porter of the door of the
tent of meeting. All these which were chosen to be porters in
the gates¹ were two hundred and twelve.
¹ Hebrew _thresholds_.
=21.= _Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah_] Compare xxvi. 2, 14,
according to which Zechariah’s watch was on the north.
_the tent of meeting_] The reference would be to the Mosaic tent, if
the verse be taken, as is natural, in close connection with verses
19, 20. If the verse be treated in conjunction with verse 22 it must
refer to the tent of the ark in David’s time. The ambiguity is perhaps
intentional.
²²These were reckoned by genealogy in their villages, whom David
and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set¹ office.
¹ Or, _trust_.
=22.= _All these_] Compare Ezra ii. 42 (= Nehemiah vii. 45); Nehemiah
xi. 19. The discrepancy in numbers between Chronicles and Nehemiah
and also between Nehemiah vii. and Nehemiah xi. may be explained by
supposing some difference in the manner of reckoning or some difference
in the period referred to.
_in their villages_] Compare verses 16 and 25.
_whom David ... did ordain_] The Chronicler attributes to David the
organisation of the priests (xxiv. 3), of the Levites (xxiii. 27;
xxiv. 31), of the singers (xxv. 1 ff.), and of the doorkeepers (in
this passage). It has been thought that this verse is at variance with
verses 18, 19, where the Mosaic origin of the gatekeepers seems to be
implied. But in answer it may be said that the Chronicler is guilty of
no inconsistency in ascribing the _origin_ of the doorkeepers to the
Mosaic period and saying here that David and Samuel “ordained them in
their set office,” for the phrase refers, not to their origin, but to
their _organisation_. For another suggestion see below on verse 26.
_Samuel_] The association of Samuel with the organisation of
the sanctuary is confined to this passage, and is a significant
illustration of the working of late Jewish thought, which was little
concerned with historic probability and much with edification. The
tradition has probably arisen from the remark in 1 Samuel iii. 15,
that Samuel “opened the doors of the house of the Lord.” As Samuel died
before the reign of David, the Chronicler doubtless does not intend
to represent him as contemporary with David in the organisation of the
Temple, but probably supposes that Samuel’s work was done in connection
with the tent, which according to the Chronicler was located in Gibeon
(2 Chronicles i. 3).
_the seer_] For the title, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29; 1 Samuel ix. 9; and
compare 2 Chronicles xvi. 7.
_in their set office_] or _in their trust_; i.e. in their responsible
positions.
²³So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of
the house of the LORD, even the house of the tabernacle¹, by
wards.
¹ Hebrew _Tent_.
=23.= _the house of the tabernacle_] margin _Tent_. The phrase
designates the period before the building of the Temple.
²⁴On¹ the four sides were the porters, toward the east, west,
north, and south.
¹ Hebrew _Towards the four winds_.
=24.= _On the four sides_] Fuller details are given in xxvi. 14‒18.
²⁵And their brethren, in their villages, were to come in every
seven days from time to time to be with them:
=25.= _in their villages_] No special villages inhabited by porters are
mentioned, but perhaps porters as well as singers dwelt in the
“villages of the Netophathites” (verse 16; Nehemiah xii. 28, Revised
Version).
²⁶for the four chief porters, who were Levites, were in a set
office, and were over the chambers and over the treasuries in
the house of God. ²⁷And they lodged round about the house of
God, because the charge _thereof_ was upon them, and to them
pertained the opening thereof morning by morning.
=26.= _the four chief porters, who were Levites_] It seems clear from
this verse (and from the structure of the chapter, compare verses 10,
14, 17――as is pointed out in the note on verse 17) that the doorkeepers
were not, as a body, Levites; and according to verse 25 they dwelt
outside Jerusalem, whilst their leaders (verse 27) were within the city.
Perhaps this distinction between the leaders and the rank and file
could be used to explain the supposed inconsistency (if any exists――see
above verse 22, note on _whom David ..._) between verses 19 and 22,
as regards the tradition of origin: it might be said that whilst the
leaders claimed that their office dated from the time of Moses (verse
19), the rank and file traced their institution to David (verse 22).
(In 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 9 Levites appear exercising the duties of
doorkeepers, but this does not prove that all doorkeepers were Levites.)
_chambers_] i.e. store-chambers in which tithes and sacred vessels
were kept; compare 2 Chronicles xxxi. 5, 11, 12; Nehemiah xiii. 4‒9: in
verse 33 of this chapter they seem to be in use also as rooms in which
Levites could dwell. The chambers were probably built as outbuildings
round the Court of the Temple; compare xxiii. 28, xxviii. 12.
=28, 29.=
DUTIES OF THE LEVITES.
²⁸And certain of them had charge of the vessels of service; for
by tale were they brought in and by tale were they taken out.
=28.= _And certain of them_] The reference is to the Levites. The
contents of verses 28, 29 clearly refer to Levitical duties (compare
xxiii. 29), and the transition from porters to Levites is made easier
by the fact that the four porters last mentioned (verses 26, 27) are
Levites. Some commentators hold that the paragraph dealing with the
duties of the Levites begins in verse 26 with the words “_And they were
over_,” etc.
²⁹Some of them also were appointed over the furniture, and over
all the vessels of the sanctuary, and over the fine flour, and
the wine, and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices.
=29.= compare xxiii. 29.
=30.=
A PRIESTLY DUTY.
³⁰And some of the sons of the priests prepared the confection of
the spices.
=30.= _the sons of the priests_] i.e. “members of the priesthood,
priests.” Compare 2 Chronicles xxv. 13, “the soldiers of the army”
(literally “the sons of the troop”) and the common expression “the sons
of the prophets.”
_confection_] (For the word, compare 1 Samuel viii. 13, Revised Version
text and margin) This “ointment” was peculiarly holy (Exodus xxx.
23‒25). The Levites might have charge of the oil and spices (verse 29),
but only the priests might make the confection.
=31, 32.=
OTHER LEVITICAL DUTIES.
³¹And Mattithiah, one of the Levites, who was the firstborn of
Shallum the Korahite, had the set office over the things that
were baked in pans.
=31.= _who was the firstborn of Shallum_] In xxvi. 2 the firstborn of
Meshelemiah (= Shallum) is called _Zechariah_. Probably _Mattithiah_
and _Zechariah_ represent _each_ a household belonging to an elder
branch of the great family of _Shallum_.
³²And some of their brethren, of the sons of the Kohathites,
were over the shewbread, to prepare it every sabbath.
=32.= _the shewbread_] Literally _the bread of the Row_ (or _of the
Pile_), for it had to be arranged in order before the Lord (Leviticus
xxiv. 6). The Chronicler prefers this term to the older “Bread of the
Presence” (i.e. of Jehovah). See more fully Driver, _Exodus_, pp. 274,
275, in this series.
_to prepare it every sabbath_] “Every sabbath he shall set it in order
before the LORD continually” (Leviticus xxiv. 8). In 2 Chronicles ii. 4
(= ii. 3, _Hebrew_) it is called _the continual shewbread_ (literally
“the continual Row”).
³³And these are the singers, heads of fathers’ _houses_ of
the Levites, _who dwelt_ in the chambers _and were_ free _from
other service_: for they were employed in their work day and
night. ³⁴These were heads of fathers’ _houses_ of the Levites,
throughout their generations, chief men: these dwelt at
Jerusalem.
=33.= _And these are_] This verse may be intended as a conclusion to
verses 15, 16, for the names there given are those of singers; compare
Nehemiah xi. 17. On the other hand it may have been intended as the
heading of such a list as appears in vi. 33‒47 (= 18‒32, Hebrew), the
list itself having somehow been omitted.
_day and night_] Compare Psalms cxxxiv. 1; Revelation iv. 8.
=35‒44= (= viii. 29‒38).
THE GENEALOGY OF THE HOUSE OF SAUL.
³⁵And in Gibeon there dwelt the father of Gibeon, Jeiel, whose
wife’s name was Maacah: ³⁶and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur,
and Kish, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab; ³⁷and Gedor, and Ahio,
and Zechariah, and Mikloth. ³⁸And Mikloth begat Shimeam. And
they also dwelt with their brethren in Jerusalem, over against
their brethren. ³⁹And Ner begat Kish; and Kish begat Saul; and
Saul begat Jonathan, and Malchi-shua, and Abinadab, and Eshbaal.
⁴⁰And the son of Jonathan was Merib-baal; and Merib-baal begat
Micah. ⁴¹And the sons of Micah; Pithon, and Melech, and Tahrea,
_and Ahaz_. ⁴²And Ahaz begat Jarah; and Jarah begat Alemeth,
and Azmaveth, and Zimri; and Zimri begat Moza: ⁴³and Moza begat
Binea; and Rephaiah his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son:
⁴⁴and Azel had six sons, whose names are these; Azrikam, Bocheru,
and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and Obadiah, and Hanan: these were
the sons of Azel.
See notes on viii. 29 ff. The passage serves here as an introduction to
the story of the death of Saul. Whether it is in its original setting
here or in viii. 29 ff., or possibly is original in both chapters,
there is not sufficient evidence to determine (see note on viii. 29).
CHAPTERS X.‒XXIX.
THE REIGN OF DAVID.
At this point the Chronicler begins his narrative of Israel’s history.
It commences abruptly with an account of the defeat and death of Saul,
which however is given not for its own interest, but to serve as a
brief introduction to the reign of David (chapter xi. ff.). Why does
the Chronicler choose to begin his narrative at this point, passing
over in silence (a) the Mosaic period, (b) the stories of Judges and of
1 Samuel i.‒xxx.? As regards (a) his silence is due to the assumption
that those for whom he writes are no less familiar than he is himself
with the account of the Mosaic age as presented by the fully developed
tradition of the Pentateuch. As for (b), his silence probably arises
neither from the difficulty of retelling the narratives of Judges
in accordance with his theory of the early history, nor yet from the
fact that they were doubtless familiar to his readers; but, again,
from a consideration of the central purpose of his work. His theme
is the Divine guidance of Israel’s destiny, and, since that destiny
had ultimately centred upon the fortunes of Jerusalem and the worship
maintained through its Temple, all else in Israel’s history becomes
of quite secondary importance. He begins therefore where (for Israel)
Jerusalem and the Temple began――with David, who conquered the city and
planned the Temple. The tales of the Judges, of Samuel, and of David’s
early life and his magnanimity toward Saul (a tempting source for the
exaltation of the character of the ideal king), all these are logically
ignored, since they lie outside the scope of the Chronicler’s design.
CHAPTER X.
=1‒12= (= 1 Samuel xxxi. 1‒13).
THE DEFEAT, DEATH, AND BURIAL OF SAUL.
=1‒12.= There are several variations between the text given here and
the text of 1 Samuel, to which attention will be called in the notes
below.
¹Now the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of
Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain¹ in
mount Gilboa.
¹ Or, _wounded_.
=1.= _in mount Gilboa_] In the campaign of Gilboa the Philistines
showed new and skilful strategy. Instead of at once marching eastward
up the ravines which lead into Judah and Benjamin――in which there was
no room for their chariots (2 Samuel i. 6) to manœuvre――they first
marched northward along the sea-coast and then turned eastward just
before reaching Mount Carmel. This movement brought them into the great
fertile plain watered by the Kishon, ground over which chariots could
act with decisive effect. At the north-east end of the plain rose the
heights of Gilboa. When Saul and his Benjamites advanced to meet the
Philistines, the latter succeeded in interposing themselves between
the Israelite army and its base in Benjamin――an easy achievement for
an enemy who by his chariots possessed a high degree of mobility. Saul
was therefore driven to take up his position on the _north_ side of
the plain on Mount Gilboa, where he was attacked by the Philistines,
probably from the south-west on which side the slopes of the mountain
are comparatively gentle. The Israelites, cut off from their homes,
outmarched, outgeneralled, and probably outnumbered, were speedily
routed. The battle of Gilboa was won, like that of Hastings, by cavalry
(chariots) and archers (verse 3) against infantry, which was obliged
to stand on the defensive, under pain of being cut to pieces if it
ventured to attack. See G. A. Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy
Land_, pp. 400 ff.
²And the Philistines followed hard after Saul and after his
sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab¹, and
Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. ³And the battle went sore against
Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was distressed by
reason of the archers.
¹ In 1 Samuel xiv. 49, _Ishvi_.
=2.= _Malchi-shua_] This is the correct spelling, not _Melchi-shua_.
⁴Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and
thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come
and abuse¹ me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore
afraid. Therefore Saul took his sword, and fell upon it. ⁵And
when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell
upon his sword, and died.
¹ Or, _make a mock of me_.
=4.= _unto his armourbearer_] Compare Judges ix. 54 (the death of
Abimelech). One function of an armourbearer was to give the “coup de
grâce” to fallen enemies (1 Samuel xiv. 13), but sometimes the same
office had to be executed for friends. Possibly the man refused from
fear of blood-revenge, which would be the more certainly exacted in
the case of the Lord’s Anointed, compare 1 Samuel ii. 22, xxvi. 9 (so
Curtis).
_and abuse me_] i.e. wreak their cruel will upon me; compare Judges
i. 6.
⁶So Saul died, and his three sons; and all his house died
together.
=6.= _all his house_] In Samuel “his armourbearer and all his men.” The
reference may be to Saul’s servants: his family was not exterminated in
this battle.
⁷And when all the men of Israel that were in the valley saw that
they fled, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook
their cities, and fled; and the Philistines came and dwelt in
them.
⁸And it came to pass on the morrow, when the Philistines came
to strip the slain, that they found Saul and his sons fallen in
mount Gilboa.
=7.= _that were in the valley_] The “valley of Jezreel” (Hosea i. 5),
called in later times the “plain of Esdrelon” (Esdraelon), is meant.
_forsook their cities_] Among these was no doubt Beth-shan (Beisan)
“the key of Western Palestine” (see G. A. Smith, _Historical Geography
of the Holy Land_ pp. 358 f.), where Saul’s body was exposed (1 Samuel
xxxi. 12).
_and dwelt in them_] Perhaps for a short while only, compare 2 Samuel
ii. 9, “[Abner] made him (Ish-bosheth) king over ... _Jezreel_.”
Ish-bosheth, however, may have “ruled” only in acknowledgment of a
Philistine suzerainty.
⁹And they stripped him, and took his head, and his armour, and
sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to carry the
tidings unto their idols, and to the people.
=9.= _to carry the tidings unto their idols_] Better, as in Samuel, “to
publish it _in the house_ (or _houses_) of their idols”; compare the
next verse. The news was published by the exhibition of trophies of the
victory in the Philistine temples.
¹⁰And they put his armour in the house of their gods, and
fastened his head in the house of Dagon.
=10.= _in the house of their gods_] In Samuel (more definitely) “in
the house (_or_ houses) of Ashtaroth,” Ashtaroth being the plural of
_Ashtoreth_, a goddess, who seems here to bear a martial character.
(The name _Ashtoreth_ is an artificial formation, the proper form being
_Ashtarte_. The vowels of the word _bōshĕth_, i.e. _shame_, were used
for the last two syllables in place of the true vowels; compare note on
viii. 33.) She was apparently consort of the Phoenician Baal (Judges ii.
13, x. 6).
_fastened his head in the house of Dagon_ (literally _Beth-Dagon_)]
In Samuel _fastened his body to the wall of Beth-shan_. The reading of
Chronicles is probably an arbitrary alteration made by the Chronicler
out of regard for 1 Samuel xxxi. 9, where it is related that the
Philistines cut off Saul’s head. It is just possible that the variation
points to a fuller original text containing all three statements――that
Saul’s armour was placed in the temple of Ashtarte, his head in the
“house of Dagon,” and his headless corpse fastened to the walls of
Beth-shan. Beth-shan is north-east of Gilboa, about four miles distant
from the Jordan, and about a day’s march (1 Samuel xxxi. 12) from
Jabesh (verse 11), which was situated on the other side of Jordan in
Gilead.
¹¹And when all Jabesh-gilead heard all that the Philistines had
done to Saul,
=11.= _Jabesh-gilead_] See 1 Samuel xi. 1‒11; 2 Samuel ii. 4‒7.
¹²all the valiant men arose, and took away the body of Saul, and
the bodies of his sons, and brought them to Jabesh, and buried
their bones under the oak¹ in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.
¹ Or, _terebinth_.
=12.= _took away_] i.e. from the walls of Beth-shan (so Peshitṭa).
_to Jabesh_] Samuel adds “and burned them there.” The Chronicler omits
this statement perhaps because he inferred that the bones were not
_destroyed_ by this burning; compare 2 Samuel xxi. 12‒14 (the bones of
Saul and Jonathan brought from Jabesh in David’s reign and re-interred
in the family sepulchre) or more probably because burning was not a
usual funeral rite among the Jews (compare 2 Chronicles xvi. 14, note),
and indeed was regarded with abhorrence (compare Amos ii. 1).
_under the oak_] margin, _terebinth_. Large trees, being rare in
Palestine, frequently serve as landmarks; compare Judges iv. 5; 1
Samuel xxii. 6 (“tamarisk tree” Revised Version).
_fasted seven days_] Fasting involved abstinence from food during
daylight. David fasted “till the evening” in mourning for Saul (2
Samuel i. 12) and for Abner (2 Samuel iii. 35). The fast of Jabesh was
a sevenfold fast.
=13, 14= (peculiar to Chronicles).
THE MORAL OF THE OVERTHROW OF THE HOUSE OF SAUL.
Such reflexions as these are characteristic of the Chronicler; compare
2 Chronicles xii. 2 (note), xxii. 7, xxiv. 24, xxv. 27. They are not so
frequent in Samuel and Kings.
¹³So Saul died for¹ his trespass which he committed against the
LORD, because of the word of the LORD, which he kept not; and
also for that he asked counsel of one that had a familiar spirit,
to inquire _thereby_,
¹ Or, _in_.
=13.= _his trespass_] compare 2 Chronicles xxvi. 16. The reference is
to Saul’s sacrifice (1 Samuel xiii. 13, 14), and disobedience (1 Samuel
xv. 23).
_asked counsel ... spirit_] i.e. of the witch of Endor, 1 Samuel
xxviii. 7 ff.
¹⁴and inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and
turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
=14.= _and inquired not of the LORD_] Compare xiii. 3. The Chronicler
presumably does not count inquiries made too late; compare 1 Samuel
xxviii. 6 (Saul inquires of the Lord, but receives no answer).
CHAPTER XI.
=1‒3= (= 2 Samuel v. 1‒3).
DAVID MADE KING OVER ALL ISRAEL.
The remaining chapters of the first book of Chronicles are occupied
with the reign of David, who is represented as a king fulfilling the
Chronicler’s highest ideals of piety and prosperity. For some general
remarks on the difference between the picture thus given and the David
of Samuel see the note on xxviii. 1.
¹Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron,
saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.
=1.= _Then_] Render =And=.
_all Israel_] Chronicles has nothing here corresponding to 2 Samuel
i.‒iv., chapters which cover a period of seven years (2 Samuel v. 5).
David’s earlier coronation by the men of Judah (2 Samuel ii. 4), the
reign of Ish-bosheth over Northern and Eastern Israel (2 Samuel ii.
8 ff.), and the “long war” (2 Samuel iii. 1) with the house of Saul
are omitted not of course because the Chronicler was ignorant of these
events (for see the references in verses 15, 17; xii. 1, 23, 29, etc.),
but for the reason set forth above in the head-note to chapters x.‒xxix.
The Chronicler’s account is perhaps deliberately adapted to convey an
impression of the ease with which the ideal David ascends the throne
of a united Israel; and, if we had not the narrative in Samuel to help
us, we should be left with a conception of the period very different
from the actual course of events. How strange, too, would be the sudden
transition from the picture of defeat and flight of Israel in chapter
x. to the calm assemblage of all Israel in chapter xi., and how obscure
the various references to David’s earlier life in xi. 15 ff.!
_we are thy bone and thy flesh_] The phrase is not to be taken strictly
as implying kinship, for only the tribe of Judah could say “The king is
near of kin to us” (2 Samuel xix. 42). The other tribes mean that they
will obey David as though he were their own kin.
²In times past, even when Saul was king, it was thou that
leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD thy God said
unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be
prince¹ over my people Israel.
¹ Or, _leader_.
=2.= _the LORD thy God said_] Compare verses 3, 10; 1 Samuel xvi. 1‒13.
_prince_] compare v. 2, note.
³So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and
David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and
they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of
the LORD by the hand of Samuel.
=3.= _made a covenant_] i.e. gave them a charter in which he promised
to respect existing rights; compare 1 Samuel x. 25 (Samuel writes the
“manner” of the kingdom).
_before the LORD_] One method of entering into a covenant “before the
LORD” was to pass between the parts of a sacrificed animal; compare
Jeremiah xxxiv. 18, 19.
Chronicles has nothing here corresponding with 2 Samuel v. 4, 5; but
compare xxix. 27.
_according ... Samuel_] Compare 1 Samuel xv. 28, xvi. 1, 3.
=4‒9= (= 2 Samuel v. 6‒10).
THE “CITY OF DAVID” CAPTURED AND MADE A ROYAL RESIDENCE.
⁴And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem (the same is Jebus);
and the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, were there.
=4.= _David and all Israel_] In Samuel (more accurately) “The king
and _his men_,” i.e. his household and body-guard; compare x. 6, note.
The exploit recorded in Samuel is invested by the Chronicler with the
grandeur of a state campaign.
_the same is Jebus_] Jerusalem (or Jebus) consisted, it seems (compare
verse 8; Judges i. 21), of a citadel inhabited by Jebusites and of a
lower city inhabited by a mixed population of Jebusites and Benjamites.
It was the citadel only which David stormed. Jerusalem is called Jebus
only here and in Judges xix. 10 f. The notion that Jebus was an ancient
name for the city _may_ be only a late fancy, but it is possible that
it was sometimes so called in the days of the Jebusite rule. What is
certain is that the name Jerusalem is ancient, for it occurs frequently
(as Urusalim) in the Amarna tablets, _circa_ 1400 B.C. See G. A. Smith,
_Jerusalem_.
_the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land_] i.e. masters of that
territory before the Israelite invasion. The Jebusites have been
thought to be of Hittite origin, but they were probably Semites, like
the Israelites (see G. A. Smith, _Jerusalem_, II. 16‒18).
⁵And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come
in hither. Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion; the
same is the city of David.
=5.= _Thou shalt not come in hither_]. Undoubtedly the Chronicler
understood the resistance offered by the Jebusites to be of a military
character, and the text of Samuel _as translated_ in Authorized
Version and Revised Version follows the same notion. See, however,
the reinterpretation of the Samuel text by Barnes in the _Expositor_,
January, 1914, where it is urged that the word (_mᵉtsudah_) rendered
“_strong hold_” means not a well-fortified citadel but simply a
natural hiding place, such as a thicket or a cavern (which in this
case probably was used as a shrine by the Jebusites).
_the strong hold of Zion_] See the previous note. The site of this
“hold” or cavern (afterwards “the city of David”) is on the south-east
of the present city, on the south of the Haram (the Temple area), and
on a level lower than that of the Haram (see Smith, _Jerusalem_, II.
39 ff.).
⁶And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall
be chief and captain. And Joab the son of Zeruiah went up
first, and was made chief. ⁷And David dwelt in the strong hold;
therefore they called it the city of David.
=6.= _Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites_] The reference here is no
doubt to military violence. See, however, the article by Barnes cited
above. The text in Samuel is very difficult and corrupt, and has been
simplified by the Chronicler.
_Joab the son of Zeruiah_] Zeruiah was David’s sister (ii. 16). It
is not said in Samuel that Joab first became commander-in-chief on
this occasion; on the contrary he appears in command (2 Samuel ii. 13)
during the civil war against the house of Saul. Perhaps he was first
formally acknowledged as commander at the seizure of Jerusalem.
⁸And he built the city round about, from Millo even round about:
and Joab repaired¹ the rest of the city. ⁹And David waxed
greater and greater; for the LORD of hosts was with him.
¹ Hebrew _revived_.
=8.= _from Millo even round about_] Literally “the Millo,” meaning
perhaps “The filling up,” was some part of the defences of the “city
of David,” either a _solid_ tower or perhaps an armoury, or a piece
of supplementary work intended to strengthen an existing wall (LXX.
2 Chronicles xxxii. 5, ἀνάλημμα, “support”). See Smith, _Jerusalem_
II. 40 f.
_Joab_] This tradition about Joab is not mentioned in Samuel.
_repaired the rest of the city_] literally _revived_, compare Nehemiah
iv. 2 (= Hebrew iii. 34). Peshitṭa translates: “Joab gave his right
hand to the rest of the men who were in the city”; and it has been
proposed to render the clause _spared_ or _kept alive the rest of
the city_ (i.e. the remaining people, the Benjamites who dwelt there
with the Jebusites [Judges i. 21]). The rendering _repaired_ is to be
preferred.
=10‒41a= (compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 8‒39).
DAVID’S MIGHTY MEN AND THEIR DEEDS.
This section seems to consist of elements drawn from different sources
and brought together (probably by the author of Samuel) in order to
give as complete a list as possible of the heroes who at different
times in David’s career did good service to Israel.
The names of twelve of these heroes reappear in chapter xxvii. as the
commanders of David’s twelve “courses.”
Verses =11‒14= (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 8‒12) deal with two (in Samuel three)
heroes otherwise unknown.
Verses =15‒19= (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 13‒17) are independent of the
foregoing and narrate an exploit of three unnamed heroes.
Verses =20‒25= (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 18‒23) seem in turn to be independent
of =15‒19=, and verses 21, 25 in particular seem to be quoted from some
lost poem. These verses contain the eulogy of Abishai and Benaiah.
Verses =26‒41a= (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 24‒39) contain thirty names
of heroes whose exploits are not recorded. It is to be noted that
Chronicles, verses =41b‒47=, adds some sixteen names at the end which
are not given in Samuel.
Joab is not included in the formal list because he has been already
mentioned (verse 6).
Lists of names are favourite features in oriental Histories. Thus Ibn
Hishām in his _Life_ of Mohammed gives a list of the 83 Moslems who
took refuge in Abyssinia from the persecution of the Koreish, of the
75 inhabitants of Medina who swore allegiance to the Prophet before the
Hegira, and even of the 314 Moslems who were present at the battle of
Bedr.
¹⁰Now these are the chief of the mighty men whom David had,
who shewed¹ themselves strong with him in his kingdom, together
with all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of the
LORD concerning Israel.
¹ _held strongly with him_.
=10.= _Now these_] This verse is the Chronicler’s own heading which he
prefixes to the list of heroes taken from Samuel, while retaining (in
verse 11) the original heading given in Samuel.
_who shewed themselves strong with him_] Render as margin, =who held
strongly with him=. Compare xii. 23.
_to make him king_] as though all the mighty men participated in the
coronation at Hebron, whereas in reality many must have won their place
and fame only in the later campaigns of David.
¹¹And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had:
Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the thirty¹; he
lifted up his spear against three hundred and² slew them at one
time.
¹ Another reading is, _captains_.
² Hebrew _slain_.
=11.= _this is the number_] More suitably in Samuel, “These be the
names.”
_Jashobeam_] Called “Jashobeam the son of Zabdiel” in xxvii. 2. The
name “Jashobeam” is however uncertain. In 2 Samuel (xxiii. 8, Revised
Version) it appears as “Josheb-basshebeth,” which is certainly wrong.
LXX. (B) varies in reproducing the name, but it seems to have read
“Ish-bosheth” in Samuel, and “Ish-baal” (Esh-baal) in both places of
Chronicles. These readings are probably right. For the relation of the
forms “Ish-bosheth,” “Esh-baal” see viii. 33, note.
_son of a Hachmonite_] Compare xxvii. 32. In Samuel (wrongly) “a
Tahchemonite.”
_chief of the thirty_] So the Hebrew margin (_Kethīb_), but the Hebrew
text (_Ḳerī_) reads _chief of the captains_, which the Authorized
Version follows. Neither Authorized Version nor Revised Version gives
satisfactory sense. In 2 Samuel xxiii. 8 the LXX. gives, _chief of the
third part_ [_of the army_], compare 2 Samuel xviii. 2; and this is
perhaps right; the Hebrew text of Samuel (if not faulty) probably bears
the same sense. Ish-baal (Jashobeam) then is one of three “mightiest
of the mighty” men, the other two being Eleazar (verse 12) and Shammah
(= 2 Samuel xxiii. 11; omitted in Chronicles――see note on verses 12,
13).
_he lifted up his spear_] Literally “he aroused his spear,” a poetic
expression.
_against three hundred_] Samuel “against eight hundred”; so Peshitṭa
(good MSS.) of Chronicles Some light is thrown on this exploit by
1 Samuel xviii. 25‒27; the two hundred Philistines slain by David and
his men were carefully counted and reckoned to the credit of David
personally.
=12, 13.= These verses answer in part to verses 9 and 11 of Samuel, but
since verse 10 and parts of verses 9, 11 of Samuel have no equivalent
in Chronicles, two incidents are confounded, and the name of a hero
(Shammah) is omitted, his exploit being ascribed to Eleazar.
¹²And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who
was one of the three mighty men.
=12.= _Eleazar the son of Dodo_] Probably to be identified with “Dodai
the Ahohite,” the commander of the second “course”; xxvii. 4.
_the three mighty men_] i.e. the three who were with David on the
occasion mentioned in 2 Samuel xxiii. 9.
¹³He was with David at Pas-dammim¹, and there the Philistines
were gathered together to battle, where was a plot of ground
full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines.
¹ In 1 Samuel xvii. 1, _Ephes-dammim_.
=13.= _at Pas-dammim_] Perhaps the same place as “Ephes-dammim”
which is mentioned in 1 Samuel xvii. 1 as the gathering-place of the
Philistines. It was in the south-west of Judah.
_barley_] Samuel “lentils.” The two words resemble each other in Hebrew
and might be confused by an unwary scribe.
¹⁴And they stood in the midst of the plot, and defended it, and
slew the Philistines; and the LORD saved them by a great
victory¹.
¹ Hebrew _salvation_.
=14.= _they stood_] The subject of the verb in 2 Samuel xxiii. 12 is
Shammah, here David and Eleazar together.
¹⁵And three of the thirty chief went down to the rock to David,
into the cave of Adullam; and the host of the Philistines were
encamped in the valley of Rephaim.
=15.= _to the rock_] Samuel “in the harvest-time.” Probably both
readings are wrong, and the original form of the verse was perhaps _And
three of the thirty went down at the beginning of harvest to David_,
etc. (see Driver, _Notes on Hebrew text of Samuel_², p. 366).
_the cave of Adullam_] So also in 1 Samuel xxii. 1; 2 Samuel xxiii.
13. In verse 16 below, and in 1 Samuel xxii. 4 it is called the “hold.”
Probably “the ‘hold’ was a tangle of hill and forest, in the centre of
which the ‘cave of Adullam’ served as David’s headquarters” (Barnes,
_Expositor_, January, 1914): the whole forming an admirable retreat
for men acquainted with its intricacies. An identification with a
commanding hill in the Shephelah, called “_Aid-el-ma_,” has been
suggested (see G. A. Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_
pp. 229, 230, note).
_the valley of Rephaim_] Probably the broad depression traversed by the
road from Jerusalem to Beth-lehem. See Joshua xv. 8 (“vale of Rephaim”
Revised Version; “valley of the giants” Authorized Version).
¹⁶And David was then in the hold, and the garrison of the
Philistines was then in Beth-lehem. ¹⁷And David longed, and
said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of
Beth-lehem, which is by the gate!
=16.= _in the hold_] compare note on _the cave of Adullam_ (verse 15).
¹⁸And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and
drew water out of the well of Beth-lehem, that was by the gate,
and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink
thereof, but poured it out unto the LORD, ¹⁹and said, My God
forbid it me, that I should do this: shall I drink the blood of
these men that¹ have put their lives in jeopardy? for with _the
jeopardy of_ their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not
drink it. These things did the three mighty men.
¹ Hebrew _with their lives_.
=18.= _brake through the host_] or _camp_. The word “host” in the
Hebrew regularly means a host encamped, not a host embattled. Perhaps
this exploit took place by night; compare the deed of David and Abishai
(1 Samuel xxvi. 6‒12).
_poured it out_] i.e. as a libation-offering.
²⁰And Abishai¹, the brother of Joab, he was chief of the three:
for he lifted up his spear against three hundred and² slew them,
and had a name among the three. Of³ the three,
¹ Hebrew _Abshai_.
² Hebrew _slain_.
³ Or, _Of the three in the second rank he was the most
honourable_.
=20.= _chief of the three_] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 18 (_Kethīb_)
Abishai is called by the same title (Hebrew _rōsh hasshālīshi_) as
Josheb-basshebeth (2 Samuel xxiii. verse 8). This title probably means
_chief of the third part_ [_of the army_]; compare verse 11, note.
_Chief of the three_ is a faulty reading: it certainly ought not to
be taken in connection with the three mighty men――Jashobeam (Ishbaal),
Eleazar and <Shammah>――referred to in verses 10 ff. Probably a reading
“chief of the thirty,” for which there is some MS. authority, is
correct; but the references here and in the following verse are obscure
(see Driver, _Samuel_², pp. 367, 368).
_had a name among the three_] Compare verse 24, where the same thing is
said of Benaiah. The three meant are either the three of verses 15‒19
or else an unknown three; compare next note.
²¹he was more honourable than the two, and was made their
captain: howbeit he attained not to the _first_ three.
=21.= _Of the three, he was more honourable than the two_] margin “_Of
the three in the second rank he was the most honourable._” Neither of
these renderings is satisfactory, and the text is certainly corrupt
(compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 19), and should be corrected. Read perhaps:
=He was more honourable than the three=, or perhaps, =than the thirty=.
The verse probably comes from a lost poem. What is meant by the _three_
and by _the first three_ cannot be determined owing to the loss of the
context.
²²Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of
Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds, he slew the two _sons of_
Ariel of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of
a pit in time of snow.
=22.= _Benaiah_] See 2 Samuel viii. 18; 1 Kings i. 8 ff., ii. 25‒35.
_Kabzeel_] It was in the south of Judah; Joshua xv. 21.
_he slew the two_ sons of _Ariel of Moab_] So LXX. of 2 Samuel xxiii.
20. The phrase is very difficult. Some, emending the text, read “He
slew two young lions, having gone down to their lair.” Another but
an improbable conjecture is “he smote the two altar-pillars of Moab,”
i.e. he overthrew the two high columns on which the sacred fire of
the Moabites was kept (Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_,
Additional Note L). To injure or defile the sacred place of an enemy
was a common practice in ancient war.
_in time of snow_] “The beast had strayed up the Judaean hills from
Jordan, and had been caught in a sudden snowstorm. Where else than
in Palestine could lions and snow thus come together?” G. A. Smith,
_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_ p. 65.
²³And he slew an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits
high; and in the Egyptian’s hand was a spear like a weaver’s
beam; and he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the
spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own
spear. ²⁴These things did Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and had a
name among the three mighty men.
=23.= _of great stature_] Samuel has a better reading, “a goodly man”
(man of presence), “goodliness” according to the Hebrews consisting in
being well-built for warlike exercises.
_a staff_] Hebrew _shēbhet_, i.e. the “rod” or “club” carried by
shepherds as a defence against wild-beasts; Psalms ii. 9 (“rod”);
xxiii. 4 “rod”); 2 Samuel xviii. 14 (“darts”). This “rod” had a point
at one end, so that it could on occasion be used as a stabbing weapon.
²⁵Behold, he was more honourable than the thirty, but he
attained not to the _first_ three: and David set him over his
guard¹.
¹ Or, _council_.
=25.= _more honourable than the thirty_] On the phrase, see verse 21,
note. The verse probably comes from some poem written in praise of
Benaiah. Compare xxvii. 6.
_guard_] The same Hebrew word, _mishma‘ath_, is translated “council” in
the margin here and also in 1 Samuel xxii. 14. The literal meaning is
“obedience”; it seems both here and in Samuel (1 Samuel xxii. 14) to
designate those who executed the king’s commands, i.e. his ministers.
(_Minister_ = “servant.”)
²⁶Also the mighty men of the armies; Asahel the brother of
Joab, Elhanan the son of Dodo of Beth-lehem;
=26.= _Asahel_] Whose death at the hands of Abner, the general of
Ishbosheth, was the cause of the famous feud between Abner and Joab,
compare 2 Samuel ii. 18 ff., iii. 27.
_Elhanan_] Called here (= 2 Samuel xxiii. 24) “son of Dodo,” but
perhaps to be identified with “Elhanan the son of Jair” of xx. 5
(= 2 Samuel xxi. 19, where _Jaare-oregim_ is an error for _Jair_ [see
Driver, _Samuel_², pp. 367, 368]).
²⁷Shammoth¹ the Harorite, Helez the Pelonite²;
¹ In 2 Samuel xxiii. 25, _Shamah the Harodite_.
² In 2 Samuel xxiii. 26, _Paltite_.
=27.= _the Harorite_] Read, =the Harodite= (so Samuel). Compare Judges
vi. 23, vii. 1, whence it appears that Harod was in (or near) the
valley of Jezreel. Compare also 1 Chronicles xxvii. 8 (“Shamhuth
the Izrahite”), where the same person seems to be meant. “Elika the
Harodite” (Samuel) is not found in Chronicles.
_Helez the Pelonite_] Compare xxvii. 10, where he is described as a
captain of the children of Ephraim. In 2 Samuel xxiii. 26 however it is
Helez _the Paltite_, i.e. (apparently) “the inhabitant of Beth-pelet”
in the south of Judah (Joshua xv. 27).
²⁸Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, Abiezer the Anathothite;
=28.= _Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite_] Compare xxvii. 9. For
_Tekoa_ see 2 Chronicles xx. 20, note.
_Abiezer the Anathothite_] xxvii. 12 and 2 Samuel xxiii. 27. Anathoth
was in Benjamin; it was Jeremiah’s village (Jeremiah i. 1, xi. 21 ff.),
now _Anāta_, 2½ miles north-north-east of Jerusalem.
²⁹Sibbecai¹ the Hushathite, Ilai² the Ahohite;
¹ In 2 Samuel xxiii. 27, _Mebunnai_.
² In 2 Samuel xxiii. 28, _Zalmon_.
=29.= _Sibbecai_] So xxvii. 11, but in 2 Samuel xxiii. 27 “Mebunnai.”
_the Hushathite_] _Hushah_ is probably the name of some place near
Beth-lehem (iv. 4). _Shuah_ (iv. verse 11) may be another form of the
name.
_Ilai_] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 28 “Zalmon.” The two words are perhaps only
various readings of the name which originally appeared in the list.
_the Ahohite_] He was of a Benjamite family; viii. 4 (“Ahoah”).
³⁰Maharai the Netophathite, Heled¹ the son of Baanah the
Netophathite;
¹ In 2 Samuel xxiii. 29, _Heleb_.
=30.= _Maharai the Netophathite_] So in xxvii. 13, with “of the
Zerahites” (Revised Version) added. A _Netophathite_ might come either
from Netophah (a village in Judah not far from Beth-lehem), or from the
“villages of the Netophathites” (ix. 16, note).
_Heled_] In xxvii. 15 “Heldai,” a name found in Zechariah iv. 10.
“Heleb” in 2 Samuel xxiii. 29 is probably a wrong reading.
³¹Ithai the son of Ribai of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin,
Benaiah the Pirathonite;
=31.= _Ithai_] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 29 “Ittai,” the same name as in
2 Samuel xv. 19, xviii. 2, but a different person is meant.
_Benaiah the Pirathonite_] So in xxvii. 14; 2 Samuel xxiii. 30.
Pirathon was a town in Ephraim; Judges xii. 15. Probably the place is
mentioned also in 1 Maccabees ix. 50 (τὴν Θαμνάθα Φαραθών).
³²Hurai¹ of the brooks of Gaash, Abiel² the Arbathite;
¹ In 2 Samuel xxiii. 30, _Hiddai_.
² In 2 Samuel xxiii. 31, _Abi-albon_.
=32.= _Hurai_] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 30, “Hiddai.” The true form of the
name is uncertain; neither form occurs elsewhere.
_Gaash_] A mountain in Ephraim; Judges ii. 9 (= Joshua xxiv. 30).
_Abiel_] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 31 “Abi-albon.” “Arbathite” means
“inhabitant of Beth Arabah”; a town on the border between Judah and
Benjamin, Joshua xv. 6.
³³Azmaveth the Baharumite, Eliahba the Shaalbonite;
=33.= _Baharumite_] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 31 “Barhumite.” We should read
in both places, = Bahurimite=, i.e. “inhabitant of Bahurim,” a town of
Benjamin (2 Samuel iii. 16).
_Shaalbonite_] i.e. “inhabitant of Shaalbim” (Judges i. 35), or
“Shaalabbin” (Joshua xix. 42), a town in Dan.
³⁴the sons of Hashem¹ the Gizonite, Jonathan the son of Shage
the Hararite;
¹ In 2 Samuel xxiii. 32, _Jashen_.
=34.= _the sons of Hashem the Gizonite_] The corresponding clause in
2 Samuel xxiii. 32 is simply “the sons of Jashen.” The text is corrupt
in both places. LXX. (Chronicles) for _the sons of_ has the proper
name “Benaiah.” Read perhaps “Jashen the Gunite” (compare Numbers
xxvi. 48) omitting _the sons of_ (Hebrew _bĕnē_) as arising from a
mistaken repetition of the last three letters of Shaalbonite (Hebrew
form).
_Jonathan the son of Shage_] Compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 32, 33, where the
right reading seems to be “Jonathan the son of Shammah.” Nothing is
known of the meaning of “Hararite,” nor is the reading certain.
³⁵Ahiam the son of Sacar¹ the Hararite, Eliphal² the son of Ur;
³⁶Hepher the Mecherathite, Ahijah the Pelonite;
¹ In 2 Samuel xxiii. 33, _Sharar_.
² In 2 Samuel xxiii. 34, _Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai_.
=35.= _Sacar_] In 2 Samuel “Sharar.”
=35, 36.= _Eliphal the son of Ur; Hepher the Mecherathite_] In 2 Samuel
xxiii. 34 “Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite.”
Chronicles has two heroes against one in 2 Samuel.
=36.= _Ahijah the Pelonite_] A mutilated reading of 2 Samuel xxiii. 34,
“Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite.” For “Ahithophel” see xxvii.
33, note. “Gilonite” means “inhabitant of Giloh,” a town in the hill
country of Judah (Joshua xv. 51).
³⁷Hezro the Carmelite, Naarai¹ the son of Ezbai;
¹ In 2 Samuel xxiii. 35, _Paarai the Arbite_.
=37.= _Hezro_] So 2 Samuel xxiii. 35 (Revised Version following the
_Kethīb_); but Hezrai (Authorized Version following the _Ḳerī_).
_the Carmelite_] i.e. inhabitant of Carmel, a town in the hill country
of Judah (1 Samuel xxv. 2 ff.).
_Naarai_] In 2 Samuel xxiii. 35 “Paarai.” The true form is lost.
_the son of Ezbai_] In 2 Samuel “the Arbite” (simply), i.e. (probably)
“inhabitant of Arab” (Joshua xv. 52), a town in the hill country of
Judah.
³⁸Joel the brother of Nathan, Mibhar the son of Hagri;
=38.= _Joel the brother of Nathan, Mibhar_] _Mibhar_ is a corruption of
a word (“of Zobah”) belonging to the first clause of the verse; compare
2 Samuel xxiii. 39, “Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah.” For “Zobah”
compare xviii. 3.
_the son of Hagri_] In 2 Samuel “Bani the Gadite.”
³⁹Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Berothite, the armourbearer of
Joab the son of Zeruiah;
=39.= _the Berothite_] Spelt generally “Beerothite.” Beeroth was a
Benjamite town; 2 Samuel iv. 2.
⁴⁰Ira the Ithrite, Gareb the Ithrite;
=40.= _the Ithrite_] i.e. “member of the family (or ‘clan’) of Jether.”
Compare ii. 17, note.
⁴¹Uriah the Hittite, Zabad the son of Ahlai;
=41.= _Uriah the Hittite_] Compare 2 Samuel xi. 3. The list in 2 Samuel
xxiii. closes with this name and with the note “thirty and seven in
all.” In Chronicles the list is extended to include sixteen additional
names, which are all otherwise unknown.
=41b‒47= (no parallel in 2 Samuel).
CONTINUATION OF THE LIST OF DAVID’S MIGHTY MEN.
⁴²Adina the son of Shiza the Reubenite, a chief of the
Reubenites, and thirty with him; ⁴³Hanan the son of Maacah, and
Joshaphat the Mithnite;
=42.= _and thirty with him_] This clause may be a marginal note taken
into the text at the wrong place. It was apparently meant to stand
after the name of Uriah the Hittite (verse 41) by some scribe who
followed our present text and referred “the sons of Hashem” (verse 34)
to Azmaveth and Eliahba (verse 33), thus reckoning just thirty names
from Asahel to Uriah. The clause should be read _either_ “and up to him
are thirty” _or_ “and all of them are thirty” (compare 2 Samuel xxiii.
39). Another possibility is that the proper place of these verses,
42‒47, is in chapter xii., after verse 7: they describe on that view
the _Reubenite_ gathering to David, and the names in verses 43‒47 are
then to be regarded as a portion of the list of the _thirty_ with Adina
(verse 42). On the characteristics of these additional names and of
those in xii. 1‒22, see G. B. Gray, _Hebrew Proper Names_, p. 230.
⁴⁴Uzzia the Ashterathite, Shama and Jeiel the sons of Hotham the
Aroerite; ⁴⁵Jediael the son of Shimri, and Joha his brother, the
Tizite;
=44.= _the Ashterathite_] i.e. inhabitant of Ashtaroth (vi. 71 [56,
Hebrew]), a city of Manasseh east of Jordan.
_the Aroerite_] i.e. inhabitant of Aroer. There were two cities of this
name, both east of Jordan; compare Joshua xiii. 16, 25.
⁴⁶Eliel the Mahavite, and Jeribai, and Joshaviah, the sons of
Elnaam, and Ithmah the Moabite;
=46.= _the Mahavite_] Read perhaps, “the Mahanite,” i.e. inhabitant
of Mahanaim, a town east of Jordan; compare 2 Samuel xvii. 27; or “the
Meonite,” i.e. of Beth Meon, a Reubenite city, Joshua xiii. 17.
⁴⁷Eliel, and Obed, and Jaasiel the Mezobaite.
=47.= _the Mezobaite_] Read perhaps, “of Zobah”; compare verse 38,
note.
CHAPTER XII.
=1‒22= (not in Samuel).
DAVID’S ADHERENTS IN EXILE.
This section describes the gathering to David of helpers from Benjamin
(verses 1‒7), Gad (8‒15), Benjamin and Judah (16‒18), and Manasseh
(19‒22)――before the death of Saul. It is entirely natural to suppose
that the men who followed David in the days of Saul’s enmity were
rewarded when he became king, and their descendants might well be
prominent families in the land. Whether any such survived the exilic
period and continued in later Jerusalem we cannot say for certain,
but it is probable that some names in this list are correct, though it
is doubtful whether the Chronicler is drawing on contemporary family
tradition or on written sources. The style, however, shows that the
composition of the chapter is the Chronicler’s, and the impression made
by the whole should be contrasted with the picture of this period of
David’s life given in 1 Samuel xxii. 1 ff. In Samuel David is leader of
a small band of his own immediate friends, augmented by adventurers and
desperate men, and numbering in all some six hundred. In Chronicles one
gathers that his followers were the choice spirits of Israel and Judah,
who rallied to his support until he had “a great host like the host
of God.” Beyond question the picture in Samuel is true to fact, that
in Chronicles being part of the idealisation of David as the perfect
king, which the Chronicler (doubtless in full accord with the temper
of his age) consistently presents. Its worth lies not in its historical
accuracy, but in the religious enthusiasm which has produced it.
=1‒7.=
BENJAMITE ADHERENTS OF DAVID.
¹Now these are they that came to David to Ziklag, while¹ he
yet kept himself close because of Saul the son of Kish: and they
were among the mighty men, his helpers in war.
¹ Hebrew being _yet shut up_.
=1.= _to Ziklag_] David at Ziklag was a client of Achish, king of Gath
(1 Samuel xxvii. 5, 6), so that Benjamites joining him put themselves
under their hereditary enemies the Philistines.
_while he yet kept himself close_] Render, =while he was yet shut up=.
David was shut in, as in a prison, and unable to move freely through
the land of Israel.
²They were¹ armed with bows, and could use both the right hand
and the left in slinging stones and in shooting arrows from the
bow; they were of Saul’s brethren of Benjamin.
¹ Or, _drew the bow_.
=2.= _both the right hand and the left_] In Judges xx. the Benjamites
are said to have had seven hundred men _lefthanded_ who could sling
stones at a hair and not miss (Judges xx. verse 16). Compare Judges
iii. 15.
_they were of Saul’s brethren of Benjamin_] _Brother_ is used in
Hebrew and Arabic for _fellow-tribesman_; compare 2 Samuel xix. 12.
The loyalty of Benjamin to Saul even after his death is attested
by 2 Samuel ii. 15, 25, 31. But the importance of Benjamites in the
post-exilic period would encourage such a tradition as is here recorded.
³The chief was Ahiezer, then Joash, the sons of Shemaah the
Gibeathite; and Jeziel, and Pelet, the sons of Azmaveth; and
Beracah, and Jehu the Anathothite;
=3.= _The chief was A., then J._] Read (compare LXX.) =A. the chief, J.
the son= (singular) =of Shemaah=.
_Jehu the Anathothite_] i.e. man of Anathoth. See xi. 28, note.
⁴and Ishmaiah the Gibeonite, a mighty man among the thirty, and
over the thirty; and Jeremiah, and Jahaziel, and Johanan, and
Jozabad the Gederathite; ⁵Eluzai, and Jerimoth, and Bealiah, and
Shemariah, and Shephatiah the Haruphite;
=4.= _among the thirty, and over the thirty_] Ishmaiah’s name does
not occur among _the thirty_ (2 Samuel xxiii. 24‒39); the phrase is
therefore perhaps only a kind of superlative; Ishmaiah was worthy to be
ranked with _the thirty_ or even above them. Probably however the list
in chapter xi. and that in chapter xii. belong to different times.
_the Gederathite_] i.e. the man of Gederah. The only Gederah known was
in the Judean Shephelah (Joshua xv. 36), so that it would seem that
some men of Judah are reckoned along with the Benjamites in these
verses. Similarly in verse 7 men of the Judean town of _Gedor_ (iv. 4;
Joshua xv. 58) are mentioned. Perhaps therefore some words introducing
the names of Judean heroes have dropped out. But an identification with
a Benjamite village _Jedireh_, North of Jerusalem, is also possible.
⁶Elkanah, and Isshiah, and Azarel, and Joezer, and Jashobeam,
the Korahites; ⁷and Joelah, and Zebadiah, the sons of Jeroham of
Gedor.
=6.= _the Korahites_] Probably not the Levitic but the Calebite _sons
of Korah_ (ii. 43), who belonged to Judah, are meant.
=8‒15.=
GADITE ADHERENTS OF DAVID.
⁸And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David to the
hold in the wilderness, mighty men of valour, men trained for
war, that could handle shield and spear; whose faces were like
the faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes upon the
mountains; ⁹Ezer the chief, Obadiah the second, Eliab the third;
=8.= _And of the Gadites_] The Gadites had the name of marauders
(Genesis xlix. 19), and David’s mode of life would attract them.
Chronologically verse 8 should precede verse 1; David was first “in the
hold” and afterwards in Ziklag. On the reference to Gad and Manasseh
(verse 19) see 2 Chronicles xv. 9.
_separated themselves_] i.e. left their brethren east of Jordan and
came west.
_to the hold in the wilderness_] It is uncertain whether this _hold_ be
or be not the _cave of Adullam_. On the latter see xi. 15, note.
_shield and spear_] The reference is to the manner of fighting in
David’s day. At the threat of an attack an army was drawn up in close
array, shield touching shield and spears carried at the charge. Only
in a high state of discipline could men quickly and effectively handle
shield and spear thus (1 Samuel xvii. 2, 8, 21). (The Authorized
Version, “_shield and buckler_,” follows a mistake of several early
editions of the printed Hebrew text.)
_as the roes_] In David’s lament (2 Samuel i.) Jonathan is compared to
a lion (verse 23) and to a _gazelle_ (verse 19 margin, the same Hebrew
word as for _roe_ here).
¹⁰Mishmannah the fourth, Jeremiah the fifth; ¹¹Attai the sixth,
Eliel the seventh; ¹²Johanan the eighth, Elzabad the ninth;
¹³Jeremiah the tenth, Machbannai the eleventh.
=10.= _Jeremiah, the fifth_] Compare verse 13, _Jeremiah the tenth_. A
very slight difference of spelling distinguishes the two words in the
Hebrew.
¹⁴These of the sons of Gad were captains of the host: he that
was least was equal to¹ an hundred, and the greatest to¹ a
thousand.
¹ Or, _over_.
=14.= _he that was least ... thousand_] Compare Leviticus xxvi. 8;
Isaiah xxx. 17.
¹⁵These are they that went over Jordan in the first month, when
it had overflown all its banks; and they put to flight all them
of the valleys, both toward the east, and toward the west.
=15.= _in the first month_] In Nisan (the month of harvest) when the
snow was melting and filling all streams; compare Joshua iii. 15.
_all them of the valleys_] i.e. all inhabitants of the valleys who in
the interest of Saul sought to bar their march westward to join David.
=16‒18.=
AMASAI AND HIS COMPANIONS.
=16‒18.= These interesting and beautiful passages are so different in
style and sentiment from what precedes and what follows that they would
seem to be drawn from another source. It is quite possible that they
were inserted thus between Gad and Manasseh by the Chronicler himself;
but that they are a later addition is probable from the fact that the
adherents who came from Benjamin and perhaps Judah (verses 5‒7, see
note on Gederathite) are given above, verses 1‒7.
¹⁶And there came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the
hold unto David.
=16.= _to the hold_] See verse 8, notes.
¹⁷And David went out to meet them, and answered and said unto
them, If ye be come peaceably unto me to help me, mine heart
shall be knit unto you: but if _ye be come_ to betray me to mine
adversaries, seeing there is no wrong¹ in mine hands, the God of
our fathers look thereon, and rebuke it.
¹ Or, _violence_.
=17.= _David went out to meet them_] Instead of letting himself be
surprised he took up a favourable position in advance from which he
could hold parley with them. The south of Judah with its ravines and
cliffs affords many such positions.
_the God of our fathers_, etc.] Compare the equally fine assertion
of integrity of conduct and of faith in God made by David in 1 Samuel
xxiv. 11 ff. If it be felt that in the later idealisation, which must
be recognised, we lose our knowledge of the _real_ David, it should
be remembered that this very idealisation is in itself proof of the
greatness of David in mind and soul. The strong but simple faith and
the magnanimous bearing of David, which such a passage as the present
portrays, are no doubt true to fact, for they provide precisely that
historical basis without which the reverent and loving idealisation of
later generations had never come into existence.
¹⁸Then the spirit came¹ upon Amasai, who was chief of the
thirty², _and he said_, Thine are we, David, and on thy side,
thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to
thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee. Then David received
them, and made them captains of the band.
¹ Hebrew _clothed_.
² Another reading is, _captains_.
=18.= _the spirit came upon A._] Literally =a spirit= (i.e. from
God) =clothed itself with= (i.e. entered into) =Amasai=. Compare
2 Chronicles xxiv. 20; Judges vi. 34.
_Amasai_] Probably to be identified with “Amasa” (2 Samuel xvii. 25,
xix. 13).
_chief of the thirty_] Thus the _Kethīb_; the Authorized Version],
following the _Ḳerī_, has “_chief of the captains_”; so also xi. 11,
where see note.
_Thine are we, David, and on thy side_] Literally “For thee, David, and
with thee.” This response “_Thine are we ... helpeth thee_” is a fine
fragment of Hebrew poetry, having an early simplicity of style, which
it is peculiarly interesting to find in so late a book as Chronicles.
It is assuredly not the composition of the Chronicler, but must be
derived from some independent source, and is perhaps a really old
traditional saying about David. See the Introduction § 5, p. xxxv.
_for thy God helpeth thee_] David’s frequent escapes from Saul were
felt to be due to Divine protection.
=19‒22.=
MANASSITE ADHERENTS.
¹⁹Of Manasseh also there fell away some to David, when he came
with the Philistines against Saul to battle, but they helped
them not: for the lords of the Philistines upon advisement sent
him away, saying, He will fall away to his master Saul to the
jeopardy of our heads.
=19.= _when he came with the Philistines_] See 1 Samuel xxviii. 1, 2,
xxix. 1‒11.
_but they helped them not_] David’s men did not help the Philistines.
_upon advisement_] “After consideration”; literally “by counsel.”
Compare xxi. 12, “advise thyself.”
_to the jeopardy of our heads_] Rather, =at the price of our heads=.
David became son-in-law to Saul at the price of the lives of two
hundred of the Philistines (1 Samuel xviii. 27); their lords here (in
Chronicles) express their dread lest David reconcile himself to Saul by
some act of treachery and slaughter done against his present Philistine
patrons; compare 1 Samuel xxix. 4 (“with” = “at the price of”).
²⁰As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah,
and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu,
and Zillethai, captains of thousands that were of Manasseh.
=20.= _As he went_] i.e. As he returned (1 Samuel xxx. 1).
_Jozabad_] This name occurs twice; possibly in the original list
different patronymics were attached to the two mentions of the name.
_captains of thousands_] Compare xv. 25; Micah v. 2. Tribes were
divided into “thousands” which were subdivided into “hundreds.” These
divisions were of civil as well as of military significance.
²¹And they helped David against the band of rovers: for they
were all mighty men of valour, and were captains in the host.
=21.= _the band of rovers_] The reference is to the Amalekites who
burnt Ziklag (1 Samuel xxx. 1 ff.). The Hebrew word _gĕdūd_, here
translated “band,” is translated “troop” in 1 Samuel xxx. 8, 15.
_and were captains_] Render, =and they became captains=.
²²For from day to day there came to David to help him, until it
was a great host, like the host of God.
=22.= _the host of God_] The phrase comes from Genesis xxxii. 2;
compare Psalms lxviii. 15 (Revised Version) “a mountain of God.” The
epithet “of God” is used to distinguish a thing as “very great.”
=23‒40= (compare 2 Samuel v. 1).
THE FORCES WHICH CAME TO HEBRON TO MAKE DAVID KING.
²³And these are the numbers of the heads of them that were
armed for war, which came to David to Hebron, to turn the
kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the LORD.
=23.= _And these are_, etc.] It may confidently be said that the list
as it stands is the composition of the Chronicler himself, for the
syntax and vocabulary of the passage are his, and there is no evidence
to suggest that its statements are based on those of some ancient
document. Its value in the idealistic account of David which the
Chronicler furnishes is obvious, implying as it does not only that
the northern as well as the southern tribes concurred whole-heartedly
in the election of David, but also that the occasion was one of great
military display. On the huge numbers alleged to have come from the
North (Zebulun, Naphtali, Dan, and Asher being credited with 155,600
warriors) compare the following note, and, in general, on midrashic
exaggeration of numbers in Chronicles see the note on 2 Chronicles
xvii. 14.
²⁴The children of Judah that bare shield and spear were six
thousand and eight hundred, armed for war.
=24.= _six thousand and eight hundred_] Contrast the numbers assigned
to the northern tribes in verses 33 ff. It may be the idea of the
Chronicler that the unanimous support of the southern tribes could be
assumed, and that only chosen representatives of these tribes attended.
But much more probably the multitudes of Zebulun (verse 33), etc.
are simply due to his desire to magnify the share taken by the north,
whilst the problem of the numerical contrast with Judah, etc. did not
present itself to him as it does to us.
²⁵Of the children of Simeon, mighty men of valour for the war,
seven thousand and one hundred. ²⁶Of the children of Levi four
thousand and six hundred.
=25.= _Simeon_] The most southerly of the tribes (iv. 24‒31). The
tribes are mentioned in order from south to north.
²⁷And Jehoiada was the leader of _the house of_ Aaron, and with
him were three thousand and seven hundred;
=27.= _of_ the house of _Aaron_] Jehoiada was not high-priest, but
leader of the warriors of the house of Aaron. He may be the same person
as the father of Benaiah (xi. 22). Leader (Hebrew _nagīd_) is the title
given to the “Ruler” of the Temple (ix. 11).
²⁸and Zadok, a young man mighty of valour, and of his father’s
house twenty and two captains.
=28.= _Zadok_] In xxvii. 17 he seems to occupy the position assigned to
Jehoiada in verse 27. Perhaps he succeeded him.
²⁹And of the children of Benjamin, the brethren of Saul, three
thousand: for hitherto the greatest part of them had kept¹
their allegiance to the house of Saul. ³⁰And of the children of
Ephraim twenty thousand and eight hundred, mighty men of valour,
famous men in their fathers’ houses.
¹ Hebrew _kept the charge of the house_.
=29.= _hitherto_] i.e. up to the time referred to in 2 Samuel v. 1.
³¹And of the half tribe of Manasseh eighteen thousand, which
were expressed by name, to come and make David king.
=31.= _which were expressed by name_] Suggesting that a census list
was kept, recording however not necessarily individuals but simply
households. The phrase does not mean picked representatives. Note how
the Chronicler skilfully lightens his statistics by some descriptive
phrase: so also in verses 32 ff.
³²And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding
of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of
them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their
commandment.
=32.= _that had understanding of the times_] Compare Esther i. 13,
“which knew the times.” “Times” are “opportunities,” “vicissitudes”
(compare xxix. 30), “experiences,” good or bad (compare Psalms xxxi.
15). The phrase means, therefore, “men of experience, having knowledge
of the world.” Some suppose that the phrase refers to astrological
skill (knowledge of auspicious “times and seasons”).
³³Of Zebulun, such as were able to go out in the host, that
could set the battle in array, with all manner of instruments of
war, fifty thousand; and that could order _the battle array, and
were_ not of double heart. ³⁴And of Naphtali a thousand captains,
and with them with shield and spear thirty and seven thousand.
³⁵And of the Danites that could set the battle in array, twenty
and eight thousand and six hundred. ³⁶And of Asher, such as were
able to go out in the host, that could set the battle in array,
forty thousand.
=33.= _such as were able_, etc.] This description is intended to
exclude mere lads (such as David appeared to be, 1 Samuel xvii. 33)
who might be in attendance on the warriors.
_that could order_, etc.] i.e. who moved as one man in battle array;
compare verse 8, note on _shield and spear_. For “of double heart”
compare 2 Chronicles xxx. 12, “one heart.”
³⁷And on the other side of Jordan, of the Reubenites, and the
Gadites, and of the half tribe of Manasseh, with all manner
of instruments of war for the battle, an hundred and twenty
thousand.
=37.= _an hundred and twenty thousand_] Evidently a round number,
giving 40,000 to each tribe; compare verse 36.
³⁸All these, being men of war, that could order the battle array,
came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over
all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to
make David king.
=38.= _with a perfect heart_] i.e. with whole, undivided heart.
³⁹And they were there with David three days, eating and drinking:
for their brethren had made preparation for them.
=39.= _eating and drinking_] The feasting probably began with the
sacrificial meal by which a covenant was usually ratified; compare
Genesis xxxi. 46, 54.
⁴⁰Moreover they that were nigh unto them, _even_ as far as
Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and
on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, victual of meal, cakes of
figs, and clusters of raisins, and wine, and oil, and oxen, and
sheep in abundance: for there was joy in Israel.
=40.= _they that were nigh unto them_] The relatives of the assembled
warriors cared for their needs.
_as far as Issachar_] Even those warriors who came from the northern
districts were provisioned by their kinsfolk.
CHAPTER XIII.
=1‒14= (= 2 Samuel vi. 1‒11).
REMOVAL OF THE ARK FROM KIRIATH-JEARIM TO THE HOUSE
OF OBED-EDOM. DEATH OF UZZA.
In harmony with his conviction that the acts of David in promoting
or instituting the religious ceremonial of Israel were the supremely
important events of his reign, the Chronicler represents the removal
of the Ark from Kiriath-jearim as being the first concern of the new
monarch and his first action subsequent to the capture of Jerusalem.
David’s building of a royal residence for himself and his family in
Jerusalem, and his victories over the Philistines, which in 2 Samuel
_precede_ the removal of the Ark, are relegated to the second place in
Chronicles (see chapter xiv. ). The transposition of order is effected
by means of the introductory verses 1‒4, which are from the
Chronicler’s own hand.
It is convenient to draw attention here to a matter of some importance
in the narrative of Chronicles, viz. that the Chronicler believed the
Tabernacle (_Mishkān_) of the Lord (Exodus xxxv.‒xl.) “which Moses made
in the wilderness” (1 Chronicles xxi. 29) to be in existence in David’s
day and to be standing at Gibeon (see xvi. 39, and 2 Chronicles i. 3).
Yet when the Ark was taken into the city of David it was placed not
in the _Mishkān_ but “in the tent (_Ohel_) which David pitched for
it” (xvi. verse 1 = 2 Samuel vi. 17). Thus in Chronicles the two holy
things, the Ark and the Tabernacle, are represented as separated, and
a separate daily service has to be instituted for each; Asaph and his
brethren being said to minister before the Ark in the city of David (1
Chronicles xvi. 37), and Zadok and his brethren before the Tabernacle
at Gibeon (xvi. verse 39). The worship at Gibeon as well as Jerusalem
entailed a manifest breach of the Deuteronomic law that at one
sanctuary only must worship be offered. It is hard to say what the
Chronicler thought of David’s strange disregard of a stringent law
which (on the Chronicler’s theory) was well known to David, and which
the Chronicler used as one of the criteria distinguishing the good from
the evil kings from Solomon onwards. Doubtless David’s ecclesiastical
arrangements were regarded as temporary, pending the building of the
Temple, but surely the _Mishkān_ could have been removed to Jerusalem
almost as easily as the Ark. Why then does the perfect king fail in
this duty? The Chronicler ignores the difficulty completely, probably
because he was unable to see or conjecture any adequate explanation
of David’s conduct. It goes without saying that in reality the
Deuteronomic law of the one sanctuary was of much later origin than
the time of David, and the difficulty is an unreal one.
¹And David consulted with the captains of thousands and of
hundreds, even with every leader.
=1.= _David consulted with the captains_, etc.] The Chronicler is fond
of associating the people with the king in religious measures so as to
minimise the appearance of arbitrary power which is suggested by the
language of the books of Samuel and of Kings; compare verse 4 (_the
assembly said that they would do so_), also 2 Chronicles xxx. 2, 4.
Similarly in xxviii. 2 the king addresses the elders as _My brethren_.
Doubtless the Chronicler had in mind Deuteronomy xvii. 20.
²And David said unto all the assembly of Israel, If it seem good
unto you, and if it be of the LORD our God, let us send abroad
every where unto our brethren that are left in all the land¹ of
Israel, with² whom the priests and Levites are in their cities
that have suburbs³, that they may gather themselves unto us: and
let us bring again the ark of our God to us:
¹ Hebrew _lands_.
² Or, _and with them to the priests and Levites which are &c._
³ Or, _pasture lands_.
=2.= _let us send abroad every where_] The Hebrew phrase is peculiar;
_let us spread, let us send_, i.e. let the invitation be sent far and
wide throughout the land and not limited to the southern tribes.
_the priests and Levites_] In Samuel no mention of the Levites is made
in the account of the removal of the Ark. The Chronicler retells the
story in accordance with the conviction that the complete Levitical
ceremonial with which he was familiar was actually in operation in the
days of David.
_in their cities that have suburbs_] or, as margin, =... that have
pasture lands=; i.e. following the provision that cities are to be
assigned to the Levites with “suburbs for their cattle and for their
substance, and for all their beasts” (Numbers xxxv. 2‒7; compare Joshua
xiv. 4, xxi. 2).
³for we sought not unto it in the days of Saul. ⁴And all the
assembly said that they would do so: for the thing was right in
the eyes of all the people.
=3.= _we sought not unto it_] The meaning is _to seek with care, to
care for_. Compare xv. 13.
⁵So David assembled all Israel together, from Shihor _the brook_
of Egypt even unto the entering in of Hamath, to bring the ark
of God from Kiriath-jearim.
=5.= _from Shihor_ the brook _of Egypt_] _Shihor_ was the name of the
brook (now _wady el-Arish_) which divided Palestine from Egypt (Joshua
xiii. 3, xv. 4; Jeremiah ii. 18).
_the entering in of Hamath_] _Hamath_ (now _Hama_) is on the Orontes,
see note on xviii. 5. _The entering in of Hamath_ is to be identified
with the Beḳā‘a, a broad valley between Lebanon and Anti-Libanus
watered by the Orontes, Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵, p. 372. It is mentioned
as on the northern frontier of Israel in Joshua xiii. 5; 1 Kings viii.
65, and elsewhere.
⁶And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, _that is_, to
Kiriath-jearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up from thence
the ark of God, the LORD that sitteth¹ upon the cherubim, which²
is called by the Name.
¹ Or, _dwelleth between_.
² Or, _where the Name is called on_.
=6.= _to Baalah_, that is, _to Kiriath-jearim_] A Gibeonite city,
probably _Ḳaryet el-‘Enab_ (“City of Grapes”) some 7 miles north-west
of Jerusalem. Compare Joshua xv. 9; in Joshua xv. 60 _Kiriath-baal_.
_sitteth upon the cherubim_] Compare Ezekiel i. 26.
_which is called by the Name_] The God whose is the Ark is here
distinguished from the gods of the nations as the God who bears the
ineffable Name.
⁷And they carried the ark of God upon a new cart, _and brought
it_ out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the
cart.
=7.= _a new cart_] A new cart was chosen as one which had not been
profaned by common work. So (Judges xvi. 11, 12) new ropes “wherewith
no work hath been done” were used in the attempt to bind the
consecrated man, Samson. So also (Mark xi. 2, 7) our Lord rode into
Jerusalem on a colt “whereon no man ever yet sat.”
_the house of Abinadab_] Compare 1 Samuel vii. 1, 2; also 2 Samuel vi.
3. Here the Ark had been since the Philistines restored it to Israelite
territory.
⁸And David and all Israel played before God with all their might:
even with songs, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with
timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.
=8.= _played_] The Hebrew word means _to sport, to dance_ (compare xv.
29).
_with all their might: even with songs_] A better reading than that of
2 Samuel vi. 5, _with all manner of_ instruments made of _fir wood_.
_psalteries_] The instrument here meant (Hebrew _nēbhel_) “is generally
identified at the present day with an instrument called the _santir_
still in use among the Arabs. This consists of a long box with a flat
bottom covered with a somewhat convex sounding-board over which the
strings are stretched.” (Nowack, _Hebräische Archäologie_, I. 275.)
The “harp” (Hebrew _kinnōr_) was a simpler instrument (like the Greek
_Kithara_), a _lyre_ rather than a true harp.
For a full discussion of _nēbhel_ and _kinnōr_ see Driver, _Amos_,
p. 234, or the articles _Music_ in _Encyclopedia Biblia_ or Hastings’
_Dictionary of the Bible_.
⁹And when they came unto the threshing-floor of Chidon, Uzza put
forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled¹.
¹ Or, _were restive_ Or, _threw_ it _down_.
=9.= _the threshing-floor of Chidon_] LXX. (B) omits _of Chidon_. In 2
Samuel vi. 6, _Nacon’s threshing-floor_. Nacon is probably a textual
blunder.
_to hold the ark_] The Chronicler from a feeling of reverence shrinks
from saying, _and took hold of it_ (2 Samuel vi. 6).
_stumbled_] margin _threw_ it _down_, but the meaning is perhaps rather,
_let it go_, i.e. let the cart on which the Ark was slip backwards.
The same Hebrew word is used 2 Kings ix. 33; there Jehu in his mocking
humour says not, _Throw her down_, but, _Let her go_, an ambiguous
command meant to throw as much responsibility as possible upon those
who obeyed it.
¹⁰And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he
smote him, because he put forth his hand to the ark: and there
he died before God.
=10.= _before God_] In 2 Samuel vi. 7, _by the ark of God_.
¹¹And David was displeased, because the LORD had broken forth
upon Uzza: and he called that place Perez-uzza¹, unto this day.
¹²And David was afraid of God that day, saying, How shall I
bring the ark of God home to me?
¹ That is, _The breach of Uzza_.
=11.= _was displeased_] Rather, =was wroth=, presumably against his
advisers for not warning him that the method adopted for the removal
of the Ark was wrong; compare xv. 13.
_had broken forth_] Literally as Authorized Version, _had made a breach
upon Uzza_. Compare Exodus xix. 22.
_Perez-uzza_] The meaning of the name is given by the margin _The
breach of Uzza._
¹³So David removed not the ark unto him into the city of David,
but carried it aside into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.
=13.= _Obed-edom the Gittite_] As _Gittite_ means man of Gath,
Obed-edom was doubtless of Philistine origin; perhaps he attached
himself to David during David’s sojourn among the Philistines. In xv.
18, 24, xvi. 38, xxvi. 4 an Obed-edom is mentioned as a Levite and a
porter (doorkeeper) for the Ark, and elsewhere (xv. 21, xvi. 5) as a
singer (see the notes on xv. 18, and xvi. 38).
¹⁴And the ark of God remained with the family of Obed-edom
in his house three months: and the LORD blessed the house of
Obed-edom, and all that he had.
=14.= _with the family of Obed-edom in his house_] Render, =by=
(i.e. near) =the house of Obed-edom in its own house=. The Chronicler
(regarding Obed-edom as a foreigner if not also an idolater) finds
it necessary to alter the expression found in 2 Samuel vi. 11, “in
the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.” (On the significance of the
name――literally _servant of Edom_――see Driver, _Samuel_², pp. 268, 269.)
_blessed_] Targum _blessed with sons and sons’ sons_.
CHAPTER XIV.
(= 2 Samuel v. 11‒25).
DAVID AT JERUSALEM. TWO PHILISTINE ATTACKS REPULSED.
The Chronicler derives this chapter from Samuel but gives it in a
setting of his own. To agree with Samuel it should immediately follow
1 Chronicles xi. 9 and should immediately precede 1 Chronicles xiii. 1.
In Samuel the two attempts to remove the Ark to the city of David, the
first unsuccessful, the second successful, are related in immediate
succession; the Chronicler interposes between them the double repulse
of the Philistines. See the head-note to chapter xiii.
=1, 2.=
HIRAM’S [FIRST] EMBASSY TO DAVID.
The dislocation of the narrative mentioned in the last note has
concealed the occasion of Hiram’s embassy. The narrative of 2 Samuel
v. 9‒11 suggests that Hiram heard of the building works which David was
carrying on at Jerusalem and so sent materials and workmen to assist.
David accepted the welcome offer (which ultimately led to an alliance)
as a sign of Divine favour.
¹And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar
trees, and masons, and carpenters, to build him an house. ²And
David perceived that the LORD had established him king over
Israel, for his kingdom was exalted on high, for his people
Israel’s sake.
=1.= _Hiram_] Other forms of this name are _Huram_ and (1 Kings v. 10,
18) _Hirom_.
=3‒7= (= iii. 5‒8 and 2 Samuel v. 13‒16).
DAVID’S FAMILY IN JERUSALEM.
³And David took more wives at Jerusalem: and David begat more
sons and daughters.
=3.= _more wives_] In 2 Samuel v. 13 _more concubines and wives_. The
Chronicler omits or modifies statements which tend to David’s discredit.
⁴And these are the names of the children which he had in
Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon; ⁵and Ibhar,
and Elishua, and Elpelet; ⁶and Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia;
⁷and Elishama, and Beeliada, and Eliphelet.
=4.= _these are the names_] The names seem better preserved here than
in either of the parallel passages; compare notes on iii. 5‒8.
_Shammua ... Solomon_] All these four are attributed to Bath-shua
(= Bath-sheba) in iii. 5.
=8‒17= (= 2 Samuel v. 17‒25).
THE DOUBLE REPULSE OF THE PHILISTINES.
⁸And when the Philistines heard that David was anointed king
over all Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek David: and
David heard of it, and went out against¹ them.
¹ Or, _before_.
=8.= _over all Israel_] in 2 Samuel v. 17, _over Israel_. In both
passages the reference is to the later anointing by the whole people
(2 Samuel v. 3).
_all the Philistines_] David, as king of Judah, was of little or no
political importance to the Philistines; as king of united Israel, he
became a possible menace, and was accordingly attacked without delay.
_went up_] i.e. from their own low-lying territory by the sea into the
hill-country of Judah.
_went out against them_] margin =went out before them=, i.e.
anticipated them, did not wait for them to attack him. In 2 Samuel v.
17 _went down to the hold_, an expression which might refer to some
part of the difficult hill-country of Judah in which he had long defied
Saul, or may mean the “hold” of Jerusalem, which David had seized from
the Jebusites (see note on xi. 5).
⁹Now the Philistines had come and made a raid in the valley of
Rephaim.
=9.= _the valley of Rephaim_] probably the shallow valley, now called
Beḳā‘a, across which runs the road from Jerusalem to Beth-lehem
(Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵, pp. 15, 99).
¹⁰And David inquired of God, saying, Shall I go up against the
Philistines? and wilt thou deliver them into mine hand? And the
LORD said unto him, Go up; for I will deliver them into thine
hand.
=10.= _inquired of God_] doubtless by means of the sacred lot, the
Urim and Thummim (see Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_ _s.v._, and
Kirkpatrick’s notes on 1 Samuel x. 22, xxiii. 6).
¹¹So they came up to Baal-perazim, and David smote them there;
and David said, God hath broken¹ mine enemies by mine hand, like
the breach of waters. Therefore they called the name of that
place Baal-perazim².
¹ Or, _broken forth upon mine enemies_.
² That is, _The place of breakings forth_.
=11.= _Baal-perazim_] probably to be identified with the _Mount
Perazim_ of Isaiah xxviii. 21, but the situation is unknown.
_like the breach of waters_] i.e. like the breach made by waters,
Probably the scene of the victory was a hill deeply scarred with
watercourses. The force with which God broke through the army of the
Philistines is compared with that of a torrent bursting forth from the
hill-side or forcing its way through all obstacles. _Baal-perazim_ =
the Lord of breakings forth, i.e. upon the foe.
¹²And they left their gods there; and David gave commandment,
and they were burned with fire.
=12.= _David gave commandment, and they were burned_] In 2 Samuel v. 21
(Revised Version) _David and his men took them away_. The Chronicler
alters this statement so as to make David’s conduct agree with the Law
(Deuteronomy vii. 5, 25) which enjoined that graven images were to be
burnt with fire.
¹³And the Philistines yet again made a raid in the valley.
=13.= _yet again_] This invasion of “all the Philistines” (verse 8) was
too serious to be repelled by a single defeat.
_in the valley_] in 2 Samuel v. 22, _in the valley of Rephaim_, as in
verse 9 above.
¹⁴And David inquired again of God; and God said unto him, Thou
shalt not go up after them: turn away from them, and come upon
them over against the mulberry¹ trees.
¹ Or, _balsam trees_.
=14.= _Thou shalt not go up after them_] In 2 Samuel v. 23 the words
_after them_ are connected with the following verb: _Thou shalt not go
up: make a circuit behind them_. In Samuel the command is to assail the
rear of the enemy, in Chronicles to avoid the rear (which was perhaps
protected by a rear-guard) and to attack (presumably) the flank. The
reading in Chronicles is to be preferred as a harder reading, which
yields good sense on examination.
_from them_] The Hebrew word suggests that David occupied a commanding
position from which he would be tempted to attack.
_over against the mulberry trees_] Render, =along, parallel to=. The
line of David’s attack is to be parallel to a line of mulberry trees
(or to a ridge on which mulberry trees stood) situate probably at right
angles to the line of the Philistine march. Thus David’s advance would
be concealed from the Philistines until the very moment of the attack,
which would fall on the flank of the Philistine march.
_mulberry trees_] or, as margin, =balsam trees=. Some kind of tree or
shrub from which gum exudes seems to be meant.
¹⁵And it shall be, when thou hearest the sound of marching in
the tops of the mulberry trees, that then thou shalt go out to
battle: for God is gone out before thee to smite the host of the
Philistines.
=15.= _the sound of marching_] the sound of the wind in the trees is to
be taken as an omen from Jehovah, indicating the favourable moment for
the assault. The Targum, characteristically, _has the sound of angels
coming to thy help_.
_thou shalt go out to battle_] Samuel has a more vivid phrase, _thou
shalt bestir thyself_.
¹⁶And David did as God commanded him: and they smote the host
of the Philistines from Gibeon¹ even to Gezer. ¹⁷And the fame of
David went out into all lands; and the LORD brought the fear of
him upon all nations.
¹ In 2 Samuel v. 25, _Geba_.
=16.= _smote the host of the Philistines from Gibeon even to Gezer_]
This victory was decisive; the main army of the Philistines was routed.
_Gezer_] compare vi. 67, note.
CHAPTER XV.
=1‒24.=
DAVID’S PREPARATIONS FOR BRINGING THE ARK TO JERUSALEM.
There is no parallel in Samuel to this section.
In 2 Samuel vi. 12 the reason given for the renewal of David’s attempt
to bring the Ark to Jerusalem is the report of the blessing which was
said to have befallen Obed-edom, in whose house the Ark had been left.
The Chronicler is not ignorant of this tradition since he refers to it
incidentally in xiii. 14, but it would be very far from his sense of
the fitness of things to adduce it as the motive for David’s action.
On the contrary he declares in this section that David was prompted
by a realisation that the ill-success of the first attempt was due to
failure to observe the regulations of the Levitical Law. Full attention
now being given to the prescribed ritual, David succeeds in his pious
purpose.
¹And _David_ made him houses in the city of David; and he
prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent.
=1.= _made him houses_] Compare 2 Samuel v. 9.
_a tent_] a new tent, not the old tabernacle which the Chronicler
believed to be at Gibeon (see xvi. 39).
²Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the
Levites: for them hath the LORD chosen to carry the ark of God,
and to minister unto him for ever.
=2.= _None ... but the Levites_] Numbers i. 50, vii. 9. Nothing is said
in the parallel place (2 Samuel vi. 13) of the Levites, but bearers
(and not a cart) are spoken of with regard to this second attempt.
Compare 2 Chronicles v. 4, note.
³And David assembled all Israel at Jerusalem, to bring up the
ark of the LORD unto its place, which he had prepared for it.
⁴And David gathered together the sons of Aaron, and the Levites:
=3.= _assembled all Israel_] It was a solemn religious _assembly_
(Hebrew _Ḳāhāl_, Greek ἐκκλησία).
⁵of the sons of Kohath; Uriel the chief, and his brethren an
hundred and twenty: ⁶of the sons of Merari; Asaiah the chief,
and his brethren two hundred and twenty: ⁷of the sons of Gershom;
Joel the chief, and his brethren an hundred and thirty: ⁸of
the sons of Elizaphan; Shemaiah the chief, and his brethren
two hundred: ⁹of the sons of Hebron; Eliel the chief, and his
brethren fourscore: ¹⁰of the sons of Uzziel; Amminadab the chief,
and his brethren an hundred and twelve.
=5‒10.= Remark that besides the three great Levitical divisions,
Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites, three additional classes (sons
of Elizaphan, of Hebron, and of Uzziel) are given in verses 8‒10. This
unusual sixfold division, and the smallness of the numbers of Levites
have been taken as indicating that the whole passage xv. 1‒15 is drawn
by the Chronicler from an earlier source, but the argument is not
convincing. “The text does not imply that Elizaphan, Hebron, and Uzziel
were coordinated with Kohath, Gershom, and Merari”; and the small
numbers are accounted for by the view that only selected Levites were
chosen for the task (so Curtis, _Chronicles_, p. 127).
=5.= _the sons of Kohath; Uriel_] Kohath had four sons (Exodus vi.
18 = 1 Chronicles vi. 18): Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. Here
the descendants of Amram (exclusive of the priests, the Aaronites)
represented by Uriel head the list (verse 5), and the descendants
of Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel appear in verses 8, 9, 10 respectively.
_Elizaphan_ (verse 8) either stands for the _Izhar_ of Exodus vi. 18,
or is the name of some prominent descendant of Izhar after whom the
whole family was named. He is mentioned again in 2 Chronicles xxix. 13.
As regards number the Kohathites were 512 against 350 of the sons of
Merari and the sons of Gershom combined. In vi. 60‒63 (45‒48, Hebrew)
23 cities are reckoned to Kohath against 25 to Merari and Gershom
combined. The Kohathites formed the largest and most important of the
three divisions of the Levites.
¹¹And David called for Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and for
the Levites, for Uriel, Asaiah, and Joel, Shemaiah, and Eliel,
and Amminadab,
=11.= _Zadok and Abiathar_] This double priesthood (2 Samuel viii. 17,
xv. 29, 35, xix. 11, xx. 25) came to an end in the reign of Solomon (1
Kings ii. 27, 35). _Zadok_ is always mentioned first as being descended
from Eleazar the third son of Aaron, while Ithamar from whom _Abiathar_
(Ahimelech) was descended through Eli (1 Kings ii. 27) was the fourth
son (xxiv. 1, 3). In two of the passages quoted in this note _Abiathar_
(probably being confused with his father) is called _Ahimelech_ or
_Abimelech_ (2 Samuel viii. 17 = 1 Chronicles xviii. 16; 1 Chronicles
xxiv. 3). Conversely in Mark ii. 26 _Ahimelech_ is called _Abiathar_.
In the Chronicler’s list of high-priests (vi. 4‒14) _Zadok_ alone is
mentioned, the line of Eleazar alone being given.
_the priests_] Only the two chief priests are mentioned here. Other
priests blew with the trumpets in front of the Ark (verse 24).
¹²and said unto them, Ye are the heads of the fathers’ _houses_
of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren,
that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD, the God of Israel,
unto _the place_ that I have prepared for it.
=12.= _sanctify yourselves_] Compare 2 Chronicles xxix. 5. For the
method of sanctifying compare Exodus xix. 10, 15.
¹³For because ye _bare it_ not at the first, the LORD our God
made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not according
to the ordinance. ¹⁴So the priests and the Levites sanctified
themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD, the God of Israel.
=13.= _made a breach_] xiii. 11, xiv. 11 (compare margin).
_we sought him not_] i.e. God; but a better rendering is =we sought not
unto it=. Compare note on xiii. 3.
_according to the ordinance_] For its observance, see verse 15.
¹⁵And the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their
shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according
to the word of the LORD.
=15.= _the children of the Levites bare ... upon their shoulders_] in
accordance with the regulation of Numbers i. 50, vii. 9, which was not
observed in the first attempt when the Ark was placed in a cart, xiii.
7.
_the staves_] Exodus xxv. 13, 14.
¹⁶And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their
brethren the singers, with instruments of music, psalteries and
harps and cymbals, sounding aloud and lifting up the voice with
joy.
=16.= _psalteries_] See note on xiii. 8.
¹⁷So the Levites appointed Heman the son of Joel; and of his
brethren, Asaph the son of Berechiah; and of the sons of Merari
their brethren, Ethan the son of Kushaiah;
=17.= _Heman the son of Joel_] a descendant of Samuel the prophet; vi.
33 (vi. 18, Hebrew). Compare Psalms lxxxviii. (title). As _Heman_ was
descended from Kohath, _Asaph_ from Gershom, and _Ethan_ from Merari,
each division of the Levites was represented by a chief musician.
_Heman_ was king’s seer (xxv. 5).
_Asaph the son of Berechiah_] a descendant of Gershom; vi. 39‒43 (24‒28,
Hebrew). Asaph was the chief of the musicians; xvi. 5, 7. One of the
small collections of Psalms from which our Psalter was compiled was
named after him; compare the titles of Psalms l., lxxiii.‒lxxxiii.
_Ethan the son of Kushaiah_] a descendant of Merari; vi. 44‒47. Compare
Psalms lxxxix. (title). He is apparently called _Jeduthun_ in xxv. 1‒6.
See also the note on xvi. 41.
=18‒24.= These verses present several obscurities which can hardly
be explained except by the supposition that the original text of the
Chronicler has been added to by a later writer with intricate results.
Several reconstructions are possible, the most plausible being that of
Curtis which is followed in these notes.
¹⁸and with them their brethren of the second degree, Zechariah,
Ben, and Jaaziel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Unni, Eliab,
and Benaiah, and Maaseiah, and Mattithiah, and Eliphelehu, and
Mikneiah, and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, the doorkeepers.
=18.= _their brethren of the second degree_] Read rather =their twelve
brethren=: twelve being the number of names from Zechariah to Mikneiah.
The last two, Obed-edom and Jeiel, were “doorkeepers,” not “singers,”
although they were mistakenly supposed to belong to the list of singers
by the author of verses 19‒21 (see further regarding Obed-edom the note
on xvi. 38).
_Ben_] This word, which means “son,” is an error. Read probably =Bani=.
_the doorkeepers_] See the notes on ix. 17.
¹⁹So the singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, _were appointed_,
with cymbals of brass to sound aloud;
=19‒21.= Probably an addition interpolated by someone interested in the
detailed organisation of the Levitical choirs. The names are taken from
verse 18, except that _Ben_ is omitted, and a new name Azaziah is added
at the end of the list. Since Obed-edom and Jeiel are included among
the singers here, the reading “of the second degree” (which is regarded
above as an error for an original “twelve”: a slight change in Hebrew)
must have been found in the text of verse 18 which the interpolator
used.
_to sound aloud_] The cymbals mark the time for the other instruments.
²⁰and Zechariah, and Aziel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and
Unni, and Eliab, and Maaseiah, and Benaiah, with psalteries set
to Alamoth;
=20.= _set to Alamoth_] an obscure phrase, its musical significance
being uncertain; compare Psalms xlvi. (title), Revised Version.
²¹and Mattithiah, and Eliphelehu, and Mikneiah, and Obed-edom,
and Jeiel, and Azaziah, with harps set to the Sheminith, to lead.
=21.= _set to the Sheminith_] As in the case of _Alamoth_, the precise
musical significance of _Sheminith_ is obscure. Compare Psalms vi.
(title, Revised Version margin).
²²And Chenaniah, chief of the Levites, was over the song¹: he
instructed about the song¹, because he was skilful.
¹ Or, _the carrying_ of the ark Hebrew _the lifting up_.
=22.= _was over the song_] The Hebrew word (_massa_) here twice
rendered “song” means “uplifting,” either of the voice in song, or in a
physical sense = “burden”; hence margin _was over the carrying_ of the
ark.
²³And Berechiah and Elkanah were doorkeepers for the ark.
=23.= _were doorkeepers for the ark_] The same statement is made in
verse 24 concerning _Obed-edom_ and _Jehiah_ (= Jeiel)! On Curtis’ view,
this verse was added by the same writer as verses 19‒21, who, having
taken Obed-edom and Jeiel as part of the list of singers in verse 18
no doubt thought that the names of the doorkeepers (the last word of
verse 18) had somehow been omitted. He supplied therefore here the
names Berechiah and Elkanah (taken perhaps from ix. 16). A still later
writer has attempted to put matters straight by further adding at
the conclusion of verse 24 “and Obed-edom and Jehiah (Jeiel) were
doorkeepers for the ark.”
²⁴And Shebaniah, and Joshaphat, and Nethanel, and Amasai, and
Zechariah, and Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, did blow with
the trumpets before the ark of God: and Obed-edom and Jehiah
were doorkeepers for the ark.
=24.= _the priests_] In Numbers x. 1‒10 it is enjoined to make two
silver trumpets to be blown by the priests on days of joy and on
feast-days. This festal trumpet was different from the “cornet” (verse
28), properly a ram’s horn, which was freely used for secular purposes.
See Driver, _Amos_, pp. 144 ff. (with illustrations).
=25‒XVI. 3= (compare 2 Samuel vi. 12‒20).
THE BRINGING HOME OF THE ARK. MICHAL DESPISES DAVID.
²⁵So David, and the elders of Israel, and the captains over thousands,
went to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the house
of Obed-edom with joy: ²⁶and it came to pass, when God helped the
Levites that bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, that they
sacrificed seven bullocks and seven rams.
=26.= _when God helped the Levites_] In 2 Samuel vi. 13, _when they
that bare the ark of the Lord had gone six paces_. The Chronicler
interprets the safe start as a sign of Divine assistance.
_seven bullocks and seven rams_] In Samuel _an ox and a fatling_ (so
Revised Version, not, _oxen and fatlings_ as Authorized Version). The
smaller sacrifice of Samuel is represented as the king’s own offering,
the larger sacrifice of Chronicles as that of the king and his elders
combined.
²⁷And David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, and all the
Levites that bare the ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah the
master of the song¹ _with_ the singers: and David had upon him
an ephod of linen.
¹ Or, _the carrying_ of the ark Hebrew _the lifting up_.
=27.= _of the song_] margin, _of the carrying_ of the ark. Compare
verse 22, note.
_an ephod of linen_] worn exceptionally by David for the purpose of
the religious procession. A linen ephod was the ordinary vestment for
all priests (1 Samuel xxii. 18). The high-priest’s ephod was a more
elaborate garment (Exodus xxviii. 6‒12), fitted with the means of
divination (1 Samuel xxiii. 6, 9‒12).
²⁸Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD
with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets,
and with cymbals, sounding aloud with psalteries and harps.
=28.= _with shouting_] The Hebrew word (_tĕrū‘ah_) is technical in the
sense of _a blast_ with the festal trumpets (Numbers x. 1‒10), and in
this sense it should be taken here, since the Chronicler has expanded
the account given in Samuel by introducing a mention of these trumpets.
²⁹And it came to pass, as the ark of the covenant of the LORD
came to the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul
looked out at the window, and saw king David dancing and playing;
and she despised him in her heart.
=29.= _playing_] a synonym of _dancing_, obsolete in modern English.
The closest rendering is perhaps, =leaping as in sport=. The
unrestrained joyousness of this action might easily degenerate (as in
idolatrous worship) into licence. The Chronicler omits to say that the
dancing was “before the Lord” (2 Samuel vi. 16). David’s subsequent
interview with Michal (2 Samuel vi. verses 20‒23) is also passed over
in Chronicles.
CHAPTER XVI.
¹And they brought in the ark of God, and set it in the midst of
the tent that David had pitched for it: and they offered burnt
offerings and peace offerings before God.
=1.= _the tent_] Compare xv. 1, note.
_they offered_] In 2 Samuel vi. 17, _David offered_. The Chronicler
associates the elders with David as in xv. 26.
_burnt offerings_] Compare Leviticus i. 1‒9.
_peace offerings_] The “peace offering” (Hebrew _shelem_) was a
thank-offering or an offering made in expiation of a vow; compare
Proverbs vii. 14.
²And when David had made an end of offering the burnt offering
and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of
the LORD.
=2.= _blessed the people_] Compare 2 Chronicles vi. 3.
³And he dealt to every one of Israel, both man and woman, to
every one a loaf of bread, and a portion _of flesh_¹, and a cake
of raisins.
¹ Or, _of wine_.
=3.= _a loaf of bread_] A flat round cake such as is still made in
Egypt is meant.
_a portion_ of flesh] margin “of wine.” The meaning of the Hebrew word
is unknown. _Of flesh_ is rightly in italics here as in 2 Samuel vi. 19.
_a cake of raisins_] Compare Isaiah xvi. 7 (Revised Version) where the
same Hebrew word is used.
=4‒6= (compare verses 37, 38).
DAVID’S ARRANGEMENTS FOR MINISTRATION BEFORE THE ARK.
⁴And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before
the ark of the LORD, and to celebrate and to thank and praise
the LORD, the God of Israel:
=4.= _to celebrate_] The literal meaning is _to call to mind_; compare
verse 12 (_remember_). Compare Psalms xxxviii., lxx. (titles).
⁵Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, Jeiel¹, and
Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah,
and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with psalteries and with harps; and
Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud;
¹ In chapter xv. 18, _Jaaziel_.
=5.= _Asaph_] Compare xv. 17, note.
_and Obed-edom_] It is possible that the names Obed-edom, and Jeiel
and Asaph (in the latter part of the verse) have been inserted by the
interpolator who wrote xv. 19‒21 and wished to accommodate these verses
to the altered text in chapter xv.
⁶and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually,
before the ark of the covenant of God.
=6.= _Benaiah and Jahaziel_] Two priests for the two trumpets.
_Benaiah_] In xxvii. 5, 6 a _Benaiah_ son of Jehoiada the priest
(Revised Version) is mentioned who may possibly be identified with the
Benaiah who was one of the thirty heroes (xi. 24, 25). Compare also
xii. 27.
=7‒36.=
THE PSALM OF PRAISE.
⁷Then on that day did David first ordain¹ to give thanks unto
the LORD, by the hand of Asaph and his brethren.
¹ Or, _make it the chief work_.
The psalm which follows consists of Psalms cv. 1‒15, Psalms xcvi.
1b‒13a, Psalms cvi. 1, 47, 48. It has been compiled from the Psalms
just mentioned and placed here as an utterance such as would be
appropriate to the situation. For detailed criticism as to the original
form and present text of these Psalms, the reader must be referred to
the commentaries on the Psalter. Only such comment is here given as
seems called for in their present setting.
=8‒22= (= Psalms cv. 1‒15).
⁸O give thanks unto the LORD, call upon his name;
Make known his doings among the peoples.
=8, 9.= These verses are perhaps based upon Isaiah xii. 4, 5.
⁹Sing unto him, sing praises unto him;
Talk¹ ye of all his marvellous works.
¹⁰Glory ye in his holy name:
Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.
¹ Or, _Meditate_.
=9.= _Talk ye_] margin _Meditate_. Meditation leads to fresh
proclamation.
_marvellous works_] (compare verse 12). i.e. works beyond man’s
expectation; compare Genesis xviii. 14, _Is anything too hard_
(_wonderful_, Revised Version margin) _for the LORD?_
¹¹Seek ye the LORD and his strength;
Seek his face evermore.
=11.= _and his strength_] Perhaps (altering only the points of the
Hebrew word) =and be ye strong=. So LXX. καὶ ἰσχύσατε (in Psalms cv. 4
καὶ κραταιώθητε). A promise is sometimes expressed in Hebrew by the
imperative.
¹²Remember his marvellous works that he hath done;
His wonders, and the judgements of his mouth;
=12.= _His wonders_] in particular, the marvels of the deliverance from
Egypt; Psalms cv. 27‒36.
¹³O ye seed of Israel his servant,
Ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.
=13.= _of Israel_] Psalms cv. 6, _of Abraham_.
¹⁴He is the LORD our God:
His judgements are in all the earth.
=14.= _His judgements are in all the earth_] Compare verses 20‒22.
¹⁵Remember his covenant for ever,
The word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
¹⁶_The covenant_ which he made with Abraham,
And his oath unto Isaac;
¹⁷And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a statute,
To Israel for an everlasting covenant:
=15.= _Remember_] Read (with Psalms cv. 8) =He hath remembered=.
Compare Exodus xxiv. 3‒8, xxxiv. 10‒27.
¹⁸Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan,
The lot¹ of your inheritance:
¹ Hebrew _cord_, or, _line_.
=18.= _The lot_] The Hebrew word (“_ḥebel_”) means _a portion_ not
_assigned by lot_ but _measured by line_; compare margin Canaan is
co-extensive with Israel’s inheritance.
_inheritance_] All nations receive an inheritance from God; Deuteronomy
xxxii. 8.
¹⁹When ye were but a few men in number;
Yea, very few, and sojourners in it;
=19.= _When ye were_] Psalms cv. 12, _When they were_.
_sojourners_] The patriarchs were not simply _strangers_, but strangers
who made a long _sojourn_ in Canaan.
²⁰And they went about from nation to nation,
And from one kingdom to another people.
=20.= _kingdom ... people_] The “kingdom” is Egypt (Genesis xii.); the
“people” the Canaanite and Perizzite (Genesis xiii.).
²¹He suffered no man to do them wrong;
Yea, he reproved kings for their sakes;
=21.= _he reproved kings_] Genesis xx. 3‒7.
²²_Saying_, Touch not mine anointed ones,
And do my prophets no harm.
=22.= _my prophets_] Genesis xx. 7.
=23‒33= (= Psalms xcvi. 1‒13).
²³Sing unto the LORD, all the earth;
Shew forth his salvation from day to day.
²⁴Declare his glory among the nations,
His marvellous works among all the peoples.
=23.= _Sing unto the LORD_] In Psalms xcvi. 1, 2 this exhortation is
thrice repeated; in Chronicles it is once given. Note that verse 2a of
the Psalm is also omitted here.
²⁵For great is the LORD, and highly to be praised:
He also is to be feared above all gods.
=25.= _to be feared above all gods_] i.e. to be feared as being above
all “that are called gods,” these being “things of nought” (verse 26,
Revised Version margin). The real existence of false gods is not
assumed.
²⁶For all the gods of the peoples are idols¹:
But the LORD made the heavens.
¹ Or, _things of nought_.
=26.= _made the heavens_] A fine epithet. Compare Jeremiah x. 11, _The
gods that have not made the heavens ... shall perish from the earth_.
²⁷Honour and majesty are before him:
Strength and gladness are in his place.
=27.= _are before him_] i.e. are His, belong to Him as His attributes.
Perhaps also _before him_ refers to God’s abode in heaven, while the
parallel expression _in his place_ (Psalms xcvi. 6, _in his sanctuary_)
refers to His temple on earth.
_Strength and gladness_] Psalms xcvi. 6, _Strength and beauty_. The
reference seems to be to the _strength and gladness_ (or _beauty_)
which God bestows on Israel (Psalms lxviii. 35; Isaiah lxi. 3).
_in his place_] Read with Psalms xcvi. 6, =in his sanctuary=. Compare
the two preceding notes.
²⁸Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the peoples,
Give unto the LORD glory and strength.
=28.= _of the peoples_] An expectation that the Gentiles will turn
to the worship of the true God is expressed not rarely in the Psalms;
compare Psalms xxii. 27, Psalms lxviii. 31, 32; and is, of course, one
of the greatest contributions of Old Testament faith to the religious
aspirations of humanity.
²⁹Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name:
Bring an offering, and come before him:
Worship the LORD in the beauty¹ of holiness.
¹ Or, _in holy array_.
=29.= _before him_] Psalms xcvi. 8, _into his courts_.
_Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness_] Render as margin,
=worship the Lord in holy attire= (see Kirkpatrick on Psalms xxix. 2,
Psalms xcvi. 9; and compare Exodus xxviii. 2). Compare 2 Chronicles
xx. 21.
³⁰Tremble before him, all the earth:
The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved.
=30.= _The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved_] In
Psalms xcvi. 10 this clause is preceded by the words, _Say among the
nations, The LORD reigneth_, and is followed by the words, _He shall
judge the peoples with equity_.
³¹Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
And let them say among the nations, The LORD reigneth.
³²Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof;
Let the field exult, and all that is therein;
=31.= _And let them say_] Psalms xcvi. 10, _Say_ [ye]. The clause is
displaced in Chronicles; compare note on verse 30.
_The LORD reigneth_] i.e. the Lord is claiming His kingdom over the
earth by coming to judge the earth; compare verse 33. Contrast Habakkuk
i. 14, where the prophet complains that Jehovah is not asserting
Himself as the ruler of men.
³³Then shall the trees of the wood sing for joy before the LORD,
For he cometh to judge the earth.
=33.= _to judge the earth_] The joy with which the coming judgement is
greeted arises from the fact that the Hebrews regarded a judge as a
champion of the oppressed and not as a precise interpreter of statutes.
=34‒36= (= Psalms cvi. 1, 47, 48).
³⁴O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good:
For his mercy _endureth_ for ever.
=34.= _his mercy_ endureth _for ever_] Compare Exodus xx. 6, “shewing
mercy unto a thousand generations of them that love me” (Revised
Version margin).
³⁵And say ye, Save us, O God of our salvation,
And gather us together and deliver us from the nations,
To give thanks unto thy holy name,
And to triumph in thy praise.
=35.= _gather us together_] A phrase which shows very clearly that the
standpoint of the Psalmist is post-exilic.
³⁶Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel,
From everlasting even to everlasting.
And all the people said, Amen, and praised the LORD.
=36.= _said, Amen, and praised the LORD_] In the Psalms (cvi. 48) “say,
Amen! Hallelujah! (i.e. Praise ye the Lord!).” This verse belongs not
properly to the Psalm, but is the doxology marking the conclusion of
the fourth “book” of the Psalms. Apparently then the Psalms had already
been arranged in the five collections or “books,” into which they were
finally divided, by the time of the Chronicler; but the argument is not
conclusive since (1) the doxology _may_ be really part of the Psalm,
and (2) there is the possibility that verses 7‒36 are a later insertion
in Chronicles.
=37‒43.=
THE SERVICE BEFORE THE ARK AND THE SERVICE AT GIBEON.
The description of the disposition of the Priests and Levites for the
worship in Jerusalem and in Gibeon which was begun in verses 4‒6 is
here resumed. verses 37, 38 summarise verses 4‒6.
³⁷So he left there, before the ark of the covenant of the LORD,
Asaph and his brethren, to minister before the ark continually,
as every day’s work required: ³⁸and Obed-edom with their
brethren, threescore and eight; Obed-edom also the son of
Jeduthun and Hosah to be doorkeepers:
=38.= _Obed-edom with their brethren_] A name or names seems to be
missing after Obed-edom. The LXX. cuts the knot by reading simply “and
_his_ brethren.” Probably we should insert after Obed-edom the words
“and Hosah” from the last part of the verse: see the following note.
_Obed-edom also the son of Jeduthun_] If the view of xv. 19‒21 and
xvi. 5 taken above be correct, these words also may be deleted as a
harmonising gloss, added by someone who wished to insist on Obed-edom
as a _singer_, and hence gave him a place in the line of Jeduthun, one
of the three great choral guilds.
³⁹and Zadok. the priest, and his brethren the priests, before
the tabernacle of the LORD in the high place that was at Gibeon,
=39.= _Zadok the priest_] As Zadok alone is here mentioned as
“before the tabernacle,” the Chronicler perhaps implies that Abiathar
(Ahimelech) the other high-priest was in charge of the Ark in Jerusalem.
On Zadok and Abiathar, see xv. 11, note.
_the tabernacle of the LORD in the high place that was at Gibeon_] See
prefatory note to chapter xiii.; and 2 Chronicles i. 3.
⁴⁰to offer burnt offerings unto the LORD upon the altar of burnt
offering continually morning and evening, even according to all
that is written in the law of the LORD, which he commanded unto
Israel;
=40.= _the altar of burnt offering_] 2 Chronicles i. 5, 6.
_morning and evening_] Exodus xxix. 38, 39 (= Numbers xxviii. 3, 4).
⁴¹and with them Heman and Jeduthun, and the rest that were
chosen, who were expressed by name, to give thanks to the LORD,
because his mercy _endureth_ for ever;
=41.= _Jeduthun_] Psalms xxxix., lxii., lxxvii. (titles). In vi. 33‒47,
xv. 17, 19 the names of the leading singers are given as _Heman_,
_Asaph_, and _Ethan_. Here and in xxv. 1 ff. however _Jeduthun_ seems
to take the place of _Ethan_. Probably there was a variation in the
tradition as to the third name, two families competing each for the
honour of its own ancestor.
⁴²and with them Heman and Jeduthun _with_ trumpets and cymbals
for those that should sound aloud, and _with_ instruments for
the songs of God: and the sons of Jeduthun to be at the gate.
⁴³And all the people departed every man to his house: and David
returned to bless his house.
=42.= _and with them_, etc.] The words _with them_ are possibly
repeated in error from verse 41. Render perhaps, =And Heman and
Jeduthun had trumpets and cymbals=. For _trumpets_ compare xv. 24
(note).
_sons of Jeduthun_] Perhaps a gloss connected with the statement in
verse 38, where see note on _Obed-edom also the son of Jeduthun_.
_to be at the gate_] David’s organisation of the doorkeepers is given
in xxvi. 1‒19.
CHAPTER XVII.
=1‒27= (= 2 Samuel vii. 1‒29).
GOD’S ANSWER TO DAVID’S EXPRESSED DESIRE TO BUILD A TEMPLE.
DAVID’S THANKSGIVING.
This passage is a reproduction with some omissions and variations of
2 Samuel vii. The text is generally smoother in Chronicles, and in
some cases (e.g. in verse 6) we cannot doubt that the Chronicler has
preserved an older and better reading than the present text of Samuel,
whilst in other instances the Chronicler has consciously emended his
text of Samuel.
¹And it came to pass, when David dwelt in his house, that
David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo, I dwell in an house of
cedar, but the ark of the covenant of the LORD _dwelleth_ under
curtains.
=1.= _in his house_] Samuel adds, _and the LORD had given him rest from
all his enemies round about_. The Chronicler omits these words probably
because his next three chapters (xviii.‒xx.) are devoted to wars
(compare 2 Samuel viii. and x.).
_Nathan_] The prophet of the court in the reign of David: see e.g.
2 Samuel xii.; 1 Kings i.
_the ark of the covenant_] So called because it contained the two
tables of the covenant, 1 Kings viii. 9.
²And Nathan said unto David, Do all that is in thine heart; for
God is with thee.
=2.= _in thine heart_] The heart according to Hebrew thought is the
seat of intention and purpose.
³And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came
to Nathan, saying, ⁴Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith the
LORD, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in:
=3.= _the same night_] Genesis xx. 3; 1 Samuel iii. 2, 3; 1 Kings
iii. 5; Job iv. 12, 13.
⁵for I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought
up Israel, unto this day; but have gone¹ from tent to tent, and
from _one_ tabernacle _to another_.
¹ Hebrew _have been_.
=5.= _I brought up Israel_] i.e. _out of Egypt_ (so Samuel).
_but have gone from tent to tent, and from_ one _tabernacle_ to
another] Samuel _but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle_. The
Hebrew text of Chronicles defies translation; that of Samuel is better.
⁶In all places wherein I have walked with all Israel, spake I a
word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to feed
my people, saying, Why have ye not built me an house of cedar?
=6.= _the judges_] A better reading than _the tribes_ (Samuel).
⁷Now therefore thus shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus
saith the LORD of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote¹, from
following the sheep, that thou shouldest be prince² over my
people Israel: ⁸and I have been with thee whithersoever thou
wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies from before thee;
and I will make thee a name, like unto the name of the great
ones that are in the earth.
¹ Or, _pasture_.
² Or, _leader_.
=7.= _sheepcote_] Better as margin =pasture=.
⁹And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant
them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no
more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any
more, as at the first,
=9.= _I will appoint_, etc.] i.e. will establish them in Canaan with
complete ascendancy over their enemies.
_waste them_] Samuel _afflict them_.
¹⁰and _as_ from the day that I commanded judges to be over my
people Israel; and I will¹ subdue all thine enemies. Moreover I
tell thee that the LORD will build thee an house.
¹ Or, _have subdued_.
=10.= _build thee an house_] Samuel _make thee an house_, the house
meant being a dynasty, and not a building.
¹¹And it shall come to pass, when thy days be fulfilled that
thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will set up thy seed
after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his
kingdom.
=11.= _that thou must go to be with_] Samuel _and thou shalt sleep
with_, the usual euphemism for “to die.”
¹²He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne
for ever.
=12.= _me an house_] Samuel _an house for my name_.
¹³I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not
take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was
before thee:
=13.= _my son_] Here Samuel adds, _If he commit iniquity, I will
chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of
men_: this the Chronicler omits in order that not even a suggestion of
the coming evil days might at this stage rest on David and his line.
_from him that was before thee_] Samuel _from Saul whom I put away
before thee_. The reading in Chronicles is to be preferred.
¹⁴but I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever:
and his throne shall be established for ever. ¹⁵According to all
these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan
speak unto David.
=14.= _I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever_]
Samuel _And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for
ever before thee_ (but read _before me_). The reading in Samuel is no
doubt the original. The change made in Chronicles neatly expresses the
Chronicler’s conviction that the kingdom of Israel was not a human but
a Divine institution, its true ruler being God Himself.
_in mine house_] Numbers xii. 7; compare 1 Timothy iii. 15.
¹⁶Then David the king went in, and sat before the LORD; and he
said, Who am I, O LORD God, and what is my house, that thou hast
brought me thus far?
=16.= _went in_] i.e. into the tent which he had pitched for the Ark;
xvi. 1.
_sat before the LORD_] So LXX. and 2 Samuel vii. 18. The Targum rightly
paraphrases, “and tarried in prayer before Jehovah.”
¹⁷And this was a small thing in thine eyes, O God; but thou hast
spoken of thy servant’s house for a great while to come, and
hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree,
O LORD God.
=17.= _and hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high
degree_] In 2 Samuel vii. 19, _and this_ too _after the manner of men_,
or rather _and this is the law for men_ (an exclamation), but the text
both in Samuel and Chronicles is certainly corrupt. The Hebrew phrase
is not quite the same in the two passages, and there is nothing in
Samuel corresponding with the words _of high degree_, but the text of
Chronicles seems to be derived from that of Samuel An emendation “and
hast let me see the generations of men for ever,” i.e. the fortunes
of my distant descendants, has met with some approval, but no really
satisfactory translation or explanation has yet been given of the
Hebrew.
¹⁸What can David _say_ yet more unto thee concerning the honour
which is done to thy servant? for thou knowest thy servant.
=18.= _concerning the honour which is done to thy servant_] Again an
obscure text. Following Samuel we should probably omit these words.
_thou knowest_] Approvest, acceptest; compare Psalms i. 6, Psalms ci. 4;
Jeremiah i. 5.
¹⁹O LORD, for thy servant’s sake, and according to thine own
heart, hast thou wrought all this greatness, to make known all
_these_ great things. ²⁰O LORD, there is none like thee, neither
is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have
heard with our ears.
=19.= _for thy servant’s sake_] 2 Samuel vii. 21, _for thy word’s sake_,
but the LXX. of 2 Samuel agrees with the text of Chronicles.
²¹And¹ what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel,
whom God went to redeem unto himself for a people, to make thee
a name by great and terrible things, in driving out nations from
before thy people, which thou redeemedst out of Egypt? ²²For
thy people Israel didst thou make thine own people for ever; and
thou, LORD, becamest their God.
¹ Or, _And who is like thy people Israel, a nation that is
alone in the earth &c._
=21.= _what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel_] Better
as margin, =who is like thy people Israel, a nation that is alone in
the earth=. Compare Targum _a people unique and chosen in the earth_.
²³And now, O LORD, let the word that thou hast spoken concerning
thy servant, and concerning his house, be established for ever,
and do as thou hast spoken.
=23.= _be established_] Literally be made _Amen_ (i.e. “sure”).
²⁴And¹ let thy name be established and magnified for ever,
saying, The LORD of hosts is the God of Israel, even a God to
Israel: and the house of David thy servant is established before
thee.
¹ Or, _Yea, let it be established, and let thy name be
magnified &c._
=24.= _And let thy name ... magnified_] Better, as margin, =Yea, let it
be established, and let thy name be magnified=.
_even a God to Israel_] delete as a dittography.
²⁵For thou, O my God, hast revealed to thy servant that thou
wilt build him an house: therefore hath thy servant found _in
his heart_ to pray before thee. ²⁶And now, O LORD, thou art God,
and hast promised this good thing unto thy servant:
=25.= _hath ... found ... to pray_] i.e. hath found words and courage
to pray.
²⁷and now it hath pleased thee to bless the house of thy servant,
that it may continue for ever before thee: for thou, O LORD,
hast blessed, and it is blessed for ever.
=27.= _hast blessed, and it is blessed for ever_] 2 Samuel vii. 29,
_thou, O Lord GOD, hast spoken it; and with thy blessing let the house
of thy servant be blessed for ever_.
CHAPTER XVIII.
=1‒17= (= 2 Samuel viii. 1‒18).
A SUMMARY OF DAVID’S FOREIGN WARS. DAVID’S OFFICIALS.
This chapter like the last is taken from 2 Samuel with a few omissions
and variations. The Chronicler paraphrases (verses 1, 17), omits (verse
2), has a different reading (verses 4, 8, 10, 12). In some cases the
better reading is in Chronicles.
The campaigns (except perhaps that against Moab) seem to be narrated in
chronological order. David first makes sure of his most pressing enemy
the Philistines (verse 1); then feeling safe towards the south-west
he turns towards the north-east secure on the Euphrates (but see note
verse 3) a station (valuable for trade) held by the Syrians of Zobah
(verse 3); the Syrians of Damascus fearing to be excluded from the
River by David’s success come to the help of their kinsmen (verse 5);
lastly the Edomites, urged perhaps by the Syrians to make a diversion
in their favour and thinking it safe to attack Judah during the absence
of David, join in the war, but are signally defeated by a detachment
under Joab and Abishai (verse 12).
The war with Moab (verse 2) is surprising, if it took place at an early
date in David’s reign, for he seems to have been on specially friendly
terms with the king of Moab during his exile; compare 1 Samuel xxii. 3,
4 and Kirkpatrick on 2 Samuel viii. 2.
=1‒13= (= 2 Samuel viii. 1‒14).
A SUMMARY OF DAVID’S FOREIGN WARS.
¹And after this it came to pass, that David smote the
Philistines, and subdued them, and took Gath and her towns out
of the hand of the Philistines.
=1.= _after this_] The phrase is adopted from 2 Samuel viii. 1 and
probably came originally from a still earlier book of annals, in which
the context may have been different. We cannot therefore say at what
period of David’s reign the conquest of Gath took place.
_took Gath and her towns_] It is impossible to say for certain whether
this is the original text or only an interpretation of the obscure
reading in 2 Samuel viii. 1, _took the bridle of the mother city_
(Revised Version).
²And he smote Moab; and the Moabites became servants to David,
and brought presents.
=2.= _smote Moab_] The Chronicler at this point omits, as he often
omits, some difficult words of Samuel. 2 Samuel viii. 2 seems to say
that David put two-thirds of the Moabites (presumably the warriors) to
death, but the meaning of the verse is uncertain.
_brought presents_] i.e. tribute, in acknowledgment of David’s
superiority. The same Hebrew phrase (translated “bring an offering”)
is used Psalms xcvi. 8 of sacrificing to Jehovah.
³And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto¹ Hamath, as he
went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates.
¹ Or, _by_.
=3.= _Hadarezer_] So spelt in 2 Samuel x. 16‒19, but in 2 Samuel viii.
3‒12, _Hadadezer_, the right form (as inscriptions show).
_Zobah unto Hamath_] Render as margin =Zobah by Hamath=, the position
of Zobah being fixed by the note that it was near Hamath.
_Hamath_] The modern _Hama_ on the Orontes, midway between Antioch and
Damascus, but somewhat further to the east than either. See below verse
9; also xiii. 5 and 2 Chronicles viii. 3.
_as he went to stablish his dominion_] _He_ may refer to Hadarezer or
to David; the latter, probably, is the Chronicler’s intention. The
reading in 2 Samuel viii. 3 (“to _recover_ his dominion”――Revised
Version) should be emended to the text in Chronicles.
_by the river Euphrates_] The utter improbability that David exercised
any authority in regions so far north throws no doubt upon the reading,
for the Chronicler and the author of Samuel may easily have believed
that he did so.
⁴And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand
horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the
chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
=4.= _a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen_] Samuel _a
thousand and seven hundred horsemen_ (so Hebrew but LXX. of Samuel
agrees with Chronicles). _Houghed_ = “hamstrung.”
⁵And when the Syrians¹ of Damascus² came to succour Hadarezer
king of Zobah, David smote of the Syrians¹ two and twenty
thousand men.
¹ Hebrew _Aram_.
² Hebrew _Darmesek_.
=5.= _Damascus_] The name is variously written in Hebrew, _Darmesek_
(Chronicles), _Dammesek_ (Genesis, 1 Kings), _Dummesek_ (2 Kings xvi.
10). See G. A. Smith, _Damascus_ in _Encyclopedia Biblia_.
_came to succour_] By interposing between David and his own land and so
threatening his rear.
⁶Then David put _garrisons_ in Syria¹ of Damascus²; and the
Syrians¹ became servants to David, and brought presents. And the
LORD gave victory³ to David whithersoever he went.
¹ Hebrew _Aram_.
² Hebrew _Darmesek_.
³ Or, _saved David_.
=6.= _put_ garrisons _in Syria of Damascus_] margin in _Aram of
Darmesek_, i.e. in the Aramean kingdom of which Damascus was the
capital. David’s purpose of course was to secure his rear in any future
operations towards Hamath or towards the Euphrates.
⁷And David took the shields of gold that were on the servants of
Hadarezer, and brought them to Jerusalem.
=7.= _shields of gold_] “shields” = Hebrew _shĕlātim_. The meaning of
the Hebrew word is doubtful; most probably it does _not_ mean “shield,”
for (1) a shield would not be described as “upon” the person to whom
it belonged, (2) the early authorities, i.e. the LXX. translators, the
Targum, and the Peshitṭa (on 2 Samuel viii. 7; 2 Kings xi. 10; Jeremiah
li. 11; Ezekiel xxvii. 11) never give “shield,” but either leave the
word untranslated or give various conjectural renderings. A later
authority (Targum on 1 Chronicles xviii. 7; 2 Chronicles xxiii. 9)
gives “shield,” while LXX. gives “collars” (κλοιούς) here, and “arms”
or “shields” (τὰ ὅπλα) in 2 Chronicles.
The most probable rendering of the word is “suits of armour” (see
Barnes, _Expository Times_, x. 43 ff.).
_and brought them to Jerusalem_] So Hebrew LXX. Targum, but the
Peshitṭa (all important MSS.) omits the words, and they may be a gloss
introduced from 2 Samuel viii. 7.
⁸And from Tibhath and from Cun, cities of Hadarezer, David took
very much brass, wherewith Solomon made the brasen sea, and the
pillars, and the vessels of brass.
=8.= _Tibhath_] compare _Tebah_, the name of an Aramean family, Genesis
xxii. 24. Nothing is known certainly of the position of the city. In
2 Samuel viii. 8 _Betah_ (= _Tebah_).
_Cun_] 2 Samuel viii. 8, “Berothai.” Nothing is certainly known of
a city of either name; but “Berothai” may be the same as “Berothah”
(Ezekiel xlvii. 16).
_very much brass_] Compare xxi. 14, xxix. 2.
_brass_] Not the metal generally so called. Revised Version (margin
note to Genesis iv. 22) gives _copper_ as an alternative rendering. The
“brass” of the ancients (χαλκός, LXX.) corresponds rather to _bronze_.
_the brasen sea_, etc.] Compare 2 Chronicles iv. 11‒18.
⁹And when Tou king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all
the host of Hadarezer king of Zobah,
=9.= _Tou_] In 2 Samuel viii. 9 “Toi” (so Hebrew, but LXX. “Tou”).
_Hamath_] see above verse 3. Hamath is sometimes referred to as the
northern boundary of Israel, compare 1 Kings viii. 65; 2 Kings xiv.
25, 28.
¹⁰he sent Hadoram his son to king David, to salute him, and to
bless him, because he had fought against Hadarezer and smitten
him; for Hadarezer had wars with Tou; and _he had with him_ all
manner of vessels of gold and silver and brass.
=10.= _Hadoram_] In 2 Samuel viii. 10, “Joram.” Both these forms are
probably Hebrew adaptations of the real name.
he had with him _all manner of vessels_] Such informal tribute was an
acknowledgment of David’s suzerainty made in order to claim David’s
protection in war. Compare the action of Asa (1 Kings xv. 18, 19) and
of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 7, 8). In all three cases the policy was the same,
i.e. to acknowledge a distant suzerain and so gain the benefit of a
valuable alliance while losing the minimum of independence.
¹¹These also did king David dedicate unto the LORD, with the
silver and the gold that he carried away from all the nations;
from Edom, and from Moab, and from the children of Ammon, and
from the Philistines, and from Amalek.
=11.= _from Amalek_] So 2 Samuel viii. 12, but we have no record of any
war of David with Amalek except the account in 1 Samuel xxx.
¹²Moreover Abishai¹ the son of Zeruiah smote of the Edomites
in the Valley of Salt eighteen thousand. ¹³And he put garrisons
in Edom; and all the Edomites became servants to David. And the
LORD gave victory² to David whithersoever he went.
¹ Hebrew _Abshai_.
² Or, _saved David_.
=12.= _Abishai the son of Zeruiah_] In 2 Samuel viii. 13 David, and in
Psalms lx. (title) Joab, receives the credit of this victory. Abishai
might have commanded in the battle, while Joab (compare 1 Kings xi. 16)
completed the conquest of the country; but it is highly probable that
the reading _Abishai the son of Zeruiah_ has arisen here through a
copyist’s mistake and that the true reading is =And when he= (David)
=returned he smote Edom=, etc.
_of the Edomites_] Literally “of Edom,” so Psalms lx. (title), but
in 2 Samuel “of the Syrians,” literally “Aram.” The two words “Edom”
and “Aram” when written in Hebrew are very much alike and are easily
confused. The reading “Edom” is right here.
_the Valley of Salt_] Probably the marshy flat (Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵,
p. 174) at the south end of the Dead Sea. This valley is dominated by
the Jebel Usdum, a hill consisting “almost entirely of pure
crystallised salt” (Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵, p. 174).
_eighteen thousand_] Psalms lx. (title), “twelve thousand,” not an
important variation.
=14‒17= (= 2 Samuel viii. 15‒18; compare 2 Samuel xx. 23‒26).
DAVID’S OFFICIALS.
¹⁴And David reigned over all Israel; and he executed judgement
and justice unto all his people.
=14.= _unto all his people_] David was his own chief justice, but
probably the work was too much for one man; compare 2 Samuel xv. 2‒4.
¹⁵And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the host; and Jehoshaphat
the son of Ahilud was recorder¹.
¹ Or, _chronicler_.
=15.= _recorder_] margin, =chronicler=; LXX., ὑπομνηματογράφος. His
business was probably to remind the king of his various duties of state.
¹⁶And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar,
were priests; and Shavsha was scribe¹;
¹ Or, _secretary_.
=16.= _Abimelech the son of Abiathar_] In 2 Samuel viii. 17, _Ahimelech
the son of Abiathar_, but read =Abiathar son of Ahimelech= in both
passages. Compare xv. 11, xxiv. 3, notes; and Kirkpatrick on 2 Samuel
viii. 17.
_Shavsha_] 2 Samuel viii. 17, _Seraiah_; 2 Samuel xx. 25, _Sheva_;
and 1 Kings iv. 3 (perhaps), _Shisha_. _Shisha_ and _Shavsha_ probably
represent two different attempts to pronounce a foreign name, perhaps
Shamsha; _Seraiah_ and _Sheva_ are mere errors of transcription.
Foreigners were admitted to posts of authority in the empire of David
and Solomon; Ittai the Gittite and Uriah the Hittite are instances.
_scribe_] margin, =secretary=. See 2 Kings xii. 10, xviii. 18, xxii. 3;
compare 2 Kings xxv. 19, a passage which suggests that there was a
second scribe with military duties. The first, the king’s scribe, would
formulate the king’s orders and conduct his correspondence with foreign
powers. Shavsha’s sons held the office in the reign of Solomon, 1 Kings
iv. 3.
¹⁷and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and
the Pelethites; and the sons of David were chief about the king.
=17.= _Benaiah_] Compare xi. 22‒25.
_the Cherethites and the Pelethites_] David’s bodyguard. The
Cherethites were almost certainly Philistines (1 Samuel xxx. 14;
Ezekiel xxv. 16; Zephaniah ii. 5), the Pelethites were probably also
Philistines (2 Samuel xv. 18). Foreign bodyguards are well-known in
history.
_chief about the king_] Literally, _the chief at the kings hand_, i.e.
formed the executive to carry out his commands; compare Nehemiah xi. 24.
In 2 Samuel viii. 18 (Revised Version) David’s sons are described as
_priests_, a statement which is in all probability correct, but which
the Chronicler, following the later theory of the priesthood, could not
accept (see Introduction, pp. xli. f.).
CHAPTER XIX.
=1‒19= (= 2 Samuel x. 1‒19).
WAR WITH THE AMMONITES AND THEIR ARAMEAN ALLIES.
Chronicles here omits the story of David’s kindness in seeking out and
befriending Mephibosheth (Merib-baal) the son of Jonathan (2 Samuel
ix.), because he has ignored the story of David’s relations with Saul.
Further the Court History of David which occupies an important place
in 2 Samuel is passed over altogether in Chronicles Consequently the
shameful episode of Bath-sheba, and the rebellion of Absalom vanish
from the account of David. It is obvious how greatly the presentation
of David’s life and character is affected by these omissions. Yet from
his point of view the Chronicler is right in passing these matters
by in silence. He was concerned to present David essentially as the
founder of the religious life of Israel as a kingdom and of the Temple
as an institution of religion.
There are several variations in text between 2 Samuel x. and
1 Chronicles xix., e.g. verses 6, 7 (addition in Chronicles), 16
(omission from Chronicles), 18 (variation in reckoning).
¹And it came to pass after this, that Nahash the king of the
children of Ammon died, and his son reigned in his stead.
=1.= _after this_] The war with Ammon has already been referred to by
anticipation in xviii. 11.
_Nahash_] Probably the Nahash mentioned in 1 Samuel xi. 1.
_Ammon_] The Ammonites were a kindred race to the Hebrews, being
descended according to tradition from Lot, the nephew of Abraham;
compare Deuteronomy ii. 19. The two Ammonite names here given are pure
Hebrew, _Nahash_ (= “Serpent”) and _Hanun_ (= “Favoured, _Fortunatus_”);
the Ammonite language, like the Moabite, was doubtless very similar to
Hebrew.
²And David said, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of
Nahash, because his father shewed kindness to me. So David sent
messengers to comfort him concerning his father. And David’s
servants came into the land of the children of Ammon to Hanun,
to comfort him.
=2.= _sent messengers to comfort him_] A customary act of international
courtesy; compare 2 Kings xx. 12. Its breach was resented. Thus in the
Tell el-Amarna letters (x. 16) the king of Kardunias writes, “Should
not my brother (i.e. the king of Egypt) have heard that I am sick? Why
has he not comforted me? Why has he not sent his messenger, not looked
into it?” (editor H. Winckler, p. 23).
³But the princes of the children of Ammon said to Hanun,
Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath
sent comforters unto thee? are not his servants come unto thee
for to search, and to overthrow, and to spy out the land?
=3.= _the land_] 2 Samuel x. 3, _the city_, i.e. Rabbah (see xx. 1).
⁴So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved them, and cut off
their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent
them away.
=4.= _shaved them_] 2 Samuel x. 4, _shaved off the one half of their
beards_. Of course a great insult; compare Isaiah l. 6.
_cut off their garments_] Jewish ambassadors are represented on the
Black Obelisk (a monument of Shalmaneser II, king of Assyria, now
preserved in the British Museum) as wearing robes reaching to the feet;
Hanun reduced ambassadors to the level of captives; compare Isaiah
xx. 4.
⁵Then there went certain, and told David how the men were served.
And he sent to meet them; for the men were greatly ashamed. And
the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and
then return.
=5.= _Tarry at Jericho_] Thus (1) the feelings of the ambassadors would
be spared, (2) the insult would be less widely known until it had been
avenged.
⁶And when the children of Ammon saw that they had made
themselves odious to David, Hanun and the children of Ammon sent
a thousand talents of silver to hire them chariots and horsemen
out of Mesopotamia, and out of Aram-maacah, and out of Zobah.
=6.= _a thousand talents of silver_] A very large sum; for a hundred
talents Amaziah hired a hundred thousand men (2 Chronicles xxv. 6).
_chariots and horsemen_] The Israelite armies on the contrary consisted
chiefly of infantry, the country being for the most part unsuitable for
horses.
_Mesopotamia_] Hebrew “Aram (Syria) of the two rivers” (compare Genesis
xxiv. 10, Revised Version margin), i.e. probably the land between the
Euphrates and the Chaboras. The Greeks used the term _Mesopotamia_
of a wider district, i.e. of the country between the Euphrates and
the Tigris. This mention of Mesopotamia is probably premature, for
in verse 16 the summons of Syrians from beyond the Euphrates is spoken
of as a new thing. The corresponding expression in 2 Samuel x. 6 is
_Beth-rehob_, a district which has not yet been identified.
_Aram-maacah_] compare vii. 15, note; Deuteronomy iii. 14; Joshua xii.
5, xiii. 11.
_Zobah_]. compare xviii. 3, note.
⁷So they hired them thirty and two thousand chariots, and the
king of Maacah and his people; who came and pitched before
Medeba. And the children of Ammon gathered themselves together
from their cities, and came to battle.
=7.= _thirty and two thousand chariots_] Compare 2 Samuel x. 6, which
reckons the army (including Maacah) at 33,000, of whom 20,000 are
expressly described as footmen. The word “chariots” may have slipped
in from verse 6 instead of “men” or may be an intentional alteration,
magnifying the war.
_Medeba_] In the territory of Reuben; Joshua xiii. 26. The country
round is a table-land suited for the manœuvres of chariots. The place
of the rendezvous of the allies is not mentioned in 2 Samuel x., some
words having probably fallen out of the text.
⁸And when David heard of it, he sent Joab, and all the host of
the mighty men. ⁹And the children of Ammon came out, and put the
battle in array at the gate of the city: and the kings that were
come were by themselves in the field.
=8.= _David ... sent Joab_] Why in such a crisis did he not go himself?
Perhaps because he could watch the gathering of the more serious storm
described in verses 16‒19 better from Jerusalem.
¹⁰Now when Joab saw that the battle¹ was set against him before
and behind, he chose of all the choice men of Israel, and put
¹¹them in array against the Syrians. And the rest of the people
he committed into the hand of Abishai² his brother, and they put
themselves in array against the children of Ammon. ¹²And he said,
If the Syrians be too strong for me, then thou shalt help me:
but if the children of Ammon be too strong for thee, then I will
help thee.
¹ Hebrew _the face of the battle was against_.
² Hebrew _Abshai_.
=10.= _he chose of all the choice men_] The Syrians were the more
formidable because of the chariots they had; Joab therefore opposed to
them the flower of his army.
¹³Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our people,
and for the cities of our God: and the LORD do that which
seemeth him good.
=13.= _the cities of our God_] The cities which our God has given us
and in which He is worshipped. If these were captured by the enemy,
false gods would be worshipped in them. Religious feeling often
supplies the place of patriotism in the East.
¹⁴So Joab and the people that were with him drew nigh before the
Syrians unto the battle; and they fled before him.
=14.= _drew nigh before the Syrians_] Without fear for their own rear
advanced against the Syrian front.
¹⁵And when the children of Ammon saw that the Syrians were fled,
they likewise fled before Abishai his brother, and entered into
the city. Then Joab came to Jerusalem.
=15.= _Joab came to Jerusalem_] Probably because he was wanted for the
new danger gathering in the North.
=16‒19.=
THE END OF THE ARAMEAN WAR.
Three stages are apparent in the war with Zobah _as related in
Chronicles_, (a) that in which David secured a position on the
Euphrates, xviii. 3‒8, (b) the stage during which troops from Zobah
acted as auxiliaries to the Ammonites, xix. 6‒15, (c) the final stage
which ended in the conclusion of a formal peace, xix. 16‒19. The actual
facts of David’s activities against the Arameans are by no means easy
to ascertain, as may be seen in the commentaries on the more complex
account which is given in Samuel.
¹⁶And when the Syrians saw that they were put to the worse
before Israel, they sent messengers, and drew forth the Syrians
that were beyond the River, with Shophach the captain of the
host of Hadarezer at their head.
=16.= _the Syrians that were beyond the River_] i.e. the Syrians of
“Mesopotamia”; compare verse 6, note. 2 Samuel x. 16 adds, _and they
came to Helam_; the position of Helam however is unknown.
_Shophach_] In 2 Samuel x. 16 called “Shobach.” The whole allied army
was united under one general.
¹⁷And it was told David; and he gathered all Israel together,
and passed over Jordan, and came upon them, and set the battle
in array against them. So when David had put the battle in array
against the Syrians, they fought with him.
=17.= _came upon them_] or possibly read, as 2 Samuel x. 17, =came to
Helam=. According to 2 Samuel x. the Syrian army assembled at Helam,
and was there attacked by David.
¹⁸And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the
Syrians _the men of_ seven thousand chariots, and forty thousand
footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.
=18.= _seven thousand_] 2 Samuel x. 18, _seven hundred_: an intentional
change made by the Chronicler to enhance the achievement of David.
_forty thousand footmen_] 2 Samuel x. 18, _forty thousand horsemen_.
Swarms of horsemen have usually formed the strength of armies raised on
the eastern bank of the Euphrates; but the reading in Chronicles may
well be correct.
¹⁹And when the servants of Hadarezer saw that they were put to
the worse before Israel, they made peace with David, and served
him: neither would the Syrians help the children of Ammon any
more.
=19.= _the servants_] i.e. his vassals and tributaries; in 2 Samuel
“all the kings that were servants to Hadarezer.” We are not told what
course Hadarezer himself took; possibly, being deserted by his allies,
he ceased from hostilities without making any treaty with David.
CHAPTER XX.
=1‒3= (= 2 Samuel xi. 1, xii. 26‒31).
THE SUBJUGATION OF AMMON.
The account of the siege of Rabbah is given more shortly in Chronicles
than in 2 Samuel From the latter we learn that the Ark was in the
besiegers’ camp (xi. 11), that the city was defended with spirit
(xi. 17), and finally taken piecemeal (xii. 26‒29).
¹And it came to pass, at the time of the return of the year,
at the time when kings go out _to battle_, that Joab led forth
the power of the army, and wasted the country of the children
of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried at
Jerusalem. And Joab smote Rabbah, and overthrew it.
=1.= _at the time of the return of the year_] i.e. in the spring,
2 Samuel xi. 1; 1 Kings xx. 22.
_the power of the army_] The Hebrew phrase is quite general in meaning:
_the host of war, the military forces_.
_Rabbah_] the capital of the Ammonites; Jeremiah xlix. 2; Ezekiel
xxi. 20 (25, Hebrew). Its site, now called _‘Ammān_, is covered with
important ruins of the Roman and Byzantine periods. The town lies in a
fertile basin, its citadel on a hill on the north side.
_David tarried at Jerusalem_] In 2 Samuel these words introduce the
story of David’s adultery with Bath-sheba, which is omitted from
Chronicles.
_Joab smote Rabbah_] In 2 Samuel xii. 27 Joab reports to David the
capture of _the city of waters_ (i.e. the lower city), and invites him
to come and complete the conquest (presumably by capturing the citadel)
in person. Probably the citadel was dependent for water on the river
which flows through the town.
²And David took the crown of their king¹ from off his head, and
found it to weigh a talent of gold, and there were precious
stones in it; and it was set upon David’s head: and he brought
forth the spoil of the city, exceeding much.
¹ Or, _Malcam_ See Zephaniah i. 5.
=2.= _of their king_] So also Authorized Version, perhaps rightly, but
many scholars prefer to treat the word as a proper name, rendering, as
margin, _of Malcam_ (compare Zephaniah i. 5), i.e. Milcom, the national
god of the Ammonites (1 Kings xi. 5). LXX. has a double translation of
the one Hebrew word: _Molchol_ (_Molchom_) _their king_. The name of
the god, whether the right form be _Molech_ (1 Kings xi. 7) or more
probably _Milcom_ or _Malcam_, means either “king” or, less probably,
“counsellor.” In the former case his image would in all probability
wear a crown.
_it was set upon David’s head_] A symbolic action implying that David
completely annexed the Ammonite territory; other conquered nations
retained a partial independence on condition of the payment of tribute.
_he brought forth the spoil of the city, exceeding much_] doubtless a
triumphal procession of captives and spoil, such as an Assyrian relief
in the British Museum represents passing before Sennacherib at the
capture of Lachish.
³And he brought forth the people that were therein, and cut
_them_ with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. And
thus did David unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. And
David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.
=3.= _and cut_ them _with saws_] Read probably (compare 2 Samuel xii.
31, Revised Version margin) =and put them with saws=, i.e. put them to
work with saws, etc. Compare 2 Chronicles ii. 17, 18; Joshua ix. 21‒23.
The implements mentioned here and in the parallel passage of 2 Samuel
suggest task-work, not massacre. The Ammonites were reduced to bondage
like that of Israel in Egypt. The exceptionally harsh treatment of the
Ammonites was doubtless due to the exceptional insults which David’s
ambassadors had received from them. A very different spirit towards
Ammon is shown in Deuteronomy ii. 19.
=4‒8= (= 2 Samuel xxi. 18‒22).
PHILISTINE CHAMPIONS SLAIN.
This section is the last in which the Chronicler notices David’s wars.
It is taken from 2 Samuel xxi., where, however, it is preceded by an
account (verses 15‒17) of David’s narrow escape in an encounter with a
Philistine.
Between the two sections of this chapter the Chronicler omits the
account of the rebellions of Absalom and of Sheba, and the story of the
Gibeonite vengeance on the house of Saul (2 Samuel xiii. i‒xxi. 14).
⁴And it came to pass after this, that there arose war at Gezer¹
with the Philistines: then Sibbecai the Hushathite slew Sippai,
of the sons of the giant²: and they were subdued.
¹ In 2 Samuel xxi. 18, _Gob_.
² Hebrew _Rapha_. According to another reading, _giants_;
Hebrew _Rephaim_.
=4.= _at Gezer_] See vi. 67, note. In 2 Samuel _at Gob_, but no place
called Gob is known. In 2 Samuel v. 25 it is said that David smote the
Philistines “from Geba until thou come to Gezer.”
_Sippai_] In 2 Samuel “Saph.”
_giant_] Hebrew “Rapha”; the same Hebrew word in the plural “Rephaim”
is translated “giants” in Deuteronomy ii. 11, Authorized Version These
“Rephaim” dwelt east of Jordan.
⁵And there was again war with the Philistines; and Elhanan the
son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the
staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
=5.= _Elhanan ... slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath_] In 2 Samuel xxi.
19, _Elhanan ... the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath_ (Revised Version). The
difference between the two sentences in Hebrew is very small, and is
due, no doubt, to the Chronicler, or a copyist, who felt that he was
making a certain emendation in substituting the brother of Goliath for
Goliath himself, since, according to 1 Samuel xvii., Goliath was slain
by David before he became king.
_slew Lahmi_] read =the Beth-lehemite slew=, etc.
⁶And there was again war at Gath, where was a man of great
stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six _on
each hand_, and six _on each foot_; and he also was born unto
the giant¹.
¹ Hebrew _Rapha_.
=6.= _a man of great stature_] In 2 Samuel xxi. 20 (Hebrew) _a man of
contention_, i.e. a challenger or champion.
⁷And when he defied⁴ Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David’s
brother slew him.
⁴ Or, _reproached_.
=7.= _Shimea_] See iii. 5, note.
⁸These were born unto the giant¹ in Gath; and they fell by the
hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.
¹ Hebrew _Rapha_.
=8.= _These were born unto the giant in Gath_] Again “giant” is the
Hebrew “Rapha” as in verses 4, 6. The meaning is that these belonged to
a branch of the Rephaim which was settled in Gath.
CHAPTER XXI.
=1‒27= (= 2 Samuel xxiv. 1‒25).
THE NUMBERING AND THE PLAGUE.
Comparison of these verses with the account given in Samuel discloses
not a few interesting divergences, the more important of which are
pointed out in the notes below (see especially the notes on verses
1, 6, 25). In general it may be said that the account in Chronicles
curtails any features reflecting discredit on David and expands such
as do him honour. Some scholars consider that the changes are of such
a character that they may all be due directly to the Chronicler, but
others see in them motives so various as to suggest the opinion that
the Chronicler’s source is not Samuel but an intermediate source. There
may be a measure of truth in both contentions. So famous a tale may
well have been recounted with modifications in the telling to suit the
later idealisation of David. The Chronicler may therefore have been
working from the text of Samuel, but some of the changes he introduced
may have been generally current, and for these he is in a sense not
_immediately_ responsible, although of course all were more or less in
accordance with his taste.
The subject of the present section (David’s numbering of the people and
the plague which followed) is interesting in itself, quite apart from
the comparison with Samuel Why was the census considered a sin? Various
replies may be made. (1) Because the pride of David and the ambitions
which the census might promote revealed a transference of trust from
God to self, from spirit to numbers, from justice to power. This view
accords with our modern moralistic standpoint, but other considerations
call for mention. (2) Because, unlike the two numberings in the
wilderness (Numbers i. 1‒16, iii. 39, xxvi. 1‒65), it was not made by
Divine command (compare verse 1, note). This thought may well have been
present in the mind of the Chronicler. To it we may add (3) the popular
dread of the census as a sinister and unlucky act. The ground of this
dread was no doubt mainly practical, being due to the fear that the
records might be used for purposes of fresh taxation or more stringent
war-levies, but it may have its roots in an instinct, handed down from
the thoughts of primitive ages, when written records were an uncanny
mystery. Thus S. I. Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_,
p. 69, remarks that the persistence of this fear among modern Semites
is partially chargeable for the lack of correct statistics as to the
population of Oriental towns. Frazer (in _Anthropological Essays to
E. B. Tylor_, p. 174) refers to the dread of enumeration felt by the
Lapps and by a West African tribe.
¹And Satan¹ stood up against Israel, and moved David to number
Israel.
¹ Or, _an adversary_.
=1.= _And Satan stood up against Israel_] In 2 Samuel “And again (a
former occasion being at the time of the famine, 2 Samuel xxi. 1)
the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David
against them.” The change is significant of the late date of Chronicles
In an earlier stage of Hebrew thought human sin and folly are at times
naïvely ascribed to the agency of God, e.g. “He hardens Pharaoh’s
heart” (Exodus x. 1, etc.): “quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat.”
At a later date the instigation of some subordinate “evil” spirit
was adduced, e.g. 1 Kings xxii. 20‒24; and eventually this spirit
of temptation was expressly termed “The Satan” or “Satan,” i.e. “The
Adversary.” He was then regarded as a hostile spiritual being, the
opposite of a _guardian_ angel such as the Michael of Daniel x. 13, 21,
xii. 1. In the book of Job the Satan is very definitely said to act
under the guidance and will of God. Here nothing is said of the Satan
having been directed by Jehovah.
_to number_] Only those of military age (verse 5), over twenty years of
age (xxvii. 23, 24), were included in the census.
²And David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, Go,
number Israel from Beer-sheba even to Dan; and bring me word,
that I may know the sum of them.
=2.= _to Joab_] The object being to number “those who drew sword,” the
captain of the host was the most suitable person to entrust with the
business.
_from Beer-sheba even to Dan_] From the extreme south to the extreme
north of the land.
_Dan_] The modern _Tell el-Kādī_, about forty minutes distance from
Bāniās (Paneas), north of Lake Huleh (Waters of Merom). For its
original name _Laish_, see Judges xviii. 28.
_that I may know_] Either with a view to imposing a tax or to
undertaking some fresh great military expedition.
³And Joab said, The LORD make his people an hundred times so
many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my
lord’s servants? why doth my lord require this thing? why will
he be a cause of guilt unto Israel?
=3.= _The LORD make ... are they not all my lord’s servants?_] Counting
will not increase their numbers, only Jehovah’s gracious favour can
secure that. What more then can David desire than to know, as Joab now
assures him, that one and all his subjects are loyal?
_why will he be a cause of guilt unto Israel?_] Compare Leviticus iv. 3,
“if the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people”
(Revised Version). The community is a unit, and the guilt of one falls
on all.
⁴Nevertheless the king’s word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore
Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to
Jerusalem.
=4.= _came to Jerusalem_] In 2 Samuel xxiv. 4‒8 the route is described
and the time taken in the numbering is stated, _nine months and twenty
days_.
⁵And Joab gave up the sum of the numbering of the people unto
David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an
hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred
threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
=5.= _they of Israel_] Chronicles gives Israel as 1,100,000 and Judah
as 470,000; 2 Samuel gives Israel as 800,000 and Judah as 500,000. It
is difficult to correlate these figures. There are, however, reasons
for thinking that the last part of the verse _and Judah was 470,000_,
etc., may be a gloss. If so, then the 200,000 less in Chronicles
(1,300,000 in Samuel; 1,100, 000 in Chronicles, where _Israel_ would
as so often denote both Israel and Judah) might well be explained as
an allowance for the exclusion of Levi and Benjamin (see verse 6).
_that drew sword_] All males over twenty years of age; compare Numbers
i. 20.
⁶But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king’s
word was abominable to Joab.
=6.= _Levi_] In Numbers i. 49 it is ordained that Levi is not to
be numbered among the children of Israel, i.e. treated as liable to
military service. The Levites were, however, numbered separately:
Numbers iii. 15, xxvi. 57. In 2 Samuel there is nothing to correspond
with this verse, Levi and Benjamin being there reckoned in the census.
Why the Chronicler excludes Benjamin as well as Levi it is not easy to
see.
⁷And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote
Israel.
=7.= _he smote Israel_] with the plague.
⁸And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, in that I have
done this thing: but now, put away, I beseech thee, the iniquity
of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.
=8.= _put away ... the iniquity_] Render perhaps, =remove the
punishment=; compare Genesis iv. 13, Revised Version with margin:
also 1 Samuel xxviii. 10.
⁹And the LORD spake unto Gad, David’s seer, saying,
=9.= _And the LORD spake_] The historian now retraces his steps to
describe the circumstances which heralded the approach of the plague.
_Gad_] He is three times mentioned in Chronicles, each time as a
“seer,” viz. xxi. 9 (= 2 Samuel xxiv. 11); xxix. 29; 2 Chronicles xxix.
25. He was perhaps an older contemporary of Nathan, who bears the more
modern title of “prophet” (compare 1 Samuel ix. 9).
¹⁰Go and speak unto David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer¹
thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it
unto thee. ¹¹So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith
the LORD, Take which thou wilt;
¹ Hebrew _stretch out unto_.
=10.= _I offer thee three things_] The offer is a test of David’s
character, just as God’s different offer in 2 Chronicles i. 7 was a
test of Solomon’s.
¹²either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed
before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies
overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even¹
pestilence in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying
throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore consider what
answer I shall return to him that sent me.
¹ Or, _and_.
=12.= _three years of famine_] 2 Samuel, _seven years of famine_ (LXX.
however _three_, as Chronicles).
_three months to be consumed_] The correct text, however, is probably
that found in 2 Samuel xxiv. 13, _or wilt thou flee three months?_
_the angel of the LORD_] Compare 2 Kings xix. 35; Acts xii. 23.
_coasts_] Render, =borders=, i.e. through the whole land.
¹³And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall
now into the hand of the LORD; for very great¹ are his mercies:
and let me not fall into the hand of man.
¹ Or, _many_.
=13.= _into the hand of the LORD_] The answer reveals the sincerity and
efficacy of David’s penitence: a right spirit is renewed within him. He
now _chooses_ to trust in God.
¹⁴So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of
Israel seventy thousand men.
=14.= _there fell of Israel_] 2 Samuel adds, _from Dan even to
Beer-sheba_. The pestilence was throughout the whole land.
¹⁵And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as
he was about to destroy, the LORD beheld, and he repented him
of the evil, and said to the destroying angel, It is enough;
now stay thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the
threshing-floor of Ornan¹ the Jebusite.
¹ In 2 Samuel xxiv. 16, &c., _Araunah_.
=15.= _unto Jerusalem_] The peril of the plague extends until Jerusalem
itself is threatened.
_he repented him_] Compare Genesis vi. 6; 1 Samuel xv. 11, 35; Jonah
iii. 10, etc.
_It is enough_] The sudden cessation of this pestilence has numerous
parallels in the history of epidemics.
_the threshing-floor of Ornan_] The Chronicler makes this
threshing-floor the site of the Temple. The author of Samuel is silent
on the point. Compare notes on verses 25, 28, and especially xxii. 1.
_Ornan_] This is the form of the name throughout this chapter, but in
2 Samuel xxiv. the _Ḳerī_ gives everywhere _Araunah_. The _Kethīb_ of
Samuel, however, offers various forms, one of which (to be read _Ornah_,
verse 16) approximates to the form given in Chronicles Variation in
reproducing foreign names is common; see note on xviii. 5 (_Damascus_),
and on 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 6 (_Nebuchadnezzar_).
¹⁶And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD
stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in
his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders,
clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
=16.= _saw the angel_] The full description of the vision is peculiar
to Chronicles; compare 2 Samuel xxiv. 17.
_and the elders, clothed in sackcloth_] The wearing of sackcloth was
doubtless accompanied by fasting; compare Jonah iii. 5.
¹⁷And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people
to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done very
wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand,
I pray thee, O LORD my God, be against me, and against my
father’s house; but not against thy people, that they should be
plagued. ¹⁸Then the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to
David, that David should go up, and rear an altar unto the LORD
in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite. ¹⁹And David went
up at the saying of Gad, which he spake in the name of the LORD.
=17.= _let thine hand ... be against me_] Compare Moses’ intercession
in Exodus xxxii. 32; but Moses was innocent, David guilty.
²⁰And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons
that were with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat.
=20.= _hid themselves_] in fear, lest they too should see the angel of
Jehovah and their lives be thereby imperilled, compare Judges vi. 22,
xiii. 22.
²¹And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and
went out of the threshing-floor, and bowed himself to David with
his face to the ground.
=21.= _was threshing wheat_] By driving oxen over it; compare verse 23.
²²Then David said to Ornan, Give me the place of this
threshing-floor, that I may build thereon an altar unto the LORD:
for the full price shalt thou give it me: that the plague may be
stayed from the people.
=22.= _the place of this threshing-floor_] The expression
implies perhaps that David bought more than the mere area of the
threshing-floor.
_for the full price_] Genesis xxiii. 9 (Revised Version).
²³And Ornan said unto David, Take it to thee, and let my lord
the king do that which is good in his eyes: lo, I give _thee_
the oxen for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for
wood, and the wheat for the meal offering; I give it all. ²⁴And
king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the
full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD,
nor offer a burnt offering without cost.
=23.= _the meal offering_] Compare Leviticus ii. 1‒16.
²⁵So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of
gold by weight.
=25.= _gave ... for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight_]
In 2 Samuel xxiv. 24, _bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for
fifty shekels of silver_. The huge discrepancy here between Chronicles
and Samuel is noteworthy. If the price in Samuel, 50 shekels of silver
for threshing-floor and oxen, seems somewhat small (compared with the
400 shekels paid by Abraham for the cave of Machpelah, Genesis xxiii.
15‒17), the 600 shekels of _gold_ in Chronicles is extravagantly
large. It is accounted for by the fact that the Chronicler regarded the
transaction, not as the acquisition merely of the site for the altar
but of the area on which the Temple was afterwards built (see verse 22).
No sum could well seem too large for the purchase of ground destined to
be so holy. The figure 600 may have been chosen on the ground that it
was equal to a payment of 50 shekels for each tribe.
²⁶And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered
burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the LORD;
and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt
offering. ²⁷And the LORD commanded the angel; and he put up his
sword again into the sheath thereof.
=26.= _peace offerings_] See xvi. 1, note. At the end of the verse LXX.
(compare Peshitṭa) adds, _and consumed the burnt offering_. Compare
Leviticus ix. 24; 1 Kings xviii. 38. The fire is not mentioned in
2 Samuel.
=CHAPTER XXI. 28‒CHAPTER XXII. 1.=
THE SELECTION OF THE SITE OF THE TEMPLE.
²⁸At that time, when David saw that the LORD had answered him
in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed
there.
=28.= _At that time_, etc.] The construction of this section must
be carefully noted. chapter xxi. 28 is continued by chapter xxii. i,
verses 29, 30 of chapter xxi. being a parenthesis. The division of
chapters here is unfortunate.
_At that time_] The phrase is taken up by “Then” of xxii. 1. The
Chronicler wishes us to note that David regarded the success of his
intercession at the floor of Ornan as an indication that this floor
was God’s approved site for the Temple.
²⁹For the tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses made in the
wilderness, and the altar of burnt offering, were at that time
in the high place at Gibeon.
=29.= _For_] The beginning of a parenthesis.
_the tabernacle of the LORD_] See the prefatory note to chapter xiii.;
also compare xvi. 1, 39, and 2 Chronicles i. 3.
³⁰But David could not go before it to inquire of God: for he was
afraid because of the sword of the angel of the LORD.
=30.= _he was afraid_] Or, =he was terrified=. The Hebrew word is
unusual.
CHAPTER XXII.
¹Then David said, This is the house of the LORD God, and this is
the altar of burnt offering for Israel.
=1.= _Then_] The word refers back to xxi. 28, _At that time_.
_David said_] The king acts in conformity with the law contained in
Deuteronomy xii. 5, 6.
_This is the house of the LORD_, etc.] Hence the necessity for
relating the story of David’s sinful action in taking the census. The
Chronicler’s desire to show only the idealistic aspect of David’s life
has frequently been pointed out. The present section, then, is notable
as showing very clearly how even this desire was made to yield to the
supreme object of relating the Divinely-guided origin and growth of the
Temple and its worship.
=2‒19.=
DAVID’S PREPARATIONS FOR BUILDING THE TEMPLE.
HIS CHARGE TO SOLOMON AND TO THE PRINCES.
It is of course quite probable that preparations for a Temple were
begun in David’s time, but the picture given in this chapter must
not be taken as historically true, the material being of a general
character such as the imagination could readily supply, and the figures
mentioned in verse 14 being impossibly exaggerated. The chapter in fact
is the outcome of the Chronicler’s zealous but uncritical mind working
in the belief that, not Solomon, but the pious David was the “moving
spirit in the great enterprise.” As Moses led Israel to Jordan’s brink,
so David (he thought) must stop short only at the actual building of
the Temple.
²And David commanded to gather together the strangers that were
in the land of Israel; and he set masons to hew wrought stones
to build the house of God. ³And David prepared iron in abundance
for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the couplings;
and brass in abundance without weight;
=2.= _the strangers_] Compare 2 Chronicles ii. 17; viii. 7‒9. Hewing
of stone was regarded as task-work unfit for free men. This verse is
simply an anticipation of the preparations recorded in Solomon’s reign:
see 2 Chronicles ii. 1, 17.
_wrought stones_] All the stone used for the building of the Temple was
previously cut to the right size; compare 1 Kings vi. 7.
⁴and cedar trees without number: for the Zidonians and they of
Tyre brought cedar trees in abundance to David.
=4.= _Zidonians and they of Tyre_] Compare 1 Kings v. 1‒6 (15‒20,
Hebrew).
⁵And David said, Solomon my son is young and tender, and the
house that is to be builded for the LORD must be exceeding
magnifical, of fame and of glory throughout all countries: I
will therefore make preparation for it. So David prepared
abundantly before his death.
⁶Then he called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build
an house for the LORD, the God of Israel.
=5.= _exceeding magnifical_] The Temple took seven years in building,
and it was richly overlaid with gold, but its proportions were small,
viz., about 90 ft. × 45 ft. × 30 ft. These small proportions, are not
surprising, for the Temple itself required only to be big enough to
hold its furniture. The courts, however, were of large extent, that
they might afford room for worshippers at the times of the great feasts.
Note the archaic _magnifical_ = _splendid_, _stately_ (magnificent).
It is found of course in the Authorized Version (1611), and also in
the Geneva Bible (1560); compare Starkey, _England_, ii. i. 176 (1538),
“Gudly cytes and townys wyth magnyfycal and gudly housys.”
⁷And David said to Solomon his son¹, As for me, it was in my
heart to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God.
¹ According to another reading, _My son, as for me &c._
=7.= _said to Solomon his son_] So _Kethīb_; the margin, =said to
Solomon, My son=, follows the _Ḳerī_.
_unto the name_] Compare Deuteronomy xii. 5; 2 Samuel vii. 13.
⁸But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed
blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build
an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon
the earth in my sight:
=8.= _Thou hast shed blood abundantly_] Compare xxviii. 3; in 1 Kings
v. 3 Solomon tells Hiram that David wished to build a temple, but was
hindered from his design by war.
⁹behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest;
and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for
his name shall be Solomon¹, and I will give peace and quietness
unto Israel in his days:
¹ That is, _Peaceful_.
=9.= _I will give him rest_] Compare 1 Kings v. 4. The promise
here made is of a period of peace sufficiently long for the work of
Temple-building. Solomon’s reign was not wholly peaceful; compare
1 Kings xi. 14, 23, 26.
¹⁰he shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son,
and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom over Israel for ever. ¹¹Now, my son, the LORD be with
thee; and prosper thou, and build the house of the LORD thy God,
as he hath spoken concerning thee. ¹²Only the LORD give thee
discretion and understanding, and give thee charge concerning
Israel; that so thou mayest keep the law of the LORD thy God.
=10.= _for ever_] Compare 2 Samuel vii. 13‒16.
¹³Then shalt thou prosper, if thou observe to do the statutes
and the judgements which the LORD charged Moses with concerning
Israel: be strong, and of good courage; fear not, neither be
dismayed.
=13.= _be strong, and of good courage_] Compare Joshua i. 9.
¹⁴Now, behold, in my affliction¹ I have prepared for the house
of the LORD an hundred thousand talents of gold, and a thousand
thousand talents of silver; and of brass and iron without weight;
for it is in abundance: timber also and stone have I prepared;
and thou mayest add thereto.
¹ Or, _low estate_.
=14.= _in my affliction_] LXX. κατὰ τὴν πτωχείαν μου, and so margin _in
my low estate_. The exact meaning of the phrase is not quite certain.
Does it refer to the comparative slenderness of David’s resources (_in
my poverty_), or to the difficulties of the wars and rebellions which
marked his reign, or does it cover both ideas? Render perhaps =in my
straitened circumstances=. Some translate =by my strenuous labour=
(compare xxix. 2), but there is insufficient evidence for rendering the
Hebrew word by _labour_.
_an hundred thousand talents of gold, and a thousand thousand talents
of silver_] This sum is incredibly large. In 1 Kings x. 14 it is
told in illustration of the riches of Solomon――a wealthier king than
David――that he received in one year 666 talents of gold, but even
at this rate David would have amassed only 26,640 talents in forty
years, and further the sum assigned to Solomon as his yearly revenue
is fantastically large, see note 2 Chronicles ix. 13. The passage
illustrates the exaggeration which is so characteristic of midrashic
style; compare xxix. 4, and the note on 2 Chronicles xvii. 14.
¹⁵Moreover there are workmen with thee in abundance, hewers and
workers of stone and timber, and all men that are cunning in any
manner of work; ¹⁶of the gold, the silver, and the brass, and
the iron, there is no number; arise and be doing, and the LORD
be with thee. ¹⁷David also commanded all the princes of Israel
to help Solomon his son, _saying_,
=15, 16.= _any manner of work; of the gold ... there is no number_]
Render =in every work of gold ... without number=; i.e. the two verses
are to be read in close connection.
¹⁸Is not the LORD your God with you? and hath he not given you
rest on every side? for he hath delivered the inhabitants of the
land into mine hand; and the land is subdued before the LORD,
and before his people.
=18.= _the inhabitants of the land_] Compare xi. 4, _the Jebusites, the
inhabitants of the land_. The remnant of the earlier inhabitants of
Canaan is meant.
¹⁹Now set your heart and your soul to seek after the LORD your
God; arise therefore, and build ye the sanctuary of the LORD
God, to bring the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and the holy
vessels of God, into the house that is to be built to the name
of the LORD.
=19.= _and the holy vessels of God_] Compare 1 Kings viii. 4.
CHAPTERS XXIII.‒XXIX.
THE CONCLUSION OF DAVID’S REIGN.
CHAPTER XXIII.
=1.=
SOLOMON MADE KING.
¹Now David was old and full of days; and he made Solomon his
son king over Israel.
The Chronicler unhistorically ignores the struggle between the parties
of Solomon and of Adonijah for the throne (compare xxix. 22 f.; 1 Kings
i. 5 ff.), and makes the reign of David culminate in the appointment
of Solomon as David’s successor and in a grand organisation of the
ecclesiastical and other authorities of the realm. chapter xxiii. 1
intimates the appointment of Solomon and the assembling by royal
command of the princes, priests, and Levites of Israel. The topics
thus suggested are then, after the prevailing fashion of Chronicles,
treated in the reverse order; first the Levites, chapter xxiii.; then
the priests, xxiv. (followed by the singers, xxv.; and the doorkeepers,
xxvi.); then the civil and military orders. chapters xxviii., xxix. are
occupied with the concluding exhortations of King David. Compare xxix.
22‒24; 1 Kings i. 5‒53.
=2‒23.=
ORGANISATION OF THE LEVITES (first account).
²And he gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the
priests and the Levites. ³And the Levites were numbered from
thirty years old and upward: and their number by their polls,
man by man, was thirty and eight thousand.
=3.= _the Levites were numbered from thirty years_] Two accounts are
here given of the organisation of the Levites. According to the first
the Levites were admitted to service at thirty years of age; verse 3;
compare Numbers iv. 3, 23, 30, where the period from thirty to fifty
is fixed as the period for service. According to the second account
(verses 24‒27) the Levites were taken from twenty years old and upwards;
this was apparently the later custom; compare 2 Chronicles xxxi. 17;
Ezra iii. 8. The discrepancy probably arises from an actual variation
in practice. The original age of admission for Levites was probably
thirty, but owing to the scarcity of their numbers it seems to have
been necessary to reduce the limit of age to twenty. But see also the
note on pp. 51 f.
_by their polls_] Literally _by their skulls_. “Poll” is an almost
obsolete word for “head,” retained in the compound word, “poll-tax.”
_thirty and eight thousand_] Numbers iii. 39 gives 22,000, and Numbers
xxvi. 62, 23,000, as the number of male Levites from a month old and
upwards in the time of Moses.
⁴Of these, twenty and four thousand were to oversee the work of
the house of the LORD; and six thousand were officers and judges:
=4.= _twenty and four thousand_] These were divided into courses (verse
6), serving by turn, apparently twenty-four in number, consisting each
of a thousand men. See, however, the note on verses 6‒23 below.
_to oversee the work_] It is true that there were some Temple servants
subordinate to the Levites――see note on the _Nethinim_, ix. 2. But the
duty of the Levites was to perform the work of the Temple (as is said
e.g. in verses 24, 28), not to act as overseers of the work of others.
It is therefore to be inferred that the “work” spoken of here and
in verse 5 is not the routine duties of the Temple but the work of
its construction. Adding the Levites of verse 4 to the officers,
doorkeepers, and musicians of verse 5, we have a total of 38,000
overseers: that the number is incredibly large is no objection in
Chronicles.
_officers and judges_] Compare 2 Chronicles xix. 8, 11. According to
Deuteronomy xvii. 9 (compare Deuteronomy xvi. 18) the _harder_ causes
were reserved for “the priests the Levites,” ordinary causes being
decided by judges who were not Levites.
⁵and four thousand were doorkeepers; and four thousand praised
the LORD with the instruments which I made, _said David_, to
praise therewith.
=5.= _doorkeepers_] The courses and duties of these are given in xxvi.
1‒19.
_four thousand praised the LORD_] Compare xxv. 1‒31, which tells of
a picked choir consisting of 288 persons, divided into twenty-four
courses, whose special duty was psalmody.
_the instruments which I made_] Compare 2 Chronicles xxix. 26.
=6‒23.= It is natural to expect that twenty-four heads of fathers’
houses will appear in this list (compare note on verse 4), in
harmony with the twenty-four courses of priests, of musicians, and of
doorkeepers referred to in the chapters following. The present text,
however, appears to yield but twenty-two, and the various emendations
suggested in order to obtain twenty-four are all precarious. The best
suggestion is that of Curtis, for which see note on verse 22.
⁶And David divided them into courses¹ according to the sons of
Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.
¹ Hebrew _divisions_.
=6.= _the sons of Levi_] Compare vi. 1, 16.
⁷Of the Gershonites; Ladan¹ and Shimei. ⁸The sons of Ladan;
Jehiel the chief, and Zetham, and Joel, three.
¹ In chapter vi. 17, _Libni_.
=7.= _Ladan and Shimei_] For “Ladan” here and in xxvi. 21 we have in
vi. 17 and Exodus vi. 17 “Libni.”
⁹The sons of Shimei; Shelomoth, and Haziel, and Haran, three.
These were the heads of the fathers’ _houses_ of Ladan.
=9.= _The sons of Shimei_] This Shimei in distinction from the Shimei
of verses 7, 10 might conceivably be a descendant of Ladan, although
the relationship is not indicated; but it is more probable that some
confusion has come into the text of verses 8, 9, 10――as e.g. that verse
9b “These were ... of Ladan” is a gloss, and that for _Shimei_ in verse
10 we should read _Shelomoth_.
¹⁰And the sons of Shimei; Jahath, Zina¹, and Jeush, and Beriah.
These four were the sons of Shimei. ¹¹And Jahath was the chief,
and Zizah the second: but Jeush and Beriah had not many sons;
therefore they became a fathers’ house in one reckoning.
¹ In verse 11, _Zizah_.
=10.= _Zina_] Better, as in verse 11, _Zizah_; the two words are
readily confused in Hebrew writing.
¹²The sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, four.
=12.= _The sons of Kohath_] Compare vi. 2; Exodus vi. 18.
¹³The sons of Amram; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated,
that he should sanctify¹ the most holy things, he and his sons,
for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him,
and to bless in his name, for ever.
¹ Or, _to sanctify as most holy him &c._
=13.= _separated_] i.e. set apart, sometimes with the additional
meaning of making a distinction between sacred and common. Compare
Romans i. 1, where St Paul describes himself as _separated unto the
gospel of God_; Acts xiii. 2; Galatians i. 15.
_the most holy things_] Such for instance as the altar of incense
(Exodus xxx. 1‒10), or again the shewbread (Leviticus xxiv. 5‒9).
_to bless_] compare Numbers vi. 23‒27.
¹⁴But as for Moses the man of God, his sons were named among the
tribe of Levi.
=14.= _among the tribe of Levi_] The descendants of Moses as
distinguished from those of Aaron had the standing, not of priests but
of Levites.
¹⁵The sons of Moses; Gershom and Eliezer.
=15.= _Gershom and Eliezer_] Compare Exodus xviii. 3, 4.
¹⁶The sons of Gershom; Shebuel¹ the chief.
¹ In chapter xxiv. 20, _Shubael_.
=16.= _The sons_] compare the following verse; also ii. 31, where the
plural, _The sons_, is thrice followed by a single name only.
_Shebuel_] rather, as in xxiv. 20, Shubael; so LXX. here.
¹⁷And the sons of Eliezer were, Rehabiah the chief. And Eliezer
had none other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many.
=17.= _Rehabiah_] Compare xxiv. 21.
¹⁸The sons of Izhar; Shelomith¹ the chief.
¹ In chapter xxiv. 22, _Shelomoth_.
=18.= _Shelomith_] In xxiv. 22, _Shelomoth_.
¹⁹The sons of Hebron; Jeriah the chief, Amariah the second,
Jahaziel the third, and Jekameam the fourth.
=19.= _The sons of Hebron_] Compare xxiv. 23.
²⁰The sons of Uzziel; Micah the chief, and Isshiah the second.
=20.= _The sons of Uzziel_] Compare xxiv. 24. Nine Kohathite families
seem to be here reckoned.
²¹The sons of Merari; Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Mahli;
Eleazar and Kish.
=21.= _The sons of Merari_] Compare xxiv. 26.
_The sons of Mahli_] Compare xxiv. 28, 29.
²²And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters only: and
their brethren the sons of Kish took them _to wife_.
=22.= _their brethren_] Their kinsmen.
_took them_ to wife] i.e. in accordance with the law stated in Numbers
xxvii. 4, compare Numbers xxxvi. 6, whereby daughters had a right of
inheritance in hope of perpetuating the name of him who died without
male heirs. Thus Eleazar, by his family through the female line, may be
reckoned one of the heads of fathers’ houses. If this view be correct,
the list contains not twenty-two but twenty-three “heads”; and it may
be conjectured that the one name more required to make up the desired
total of twenty-four has been lost in the transmission of the text.
²³The sons of Mushi; Mahli, and Eder, and Jeremoth, three.
=23.= _The sons of Mushi_] Compare xxiv. 30.
=24‒27.=
ORGANISATION OF THE LEVITES (second account).
²⁴These were the sons of Levi after their fathers’ houses, even
the heads of the fathers’ _houses_ of those of them that were
counted, in the number of names by their polls, who did the work
for the service of the house of the LORD, from twenty years old
and upward. ²⁵For David said, The LORD, the God of Israel, hath
given rest unto his people; and he dwelleth in Jerusalem for
ever: ²⁶and also the Levites shall no more have need to carry
the tabernacle and all the vessels of it for the service thereof.
²⁷For by the last words¹ of David the sons of Levi were numbered,
from twenty years old and upward.
¹ Or, _in the last acts_.
=24.= _from twenty years old and upward_] The striking divergence
between this verse and verse 3, where _thirty_ is given as the minimum
age for service as a Levite, has given rise to much discussion――see the
note to verse 3. No doubt the concluding remarks of that note are true
historically: a change in the inferior age limit of the Levites _did_
take place at some time on account of the need for larger numbers in
office. But neither that fact, nor the theory (which is hardly borne
out by other considerations) that the Chronicler has used varying
traditions from two different sources, suffices to explain why he
left the evident contradiction in his narrative. The desirability of
explaining this circumstance strongly favours the view urged by Curtis,
that in verses 3 ff. the Chronicler meant to describe the Levitical
organisation during and for the purpose of the preparation and erection
of the Temple, whilst verses 24 ff. relate to the period when the
Temple was completed and the duties of the Levites, being both more
numerous and at the same time of a more mechanical nature, might well
seem to call for an increase in the number of those officiating. When
the reduction of the age limit to _twenty_ actually took place is of
course immaterial; but it is quite in keeping with the manner of the
Chronicler that he should thus carry both arrangements back to the time
of David.
=28‒32.=
DUTIES OF THE LEVITES.
²⁸For their office¹ was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the
service of the house of the LORD, in the courts, and in the
chambers, and in the purifying of all holy things, even the work
of the service of the house of God;
¹ Hebrew _their station was at the hand of the sons of Aaron_.
See Nehemiah xi. 24.
=28.= _their office was to wait on_] Literally, as margin, _their
station was at the hand of_. For the phrase _at the hand of_ compare
Psalms cxxiii. 2, _as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their
master_.
_the chambers_] compare ix. 26, note.
²⁹for the shewbread also, and for the fine flour for a meal
offering, whether of unleavened wafers, or of that which is
baked in the pan, or of that which is soaked, and for all manner
of measure and size;
=29.= _for the shewbread_] i.e. for the preparation of the shewbread
(compare ix. 32).
_that which is soaked_] Compare Leviticus vi. 21 [14, Hebrew].
_for all manner of measure and size_] i.e. for measuring the component
parts of the meal-offering, etc.
³⁰and to stand every morning to thank and praise the LORD, and
likewise at even;
=30.= _every morning ... and likewise at even_] Corresponding with the
daily morning and evening sacrifice; compare Exodus xxix. 38, 39.
³¹and to offer all burnt offerings unto the LORD, in the
sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, in number
according to the ordinance concerning them, continually before
the LORD:
=31.= _to offer all burnt offerings_] This was the duty not of the
Levites, who were to stand near-by praising Jehovah (verse 30), but of
the priests. The apparent difficulty is due to a mistranslation: render
=and= (to stand, i.e. assist) =at every offering of burnt offerings=.
_the set feasts_] i.e. the yearly feasts; Exodus xxiii. 14‒17.
³²and that they should keep the charge of the tent of meeting,
and the charge of the holy place, and the charge of the sons of
Aaron their brethren, for the service of the house of the LORD.
=32.= _the charge of the holy place_] This duty is assigned to Levites
in Numbers iii. 28, 32; is restricted and confined to such Levites
as were sons of Kohath in Numbers iv. 15; and according to a variant
tradition in Numbers xviii. 5 is assigned to the priests.
_the charge of the sons of Aaron_] Compare Numbers xviii. 1‒7.
CHAPTER XXIV.
=1‒19.=
DAVID’S ORGANISATION OF THE PRIESTS BY COURSES.
¹And the courses of the sons of Aaron _were these_. The sons of
Aaron; Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
=1.= _the sons of Aaron_] So vi. 3; Exodus vi. 23.
²But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no
children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s
office.
=2.= _Nadab and Abihu died_] by fire from heaven as a punishment for
sacrilege――so Leviticus x. 1, 2; Numbers iii. 4.
³And David¹ with Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of
the sons of Ithamar, divided them according to their ordering in
their service.
¹ Or, _And David divided them, even Zadok &c._
=3.= _Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar_] The colleague of Zadok in the
priesthood is variously named in different passages:――
1 Chronicles xxiv. 3. Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar.
1 Chronicles xxiv. 6. Ahimelech the son of Abiathar.
1 Chronicles xviii. 16. Abimelech the son of Abiathar.
Probably the same person is meant throughout, the confusion springing
from a false reading in 2 Samuel viii. 17, _Ahimelech the son of
Abiathar_ for _Abiathar the son of Ahimelech_; see the notes on xv. 11,
xviii. 16.
_according to their ordering_] i.e. according to the arrangement which
follows; compare verse 19.
⁴And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than
of the sons of Ithamar; and _thus_ were they divided: of the
sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers’ houses;
and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers’ houses,
eight.
=4.= _more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than ... of Ithamar_]
The superiority of the Zadokites (sons of Eleazar) in the post-exilic
period is read back into the days of David, and construed in the terms
of a right of primogeniture: thus the proportion assigned here is
sixteen to eight, i.e. Eleazar’s descendants have a double portion,
besides the right of the High-priesthood.
⁵Thus were they divided by lot, one sort with another; for there
were princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God, both of the
sons of Eleazar, and of the sons of Ithamar.
=5.= _one sort with another_] i.e. sons of Eleazar with sons of Ithamar.
_there were princes of the sanctuary, and princes of God, both of
the sons_, etc.] The _princes of the sanctuary_ (Isaiah xliii. 28)
are probably the same as the _princes of God_ and as the _chiefs
of the priests_ (2 Chronicles xxxvi. 14). The Hebrew expression in
2 Chronicles xxxv. 8 is different (_rulers of the house of God_).
⁶And Shemaiah the son of Nethanel the scribe, who was of the
Levites, wrote them in the presence of the king, and the princes,
and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the
heads of the fathers’ _houses_ of the priests and of the Levites:
one fathers’ house being taken for Eleazar, and one taken¹ for
Ithamar.
¹ The Hebrew text has, _taken, taken_.
=6.= _the scribe, who was of the Levites_] so designated in order to
distinguish him from the _king’s scribe_ (compare 2 Chronicles xxiv.
11).
_one taken_] This rendering involves a simple and entirely probable
correction of the Hebrew The alternate drawing here described could
have lasted only for the first sixteen lots; in the last eight drawings
the descendants of Eleazar must have drawn against each other only;
compare verse 4, and the similar procedure described in xxv. 9‒31.
⁷Now the first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to
Jedaiah;
=7.= _Jehoiarib_] Lists of the priestly families occur also Nehemiah
x. 2‒8, xii. 1‒7, 12‒21. Compare Ryle (on Nehemiah xii. 1) for a
discussion of the names. For _Jehoiarib_ see ix. 10, note.
⁸the third to Harim, the fourth to Seorim;
=8.= _Harim_] So Nehemiah x. 5, xii. 15, but in Nehemiah xii. 3,
“Rehum.” The confusion of form is easy in Hebrew writing.
⁹the fifth to Malchijah, the sixth to Mijamin;
=9.= _Mijamin_] So Nehemiah x. 7, xii. 5; but xii. 17, “Miniamin.”
¹⁰the seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah;
=10.= _Hakkoz_] Called “Koz” in Ezra ii. 61; Nehemiah iii. 4, 21
(Revised Version “Hakkoz” in all three places; so also in 1 Chronicles
iv. 8 where a Calebite _Koz_ is mentioned). Unable to trace their
genealogy in the records after the Return, this family is stated in
Ezra (ii. 61) to have been deprived of their right to the priesthood.
_Abijah_] So Nehemiah x. 7, xii. 4, 17. Zacharias, the father of John
the Baptist, was of the course of Abiah (Revised Version _Abijah_);
Luke i. 5.
¹¹the ninth to Jeshua, the tenth to Shecaniah;
=11.= _Jeshua_] This is the Hebrew name expressed by Ἰησοῦς in Greek,
and by “Jesus” in English. The high-priest under whom the second Temple
was built bore this name according to Ezra iii. 2, v. 2.
_Shecaniah_] So Nehemiah xii. 3; but Nehemiah x. 4, xii. 14,
“Shebaniah.” The Hebrew letters transliterated _b_ and _c_ are easily
confused.
¹²the eleventh to Eliashib, the twelfth to Jakim; ¹³the
thirteenth to Huppah, the fourteenth to Jeshebeab;
=12.= _Eliashib_] A priest of this name is mentioned Nehemiah xiii. 4‒7.
¹⁴the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer; ¹⁵the
seventeenth to Hezir, the eighteenth to Happizzez;
=14.= _Bilgah_] “Bilgah” (Nehemiah xii. 5) appears as a priest or
priestly family in the time of the Return, and (under the form “Bilgai,”
Nehemiah x. 8) in the time of Nehemiah.
_Immer_] compare ix. 12; Ezra ii. 37; Jeremiah xx. 1.
¹⁶the nineteenth to Pethahiah, the twentieth to Jehezkel;
=16.= _Jehezkel_] a more correct form of “Ezekiel,” the name of the
priest-prophet of the Captivity.
¹⁷the one and twentieth to Jachin, the two and twentieth to
Gamul;
=17.= _Jachin_] Compare ix. 10 (= Nehemiah xi. 10).
¹⁸the three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth
to Maaziah. ¹⁹This was the ordering of them in their service,
to come into the house of the LORD according to the ordinance
_given_ unto them by the hand of Aaron their father, as the LORD,
the God of Israel, had commanded him.
=18.= _Maaziah_] Nehemiah x. 8 (x. 9, Hebrew).
=20‒31= (compare xxiii. 13‒23).
FAMILIES OF THE LEVITES.
These verses repeat the list of Levitic families given in xxiii. 6‒23
with the important omission of the whole of the Gershonites (xxiii.
6‒11), but with some additions to the Kohathite and Merarite families.
Further, six “heads” of classes mentioned in xxiii. are here replaced
by new names. These features, together with several details, point to
the conclusion that the present list is the work of a later writer than
the Chronicler.
²⁰And of the rest of the sons of Levi: of the sons of Amram,
Shubael¹; of the sons of Shubael, Jehdeiah.
¹ In chapter xxiii. 16, _Shebuel_.
=20= _And of the rest of the sons of Levi: of_, etc.] These are
probably the words of the glossator, introducing the list which follows
and which he intended as a corrective to the list in xxiii. 6‒23.
_Amram_] The four Kohathite families are now noticed in order, viz.
Amram, Izhar (verse 22), Hebron (verse 23), Uzziel (verse 24).
_Shubael_] Called “Shebuel” in xxiii. 16, xxvi. 24.
²¹Of Rehabiah: of the sons of Rehabiah, Isshiah the chief.
=21.= _Of Rahabiah_] He (like Shubael) was descended from Moses; xxiii.
15‒17.
²²Of the Izharites, Shelomoth¹; of the sons of Shelomoth, Jahath.
¹ In chapter xxiii. 18, _Shelomith_.
=22.= _Shelomoth_] Called “Shelomith” in xxiii. 18.
²³And the sons _of Hebron_; Jeriah _the chief_, Amariah the
second, Jahaziel the third, Jekameam the fourth. ²⁴The sons of
Uzziel, Micah; of the sons of Micah, Shamir. ²⁵The brother of
Micah, Isshiah: of the sons of Isshiah, Zechariah.
=23.= _And the sons_ of Hebron; _Jeriah_ the chief] The words _of
Hebron_ and _the chief_ which are printed in italics in the text above
have been omitted in the Hebrew by some error of transmission. They are
rightly restored in accordance with xxiii. 19.
²⁶The sons of Merari; Mahli and Mushi: the sons of Jaaziah; Beno.
²⁷The sons of Merari; of Jaaziah, Beno, and Shoham, and Zaccur,
and Ibri.
=26.= _The sons of Merari_] In xxiii. 21 only two families of Merari
are mentioned, viz., Mahli and Mushi. Here however a third family “the
sons of Jaaziah” is mentioned. Probably the fuller text is right to
this extent that there was a family tracing their ancestry to Jaaziah
and claiming that this Jaaziah was of Merarite descent; but is wrong
in making Jaaziah an immediate son of Merari, parallel with the famous
Mahli and Mushi. Hence the following word _Beno_ (literally _his son_)
should probably be struck out as an erroneous gloss (see also verse 27).
_of Jaaziah; Beno_] Either delete _Beno_ (see previous note) or perhaps
read _Bani_.
²⁸Of Mahli; Eleazar, who had no sons. ²⁹Of Kish; the sons of
Kish, Jerahmeel.
=28.= _Eleazar_] Compare xxiii. 22.
³⁰And the sons of Mushi; Mahli, and Eder, and Jerimoth. These
were the sons of the Levites after their fathers’ houses.
=30.= _Jerimoth_] Spelt “Jeremoth” in xxiii. 23.
_These were ... houses_] = xxiii. 24a.
³¹These likewise cast lots even as their brethren the sons
of Aaron in the presence of David the king, and Zadok, and
Ahimelech, and the heads of the fathers’ _houses_ of the priests
and of the Levites; the fathers’ _houses_ of the chief even as
those of his younger brother.
=31.= _and Ahimelech_] We expect _and Abiathar_; compare verse 3,
xv. 11, xviii. 16, with the notes.
CHAPTER XXV.
=1‒7.=
THE FAMILIES OF THE SINGERS.
The Chronicler displays so much interest in the liturgical worship of
the Temple that it is very probable that he was himself a member of the
musical guilds. There is no reason to question the importance of the
musicians in the Temple worship of the late post-exilic period. But the
development of their organisation and duties was certainly a gradual
process, and did not, as the Chronicler here represents, spring into
being, full-grown, in the days of David. Three classes――the sons of
Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun (= Ethan) had come to be clearly recognised.
They are here regarded as divided into twenty-four courses (like the
Levites and Priests), but that this even in the Chronicler’s time
represents not an actuality but an ideal is suggested by the artificial
character of the names which conclude the list――see verse 4, note on
_Hananiah_.
¹Moreover David and the captains of the host separated for
the service certain of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of
Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and
with cymbals: and the number of them that did the work according
to their service was:
=1.= _Moreover David_] Render, =And David=.
_separated_] compare xxiii. 13, note.
_who should prophesy_] i.e. sing and praise in the manner of the
prophets, compare 1 Samuel x. 5. There is no reference to the
predictive power or the higher spiritual activities of the great
prophets. Nevertheless the term serves, and is intended, to invest
the office of the musicians with a greater honour than that of the
ministrant Levites.
_psalteries_] See xiii. 8, note.
²of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and
Asharelah¹, the sons of Asaph; under the hand of Asaph, who
prophesied after the order² of the king.
¹ In verse 14, _Jesharelah_.
² Hebrew _by the hands of the king_.
=2.= _Asaph_] See xv. 17, note.
_Asharelah_] In verse 14, “Jesharelah.”
_after the order_] All was done according to the order established by
king David.
³Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri¹, and
Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six²; under the hands of
their father Jeduthun with the harp, who prophesied in giving
thanks and praising the LORD.
¹ In verse 11, _Izri_.
² With Shimei, mentioned in verse 17.
=3.= _Jeduthun_] See xvi. 41, note.
_Zeri_] read as in verse 11, =Izri=.
_Jeshaiah_] After Jeshaiah LXX. B inserts the name “Shimei” (Σεμεεὶ),
no doubt rightly for (1) six sons are reckoned in this verse, (2) the
“Shimei” of verse 17 is otherwise unmentioned in verses 2‒4, though his
twenty-three companions are named.
⁴Of Heman: the sons of Heman; Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel¹,
Shebuel², and Jerimoth, Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti,
and Romamti-ezer, Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, Mahazioth:
¹ In verse 18, _Azarel_.
² In verse 20, _Shubael_.
=4.= _Heman_] See xv. 17, note.
_Uzziel_] In verse 18, “Azarel.” The variation between the two
words when written with Hebrew consonants is small. Compare note on
2 Chronicles xxvi. 1 (“Uzziah” and “Azariah”).
_Shebuel_] In verse 20, “Shubael.”
_Jerimoth_] In verse 22, “Jeremoth.”
_Hananiah_, _Hanani_] _Hananiah_, which signifies “Jehovah (Jah) is
gracious,” and _Hanani_ (probably a contraction of _Hananiah_) are
names found not infrequently in the Old Testament; but the following
seven words are practically impossible as proper names, and the nine
words together, with some easy alterations, actually form a poetical
petition, which may be rendered thus:
“Be gracious unto me, O God; be gracious unto me!
Thou art my God.
Thou hast magnified and exalted help for him that sat in distress.
Thou hast given visions abundantly.”
What explanation can be offered of this startling fact? It may be
that the names are wholly artificial, invented by the Chronicler to
fill out the desired twenty-four courses (see the head-note above),
but the device is clumsy and the Chronicler was not likely to be
bankrupt for names. Perhaps by a curious chance the original names
bore some _slight_ resemblance to a sentence such as the above, and
the resemblance has at some time been perfected by a fanciful scribe.
⁵all these were the sons of Heman the king’s seer in the words
of God, to lift up the horn. And God gave to Heman fourteen
sons and three daughters. ⁶All these were under the hands of
their father for song in the house of the LORD, with cymbals,
psalteries, and harps, for the service of the house of God;
Asaph¹, Jeduthun, and Heman being under the order of the king.
¹ Or, _after the order of the king_, even _Asaph_ &c.
=5.= _the king’s seer_] This title is given to Gad in xxi. 9, and to
Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, all three in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 15 (LXX. not
Hebrew).
_in the words of God_] The exact meaning of this is uncertain; it may
either mean “in Divine things” (i.e. arrangements for worship), or “by
Divine appointment” (compare 2 Chronicles xxix. 15 “by the words of the
LORD”).
_to lift up the horn_] i.e. to make loud blasts upon the horn; but a
slightly different division of the Hebrew consonants should probably
be made and the phrase connected with the following verse. Render
therefore, =To lift up the horn= (i.e. to increase his power) =God gave
to Heman=, etc.
_fourteen sons_] Corresponding with the fourteen names given in verse 4.
⁷And the number of them, with their brethren that were
instructed in singing unto the LORD, even all that were skilful,
was two hundred fourscore and eight.
=7.= _two hundred fourscore and eight_] The number corresponds with the
twenty-four courses of twelve members each about to be enumerated.
=8‒31.=
THE ALLOTMENT OF THE COURSES.
⁸And they cast lots for their charges¹, all alike, as well the
small as the great, the teacher as the scholar.
¹ Or, _ward against_ ward, _as well_ &c.
=8.= _for their charges, all alike_] _charges_, i.e. duties. The Hebrew
text is faulty, but the Revised Version rendering probably represents
the right reading.
_the teacher as the scholar_] LXX. τελείων καὶ μανθανόντων (i.e. _the
initiated and the learners_). For a similar inclusive phrase compare
the Arabic “he that giveth to hear and he that heareth,” and see
further references in Driver, Deuteronomy (International _Crititcal
Commentary_), p. 376. Instead of “the teacher” we may render “the
skilful” as in verse 7; the Hebrew word is the same. It is to be noted
that we have here twenty-four courses of singers corresponding with the
twenty-four courses of the priests.
⁹Now the first lot came forth for Asaph to Joseph: the second to
Gedaliah; he and his brethren and sons were twelve: ¹⁰the third
to Zaccur, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
=9.= _for Asaph_] A comparison of verses 9‒31 with verses 2‒4 shows
that the first, third, fifth and seventh lots fell to Asaph, the second,
fourth, eighth, tenth, twelfth and fourteenth to Jeduthun, and the rest
(fourteen in number) to Heman.
¹¹the fourth to Izri, his sons and his brethren, twelve: ¹²the
fifth to Nethaniah, his sons and his brethren, twelve: ¹³the
sixth to Bukkiah, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
=11.= _Izri_] See note on _Zeri_, verse 3.
¹⁴the seventh to Jesharelah, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
¹⁵the eighth to Jeshaiah, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
¹⁶the ninth to Mattaniah, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
=14.= _Jesharelah_] Compare verse 2.
¹⁷the tenth to Shimei, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
=17.= _Shimei_] Not mentioned in the present text of verses 2‒4; see
note on _Jeshaiah_, verse 3.
¹⁸the eleventh to Azarel, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
¹⁹the twelfth to Hashabiah, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
=18.= _Azarel_] Called _Uzziel_, verse 4.
²⁰for the thirteenth, Shubael, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
²¹for the fourteenth, Mattithiah, his sons and his brethren,
twelve:
=20.= _Shubael_] Called _Shebuel_, verse 4.
²²for the fifteenth to Jeremoth, his sons and his brethren,
twelve: ²³for the sixteenth to Hananiah, his sons and his
brethren, twelve: ²⁴for the seventeenth to Joshbekashah, his
sons and his brethren, twelve: ²⁵for the eighteenth to Hanani,
his sons and his brethren, twelve: ²⁶for the nineteenth to
Mallothi, his sons and his brethren, twelve: ²⁷for the twentieth
to Eliathah, his sons and his brethren, twelve: ²⁸for the one
and twentieth to Hothir, his sons and his brethren, twelve:
²⁹for the two and twentieth to Giddalti, his sons and his
brethren, twelve: ³⁰for the three and twentieth to Mahazioth,
his sons and his brethren, twelve: ³¹for the four and twentieth
to Romamti-ezer, his sons and his brethren, twelve.
=22.= _Jeremoth_] Called _Jerimoth_, verse 4.
CHAPTER XXVI.
=1‒12= (compare ix. 17‒27).
THE COURSES OF THE DOORKEEPERS.
¹For the courses of the doorkeepers: of the Korahites;
Meshelemiah¹ the son of Kore, of the sons of Asaph². ²And
Meshelemiah had sons; Zechariah the firstborn, Jediael the
second, Zebadiah the third, Jathniel the fourth;
¹ In verse 14, _Shelemiah_.
² In chapter ix. 19, _Ebiasaph_.
=1.= _Meshelemiah_, etc.] For the names of the doorkeepers see notes on
ix. 17 ff.
_of the sons of Asaph_] For _Asaph_ read =Ebiasaph=, as in ix. 19.
³Elam the fifth, Jehohanan the sixth, Eliehoenai the seventh.
=3.= _Eliehoenai_] The form differs from that in iii. 23, but has the
same meaning, viz., “Mine eyes are towards Jehovah.”
⁴And Obed-edom had sons; Shemaiah the firstborn, Jehozabad the
second, Joah the third, and Sacar the fourth, and Nethanel the
fifth;
=4.= _Obed-edom_] For _Obed-edom_ see xiii. 13, note.
⁵Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peullethai the eighth:
for God blessed him. ⁶Also unto Shemaiah his son were sons born,
that ruled over the house of their father: for they were mighty
men of valour.
=5.= _for God blessed him_] “him” refers to “Obed-edom” (verse 4),
who was blessed with eight sons. It seems likely that the phrase “God
blessed him” is intended to be a reminiscence of xiii. 14 and indicates
that the Levitical Obed-edom was strangely identified by tradition
with Obed-edom the Gittite in whose house the Ark was temporarily left
by David (xiii. 13). For other references to Obed-edom as one of the
doorkeepers, see xv. 18, 24, xvi. 38. On the other hand he is classed
as a singer in xv. 21, xvi. 5, passages which are probably additions
to the original text of Chronicles, or at any rate represent later or
divergent tradition.
⁷The sons of Shemaiah; Othni, and Rephael, and Obed, Elzabad,
whose brethren were valiant men, Elihu, and Semachiah. ⁸All
these were of the sons of Obed-edom: they and their sons and
their brethren, able men in strength for the service; threescore
and two of Obed-edom.
=7.= _whose brethren_] The pronoun refers to Elzabad.
⁹And Meshelemiah had sons and brethren, valiant men, eighteen.
=9.= _Meshelemiah_] Compare verses 1‒3 to which verse 9 is a supplement.
¹⁰Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons; Shimri the
chief, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made
him chief;) ¹¹Hilkiah the second, Tebaliah the third, Zechariah
the fourth: all the sons and brethren of Hosah were thirteen.
=10.= _Hosah_] He is mentioned as a doorkeeper along with Obed-edom in
xvi. 38.
¹²Of these were the courses of the doorkeepers, even of the
chief men, having charges¹ like as their brethren, to minister
in the house of the LORD.
¹ Or, _wards over against their brethren_.
=12.= _Of these ... even of the chief men_] In verses 8, 9, 11 taken
together ninety-three doorkeepers are enumerated, who are presumably
the heads of the four thousand mentioned in xxiii. 5. In ix. 22 again
the total number (as it seems) of doorkeepers is given as two hundred
and twelve. The discrepancy may be due to the Chronicler having
used different documents belonging to different dates: for other
possibilities see note on ix. 22.
=13‒19= (compare ix. 23‒26).
THE STATIONS OF THE DOORKEEPERS.
Remark how naïvely the Chronicler names various parts of the Temple as
if it had been already in existence at this time.
¹³And they cast lots, as well the small as the great, according
to their fathers’ houses, for every gate. ¹⁴And the lot eastward
fell to Shelemiah¹. Then for Zechariah his son, a discreet
counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward. ¹⁵To
Obed-edom southward; and to his sons the storehouse.
¹ In verse 1, _Meshelemiah_.
=14.= _Shelemiah_] i.e. Meshelemiah, verses 1, 2.
¹⁶To Shuppim and Hosah westward, by the gate of Shallecheth¹, at
the causeway that goeth up, ward against ward. ¹⁷Eastward were
six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and for
the storehouse two and two.
¹ That is, _Casting forth_.
=16.= _To Shuppim and Hosah_] Read, =To Hosah=. The word “Shuppim”
should be omitted from the text. It is merely an accidental repetition
(in a corrupt form) of the last word in verse 15, namely “Asuppim,”
rendered _storehouse_.
_by the gate of Shallecheth_] There is no other mention in the Bible
of a gate “Shallecheth,” but it is perhaps to be identified with “the
entering in of the house of the LORD ... which was in the precincts”
(“Parvārim” _Hebrew_) mentioned 2 Kings xxiii. 11; compare note on
verse 18. Possibly the text should be corrected and we should read,
following the LXX., “by the gate of the chamber.”
_at the causeway that goeth up_] “The causeway” led up to the Temple
_either_ from Ophel (on the south) _or_ from the Western City (across
the Tyropœon Valley). Traces of two causeways have been discovered by
excavation, viz., “Wilson’s Arch” (Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵, p. 65) and
“Robinson’s Arch” (_Palestine_⁵ p. 66). The second of these arches
probably marks the site of a causeway belonging to the period of the
Kings.
¹⁸For Parbar¹ westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar¹.
¹⁹These were the courses of the doorkeepers; of the sons of the
Korahites, and of the sons of Merari.
¹ Or, _the Precinct_.
=18.= _Parbar_] This word, apparently the same as _parvarim_, 2 Kings
xxiii. 11 (Revised Version “precincts”; compare margin here), seems to
denote some building built on the Temple area on the west side. It may
have been a colonnade. The word is Persian and means “lighted [by the
sun].”
=20‒32.=
VARIOUS OFFICERS.
²⁰And of the Levites¹, Ahijah was over the treasuries of the
house of God, and over the treasuries of the dedicated² things.
¹ According to the Septuagint, _And the Levites their brethren
were over &c._
² Hebrew _holy things_.
=20.= _And of the Levites, Ahijah was over_] Read (with LXX.; compare
margin), =And the Levites their brethren were over=. The confusion of
readings is easy in Hebrew; compare ii. 25 for a similar case.
_the dedicated things_] Compare verses 26‒28.
²¹The sons of Ladan¹; the sons of the Gershonites belonging to
Ladan, the heads of the fathers’ _houses_ belonging to Ladan the
Gershonite; Jehieli².
¹ In chapter vi. 17, _Libni_.
² In chapter xxiii. 8, _Jehiel_.
=21.= _Ladan_] compare xxiii. 7; called Libni in vi. 17 [2, Hebrew].
_Jehieli_] Read =Jehiel= as in xxiii. 8, xxix. 8; and probably delete
the following “_The sons of Jehieli_,” compare xxiii. 8.
²²The sons of Jehieli; Zetham, and Joel his brother, over the
treasuries of the house of the LORD.
=22.= _Zetham, and Joel_] These appear as brethren of Jehiel in xxiii.
8; but since families, not individuals, are spoken of, the discrepancy
is not important.
²³Of the Amramites, of the Izharites, of the Hebronites, of the
Uzzielites:
=23.= _the Amramites_, etc.] Compare xxiii. 12.
²⁴and Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler
over the treasuries.
=24.= _Shebuel_] rather Shubael, as in xxiv. 20; compare xxiii. 16.
²⁵And his brethren; of Eliezer _came_ Rehabiah his son, and
Jeshaiah his son, and Joram his son, and Zichri his son, and
Shelomoth his son.
=25.= _of Eliezer came Rehabiah_] Compare xxiii. 15‒17, xxiv. 21.
_Shelomoth_] (so _Kethīb_); Authorized Version _Shelomith_ follows
_Ḳerī_; compare verse 28 (margin).
²⁶This Shelomoth and his brethren were over all the treasuries
of the dedicated things, which David the king, and the heads of
the fathers’ _houses_, the captains over thousands and hundreds,
and the captains of the host, had dedicated. ²⁷Out of the spoil¹
won in battles did they dedicate to repair the house of the LORD.
²⁸And all that Samuel the seer, and Saul the son of Kish, and
Abner the son of Ner, and Joab the son of Zeruiah, had dedicated;
whosoever had dedicated any thing, it was under the hand of
Shelomoth², and of his brethren.
¹ Hebrew _Out of the battles and the spoil_.
² Hebrew _Shelomith_.
=26.= _David the king_] Compare xviii. 11.
²⁹Of the Izharites, Chenaniah and his sons were for the outward
business over Israel, for officers and judges.
=29.= _Izharites_] Compare xxiii. 12.
_the outward business_] This business is here expressly defined as work
“for officers and judges,” as compared with the duties of maintaining
the worship of the Temple and the construction or repair of the fabric
(compare xxiii. 4; 2 Chronicles xix. 11; Nehemiah xi. 16).
³⁰Of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brethren, men of valour,
a thousand and seven hundred, had the oversight of Israel beyond
Jordan westward; for all the business of the LORD, and for the
service of the king.
=30.= _the Hebronites_] Compare xxiii. 12.
_had the oversight of Israel_] How their duties were related to those
of Chenaniah and his sons (verse 29) is not made clear.
_beyond Jordan westward_] Compare Joshua xxii. 7, Revised Version
Western Palestine is meant.
³¹Of the Hebronites was Jerijah the chief, even of the
Hebronites, according to their generations by fathers’ _houses_.
In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for,
and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of
Gilead.
=31.= _Jerijah_] called _Jeriah_ (Hebrew _Jerijahu_) in xxiii. 19.
_at Jazer_] compare vi. 81 (vi. 66, Hebrew); Numbers xxi. 32, Revised
Version The Eastern Hebronites were given office east of Jordan;
compare verse 32.
³²And his brethren, men of valour, were two thousand and seven
hundred, heads of fathers’ _houses_, whom king David made
overseers over the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half
tribe of the Manassites, for every matter pertaining to God, and
for the affairs of the king.
=32.= _his brethren_] i.e. the brethren of Jerijah. It is remarkable
that their number should be given as 2700 for the two and a half tribes,
whereas the overseers for the nine and a half tribes west of Jordan are
said to number only 1700. Curtis sees in this a hint of the importance
of Gilead in the Chronicler’s period (compare 1 Maccabees v. 45).
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE ORGANISATION OF THE MILITARY AND CIVIL OFFICIALS.
=1‒15.=
THE DIVISIONS OF THE ARMY BY COURSES.
It is in keeping with the plan and spirit of the Chronicler that
he should not fail to ascribe to David, who for all his piety was
preeminently the warrior-king, the organisation on an immense scale
of the military and civil forces of the land. In monthly “courses” the
king is here said to be attended by officers and soldiers totalling 288,
000 men! The enumeration of David’s “mighty men” in chapter xi. 10 ff.
is an utterly insufficient reason for supposing that the present
chapter cannot also come from the Chronicler. It is suitable to his
narrative, characteristic of his style, and, if further evidence be
needed, it may be found in the tone of the references to the civil and
military authorities in xxii. 17; xxiii. 2; xxviii. 1 ff., 21; xxix.
6 ff.
¹Now the children of Israel after their number, _to wit_,
the heads of fathers’ _houses_ and the captains of thousands
and of hundreds, and their officers that served the king, in any
matter of the courses which came in and went out month by month
throughout all the months of the year, of every course were
twenty and four thousand.
=1.= _came in and went out_] Came on duty and went off duty; compare 2
Chronicles xxiii. 8.
²Over the first course for the first month was Jashobeam the son
of Zabdiel: and in his course were twenty and four thousand.
=2.= _Jashobeam_] Compare xi. 11, note.
³_He was_ of the children of Perez, the chief of all the
captains of the host for the first month.
=3.= _Perez_] For Perez, see ii. 4, 5.
⁴And over the course of the second month was Dodai the Ahohite,
and his course; and Mikloth the ruler: and in his course were
twenty and four thousand.
=4.= _Dodai the Ahohite_] Read probably (compare xi. 12), “Eleazar the
son of Dodo, the Ahohite.”
_and his course; and Mikloth the ruler_] The words are corrupt and are
omitted in the LXX. The original text is quite uncertain. A Benjamite
called Mikloth is mentioned in viii. 32.
⁵The third captain of the host for the third month was Benaiah,
the son of Jehoiada the priest¹, chief: and in his course were
twenty and four thousand.
¹ Or, _chief minister_ See 2 Samuel viii. 18.
=5.= _Benaiah_] Compare xi. 22 ff., xviii. 17.
_Jehoiada the priest, chief_] “chief” refers to Benaiah.
⁶This is that Benaiah, who was the mighty man of the thirty, and
over the thirty: and _of_ his course was Ammizabad his son.
=6.= _the mighty man of the thirty, and over the thirty_] Compare
xi. 25.
⁷The fourth _captain_ for the fourth month was Asahel the
brother of Joab, and Zebadiah his son after him: and in his
course were twenty and four thousand.
=7.= _Asahel_] compare xi. 26, note.
⁸The fifth captain for the fifth month was Shamhuth the Izrahite:
and in his course were twenty and four thousand.
=8.= _Shamhuth the Izrahite_] Perhaps to be identified with “Shammoth
the Harorite” of xi. 27; see note there.
⁹The sixth _captain_ for the sixth month was Ira the son of
Ikkesh the Tekoite: and in his course were twenty and four
thousand.
=9.= _Ira_] compare xi. 28.
¹⁰The seventh _captain_ for the seventh month was Helez the
Pelonite, of the children of Ephraim: and in his course were
twenty and four thousand.
=10.= _Helez the Pelonite_] Compare xi. 27, note.
¹¹The eighth _captain_ for the eighth month was Sibbecai the
Hushathite, of the Zerahites: and in his course were twenty and
four thousand.
=11.= _Sibbecai the Hushathite_] Compare xi. 29, notes.
_Zerahites_] (also verse 13). Descendants of Zerah, son of Judah; ii. 4.
¹²The ninth _captain_ for the ninth month was Abiezer the
Anathothite, of the Benjamites: and in his course were twenty
and four thousand.
=12.= _Abiezer the Anathothite_] Compare xi. 28.
¹³The tenth _captain_ for the tenth month was Maharai the
Netophathite, of the Zerahites: and in his course were twenty
and four thousand.
=13.= _Maharai the Netophathite_] Compare xi. 30.
¹⁴The eleventh _captain_ for the eleventh month was Benaiah the
Pirathonite, of the children of Ephraim: and in his course were
twenty and four thousand.
=14.= _Benaiah the Pirathonite_] Compare xi. 31.
¹⁵The twelfth _captain_ for the twelfth month was Heldai¹ the
Netophathite, of Othniel: and in his course were twenty and four
thousand.
¹ In chapter xi. 30, _Heled_.
=15.= _Heldai_] Called _Heled_ in xi. 30.
_of Othniel_] compare Judges i. 13, iii. 9. Thus Heldai was not of pure
Israelite descent, but belonged to the Kenizzites (Kenaz), a younger
branch of the Calebites, an independent tribe which settled primarily
in southern Judah and was later incorporated in the tribe of Judah.
Genealogically this fact was expressed by calling Caleb a son of
Hezron, the son of Judah. See the article _Caleb_ in _Encyclopedia
Britannica_¹¹.
=16‒24.=
THE PRINCES OF THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.
Six tribes which were accounted “sons” of Leah are given first, then
six “sons,” actual or legal, of Rachel; whilst Zadok as chief of the
priestly caste may be reckoned as standing in a category by himself,
representative of the nation as a whole. Gad and Asher are omitted, for
some reason not easy to discern, perhaps accidentally or because the
traditional number of “twelve” tribes was complete in this list without
them.
¹⁶Furthermore over the tribes of Israel: of the Reubenites was
Eliezer the son of Zichri the ruler: of the Simeonites,
Shephatiah the son of Maacah: ¹⁷of Levi, Hashabiah the son of
Kemuel: of Aaron, Zadok:
=17.= _Hashabiah_] Perhaps the person mentioned in xxvi. 30. The name
is common among Levites.
_of Aaron, Zadok_] compare xii. 27, 28.
¹⁸of Judah, Elihu¹, one of the brethren of David: of Issachar,
Omri the son of Michael: ¹⁹of Zebulun, Ishmaiah the son of
Obadiah: of Naphtali, Jeremoth the son of Azriel: ²⁰of the
children of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Azaziah: of the half
tribe of Manasseh, Joel the son of Pedaiah:
¹ In 1 Samuel xvi. 6, _Eliab_.
=18.= _Elihu_] Perhaps the “Eliab” of 1 Samuel xvi. 6; compare margin.
²¹of the half _tribe_ of Manasseh in Gilead, Iddo the son of
Zechariah: of Benjamin, Jaasiel the son of Abner: ²²of Dan,
Azarel the son of Jeroham. These were the captains of the tribes
of Israel.
=21.= _Gilead_] “Gilead” is strictly speaking the name of the district
between the Jabbok and Moab, in which the tribes of Gad and Reuben
dwelt. Here it is used less precisely to include Bashan, the district
north-east of Jordan in which the half tribe of Manasseh lived: compare
ii. 22, note.
_Iddo_] Spelt quite differently in Hebrew from the name of the father
of the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah i. 1).
_Abner_] 1 Samuel xiv. 50, 51.
²³But David took not the number of them from twenty years old
and under: because the LORD had said he would increase Israel
like to the stars of heaven.
=23.= _took not the number_] In Numbers i. 3 ff. it is said that in the
census which God commanded Moses to take in the wilderness only those
above twenty years old were to be numbered, and a chief from each tribe
was appointed to assist Moses in the task of numeration. The Chronicler
in this section wishes to say that, though David erred in taking the
census unbidden by Jehovah, he at least conformed to the principles
of the Law in carrying out his project: those under 20 years of age
were not counted, and the princes just enumerated may be supposed to
correspond to the chiefs who assisted Moses.
²⁴Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but finished not; and
there came wrath for this upon Israel; neither was the number
put into the account in the chronicles of king David.
=24.= _but finished not_] Compare xxi. 6.
_into the account in_] A summary of the numbers of David’s census is
given in xxi. 5 and also (with divergences) in 2 Samuel xxiv. 9. The
Chronicler probably means in the present passage that the details of
the census were not entered in the official records.
_the chronicles_] Literally _the acts of the days_; compare
Introduction, § 5.
=25‒31.=
VARIOUS OFFICERS OF THE KING.
Twelve different officers are named here who acted as stewards of king
David’s property.
²⁵And over the king’s treasuries was Azmaveth the son of Adiel:
and over the treasuries in the fields, in the cities, and in the
villages, and in the castles, was Jonathan the son of Uzziah:
²⁶and over them that did the work of the field for tillage of
the ground was Ezri the son of Chelub:
=25.= _castles_] Literally _towers_; compare 2 Chronicles xxvi. 10,
xxvii. 4.
²⁷and over the vineyards was Shimei the Ramathite: and over the
increase of the vineyards for the wine cellars was Zabdi the
Shiphmite:
=27.= _the Ramathite_] The well-known Ramah was in Benjamin, but there
was also a Ramah (or Ramoth) of the South (Joshua xix. 8; 1 Samuel xxx.
27) from which the epithet “Ramathite” might be derived.
_the Shiphmite_] The adjective is probably derived from “Siphmoth” (1
Samuel xxx. 28), the name of a place in the south of Judah. If so, we
should read either “Siphmite” here, or “Shiphmoth” in 1 Samuel.
²⁸and over the olive trees and the sycomore trees that were in
the lowland was Baal-hanan the Gederite: and over the cellars of
oil was Joash:
=28.= _sycomore_] The fig-mulberry, a tree having leaves like
mulberry-leaves, and bearing a fruit resembling figs. Compare
2 Chronicles i. 15; Amos, vii. 14.
_in the lowland_] Hebrew _Shephelah_. See note on 2 Chronicles i. 15
(“vale”).
_Gederite_] i.e. inhabitant of “Geder” (Joshua xii. 13), perhaps
another form of “Gederah” (Joshua xv. 36). A place in the south of
Judah is intended in any case. See note on xii. 4.
²⁹and over the herds that fed in Sharon was Shitrai the
Sharonite: and over the herds that were in the valleys was
Shaphat the son of Adlai:
=29.= _Sharon_] The great maritime plain bounded on the east by the
“lowland” (Shephelah). “The valleys” would probably be the depressions
among the hills of the Shephelah which open out into Sharon; compare
Canticles ii. 1.
³⁰and over the camels was Obil the Ishmaelite: and over the
asses was Jehdeiah the Meronothite:
=30.= _Obil_] The name is a form of the Arabic word _ābil_, “one who
feeds camels.”
_the Meronothite_] _Meronoth_ was perhaps near Gibeon and Mizpah;
compare Nehemiah iii. 7.
³¹and over the flocks was Jaziz the Hagrite. All these were the
rulers of the substance which was king David’s.
=31.= _Hagrite_] Compare v. 10.
=32‒34= (compare xviii. 15‒17 = 2 Samuel viii. 16‒18;
compare 2 Samuel xx. 23‒26).
DAVID’S OFFICERS AT COURT.
³²Also Jonathan David’s uncle¹ was a counsellor, a man of
understanding, and a scribe: and Jehiel the son of Hachmoni was
with the king’s sons:
¹ Or, _brother’s son_.
=32.= _Jonathan David’s uncle_] The name Jonathan is common in Hebrew,
but no uncle of David is elsewhere mentioned. A “Jonathan, son of
Shimea,” David’s brother, is referred to in xx. 7 (= 2 Samuel xxi. 21),
and many scholars in consequence prefer to follow the margin and render
=Jonathan, David’s brother’s son=. Curtis renders =David’s lover=,
taking the reference to be to Jonathan, Saul’s son, who as the friend
of David’s youth might be spoken of as his first “counsellor.” This
view seems improbable but is not impossible, despite the phrase “_and a
scribe_” which could not possibly be said of Saul’s warrior son. There
is some evidence that those words are a gloss, and it is true that
the list is not one of living men only (compare Ahithophel), whilst
finally the Chronicler might well be tempted to drag in an allusion to
a relationship so well-known and so creditable to David.
_a scribe_] Not the chief scribe; compare xviii. 16, note.
_with the king’s sons_] As tutor; compare 2 Kings x. 6.
³³and Ahithophel was the king’s counsellor: and Hushai the
Archite was the king’s friend:
=33.= _Ahithophel_] See 2 Samuel xv. 31; xvi. 20‒xvii. 23.
_Hushai_] See 2 Samuel xv. 32‒37, xvi. 16‒19, xvii. 5‒16.
_Archite_] The “border of the Archites” was near Bethel (Joshua xvi. 2).
The word has no connection with the “Arkite” of i. 15.
_king’s friend_] compare 2 Samuel xvi. 16. “Special titles served to
signify the degree of rank the great men held with respect to the king
[of Egypt]. In old times the most important were _the friend_ and _the
well-beloved friend_ of the king” (Erman, _Ancient Egypt_, English
translation p. 72). The Greek kings of Syria granted similar titles
to their chief dependents; compare 1 Maccabees ii. 18 (Revised Version
with margin), “thou and thy house shall be in the number of the king’s
Friends.”
³⁴and after Ahithophel was Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and
Abiathar: and the captain of the king’s host was Joab.
=34.= _after Ahithophel_] Compare verse 33.
_Jehoiada the son of Benaiah_] Either we must read, “Benaiah the son of
Jehoiada” (compare xviii. 17), or we must assume that a person known
only from this passage is meant.
_and Abiathar_] Possibly such a phrase as “And Zadok and Abiathar were
priests” (compare 2 Samuel xx. 25) originally stood here.
CHAPTERS XXVIII, XXIX.
DAVID’S FAREWELL SPEECH.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
=1‒8= (compare xxii. 17‒19).
HIS CHARGE TO THE CHIEF MEN OF ISRAEL CONCERNING
THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE.
The glorious reign now reaches a fitting climax. David summons the
assembly of all the princes and commanders of Israel, and, in the
presence of the heir to the throne, addresses them in a final oration.
He recounts his Divine election and rule over Israel and the promise
that the same Divine Power will be with Solomon his son (xxviii. 1‒10).
Then, handing over to Solomon the inspired plans for the Temple (11‒21),
and briefly describing the treasures he has amassed for its enrichment
(xxix. 1‒5) he appeals to the liberality of the people and is met by a
magnificent response (6‒9). Finally, in a prayer of fine humility and
faith (10‒20), he commends his son and his people to the eternal and
all-powerful God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. How immense the
contrast between this and the pathetically real picture of the closing
days of David portrayed in 1 Kings i., ii. 1‒11! There the dying
monarch is seen, exhausted in mind and body, surrounded by the
intrigues of an Eastern palace. With a last flicker of his strength, he
rouses himself to secure the succession of Solomon by firm but ruthless
orders against the leaders of the opposing faction. Whilst the
narrative in Kings is indispensable to us in preserving some record of
the actual history of the last days of David, Chronicles is also of
great value in its own way as a religious interpretation of history
(Introduction pp. liii, lv). Rightly understood, this farewell speech
is in many respects a noble and inspiring passage of Scripture: so
_ought_ a perfect reign to end. Here David dies, leaving his country
peaceful, powerful, and contented. He dies believing that his people’s
true prosperity is in its zeal for the worship of God; and for that end,
with the popular approval, he has made marvellous preparation. And
lastly he dies, in no vain-glorious spirit, but conscious of the
littleness of man and the majesty of God, and in humble dependence on
the continuance of Grace.
¹And David assembled all the princes of Israel, the princes
of the tribes, and the captains of the companies that served
the king by course, and the captains of thousands, and the
captains of hundreds, and the rulers over all the substance and
possessions¹ of the king and of his sons, with the officers²,
and the mighty men, even all the mighty men of valour, unto
Jerusalem.
¹ Or, _cattle_.
² Or, _eunuchs_.
=1.= _the princes of the tribes_] Compare xxvii. 16‒22.
_the captains of the companies_] See xxvii. 1‒15.
_the rulers_] See xxvii. 25‒31.
_officers_] margin _eunuchs_; the earlier authorities however for
David’s reign (in the books of Samuel) do not mention such persons; and
they were perhaps introduced into the Israelite court at a later time.
Yet compare 1 Samuel viii. 15.
²Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me,
my brethren, and my people: as for me, it was in mine heart to
build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD,
and for the footstool of our God; and I had made ready for the
building.
=2.= _stood up upon his feet_] Kings sometimes made orations sitting;
compare Acts xii. 21. Here the king stands to mark the greatness of the
occasion.
_my brethren_] The king is the _brother_ of his subjects; Deuteronomy
xvii. 15, 20; compare Psalms xlv. 7.
_it was in mine heart_] See xvii. 1; 2 Samuel vii. 2.
_an house of rest_] Compare xvii. 5; 2 Samuel vii. 6.
_the footstool_] compare Isaiah lx. 13.
³But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name,
because thou art a man of war, and hast shed blood.
=3.= _thou art a man of war_] See note on xxii. 8.
⁴Howbeit the LORD, the God of Israel, chose me out of all the
house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath
chosen Judah to be prince¹; and in the house of Judah, the house
of my father; and among the sons of my father he took pleasure
in me to make me king over all Israel:
¹ Or, _leader_.
=4.= _out of all the house_] See 1 Samuel xvi. 1‒13.
_king ... for ever_] i.e. the kingdom is to abide with David and his
descendants. That the promise, however, was not to be interpreted as
independent of moral conditions, see below verse 9 _ad fin._
⁵and of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he
hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom
of the LORD over Israel.
=5.= _many sons_] compare iii. 1‒9.
_he hath chosen Solomon_] The earlier histories (_Samuel‒Kings_) do not
thus speak of God choosing Solomon as David’s successor; but compare
2 Samuel xii. 24, 25; 1 Kings i. 11‒14.
_the throne of the kingdom of the LORD_] Compare xxix. 23, _the throne
of the LORD_. The Chronicler regards the king as the deputy of Jehovah.
⁶And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house
and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be
his father.
=6.= _he shall build my house_] Compare xxii. 10.
⁷And I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to
do my commandments and my judgements, as at this day.
=7.= _And I will establish_] Compare xvii. 11.
_if he be constant_] Literally _if he be strong_; compare verses 10, 20,
_be strong_ (same word in Hebrew). Compare 1 Kings ix. 4, 5.
⁸Now therefore, in the sight of all Israel, the congregation of
the LORD, and in the audience of our God, observe and seek out
all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess
this good land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children
after you for ever.
=8.= _and seek out_] The same Hebrew word is used in xiii. 3, _we
sought not unto it_ (i.e. the Ark) _in the days of Saul_.
_that ye may possess this good land_] _possess_ = _inherit_. The Hebrew
word connotes _three_ different ideas, which may all have been present
to the mind of the speaker, viz. (1) continued holding of the land by
passing it from father to son (compare Exodus xx. 12), (2) completion
of the work of conquest left unfinished by Joshua (compare Genesis xxiv.
60), (3) enjoyment of the fruits of the land (compare Psalms xxv. 13).
=9‒21.=
DAVID’S CHARGE TO SOLOMON.
⁹And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father,
and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind:
for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the
imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found
of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.
=9.= _know thou the God of thy father_] For this use of _know_ compare
Exodus v. 2; Isaiah i. 3; Jeremiah xxxi. 34.
_with a perfect heart_] i.e. with a _single, undivided heart_; compare
xii. 33 “they were not of double heart.” In 2 Chronicles xv. 17 the
heart of king Asa is described as _perfect_, because he took no part
in the idolatrous practices which prevailed in his day. Faithfulness
to Jehovah, not moral perfection, is implied in phrases of this kind.
_the LORD searcheth_] Compare Ezekiel’s vision of the Lord’s detection
of secret idolatry (Ezekiel viii.).
¹⁰Take heed now; for the LORD hath chosen thee to build an house
for the sanctuary: be strong, and do it.
=10.= _hath chosen thee_] See on verse 5.
¹¹Then David gave to Solomon his son 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 place¹ of the mercy-seat:
¹ Hebrew _house_.
=11.= _the pattern_] Compare verse 12; Exodus xxv. 9. The Temple, like
the tabernacle, was to be constructed according to a pattern or model
communicated by inspiration (see verse 19). A verbal description rather
than a drawing is meant.
_the porch_] compare 2 Chronicles iii. 4; 1 Kings vi. 3.
_the houses thereof_] Compare 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 11. “Thereof”
of course refers to the Temple as a whole, and by “houses” we must
understand the various portions of the building.
_the treasuries_] A different Hebrew word from that used in verse 12.
The inner treasuries mentioned here were for treasure; the outer
treasuries (verse 11) were perhaps rather store-chambers.
_upper rooms_] compare 2 Chronicles iii. 9; and 1 Kings vi. 6 (where
however the Hebrew word is different).
_the place of the mercy-seat_] The Holy of Holies.
¹²and the pattern of all that he had by¹ the spirit, for the
courts of the house of the LORD, and for all the chambers round
about, for the treasuries of the house of God, and for the
treasuries of the dedicated things:
¹ Or, _in his spirit_.
=12.= _that he had by the spirit_] i.e. that had come to him by
revelation and rested with him waiting for realisation. Margin, _that
he had in his spirit_ (i.e. in his mind) is a less likely translation.
_for the courts_] The last verse dealt with the Temple itself; this one
with the courts and detached buildings.
_chambers_] compare ix. 26, note.
_the treasuries_] The same Hebrew word as in xxvi. 20; Nehemiah xiii.
12, 15. See note on verse 11.
_dedicated things_] xxvi. 26‒28; 2 Chronicles xv. 18.
¹³also for the courses of the priests and the Levites, and for
all the work of the service of the house of the LORD, and for
all the vessels of service in the house of the LORD:
=13.= _also for the courses_] The verse is best taken in adjectival
connection with the phrase _the chambers round about_ in the preceding
verse: these were used _for the treasuries..._, and “_also for the
courses_,” etc. It is possible, however, to take it in the sense
“he gave the pattern also for the courses,” etc.; i.e. the scheme of
rotation set forth in previous chapters.
_of the priests and the Levites_] Compare xxiv. 1‒31.
¹⁴of gold by weight for the _vessels of_ gold, for all vessels
of every kind of service; _of silver_ for all the vessels of
silver by weight, for all vessels of every kind of service:
¹⁵by weight also for the candlesticks of gold, and for the lamps
thereof, of gold, by weight for every candlestick and for the
lamps thereof: and for the candlesticks of silver, _silver_
by weight for _every_ candlestick and for the lamps thereof,
according to the use of every candlestick:
=14.= _of gold by weight_] _sc._ he gave the pattern or account _of
gold_, etc.
¹⁶and the gold by weight for the tables of shewbread, for every
table; and silver for the tables of silver:
=16.= _tables of shewbread_] Elsewhere, except 2 Chronicles iv. 19
(see note on 2 Chronicles iv. 8), only one table for the shewbread is
mentioned; compare 2 Chronicles xxix. 18; Exodus xxxv. 13, xxxvii. 10,
xl. 22.
_and silver_] Neither the silver tables of this verse, nor the silver
candlesticks of verse 15 are mentioned elsewhere; perhaps they stood in
some of the chambers (verse 12) of the Temple courts for the use of the
Levites in their work.
¹⁷and the fleshhooks, and the basons, and the cups, of pure gold:
and for the golden bowls by weight for every bowl; and for the
silver bowls by weight for every bowl:
=17.= _fleshhooks_] Exodus xxvii. 3; 1 Samuel ii. 13.
_basons_] These were used for dashing the blood of a victim against the
altar. Compare 2 Chronicles xxix. 22.
_the cups_] Probably the same as the _flagons_ (Revised Version) of
Exodus xxv. 29 which were used for pouring out the drink offering.
¹⁸and for the altar of incense refined gold by weight; and gold
for the pattern of the chariot, _even_ the cherubim, that spread
out _their wings_, and covered the ark of the covenant of the
LORD.
=18.= _the altar of incense_] 2 Chronicles xxvi. 16; Exodus xxx. 1‒10.
_the chariot_, even _the cherubim_] Compare Ezekiel i. 5‒10, 15‒17.
The Cherubim were poetically conceived as the chariot of Jehovah. The
phrase has its origin in the language of Psalms xviii. 10.
¹⁹All this, _said David_, have I been made to understand in
writing¹ from the hand of the LORD, even all the works of this
pattern.
¹ Or, _the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon
me, even &c._
=19.= _All this_, said David, _have I been made to understand in
writing from the hand of the LORD, even all the works of this pattern_]
Compare verse 11, note. As in the case of Moses and the tabernacle
(Exodus xxv. 9, 40), so David’s plans for the Temple are said to be of
Divine origin.
²⁰And David said to Solomon his son, Be strong and of good
courage, and do it: fear not, nor be dismayed: for the LORD God,
even my God, is with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake
thee, until all the work for the service of the house of the
LORD be finished.
=20.= _Be strong_] God’s help in the planning is a pledge of God’s help
in the accomplishment. Compare verse 10, which finds its continuation
at this point. The work was great, and Solomon young; xxii. 5.
_be finished_] The LXX. shows that a passage which was present in the
Hebrew text of the second century has been later accidentally omitted
from the Hebrew at this point. Add therefore =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 the Lord=. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_, pp. 73, 87.
²¹And, behold, there are the courses of the priests and the
Levites, for all the service of the house of God: and there
shall be with thee in all manner of work every willing man that
hath skill, for any manner of service: also the captains and all
the people will be wholly at thy commandment.
=21.= _every willing man that hath skill_] Compare Exodus xxxv. 5,
10 ff.
CHAPTER XXIX.
=1‒5.=
DAVID’S CHALLENGE TO LIBERALITY.
¹And David the king said unto all the congregation, Solomon
my son, whom alone God hath chosen, is yet young and tender, and
the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the
LORD God.
=1.= _congregation_] or, _assembly_; the Hebrew word is cognate to the
verb translated _assembled_ in xxviii. 1.
_whom alone God hath chosen_] Compare xxviii. 5.
_the palace_] Hebrew _bīrāh_, a late word in Hebrew, perhaps derived
from Assyrian _bīrtu_. Ordinarily it denoted a palace or fortress
(compare Nehemiah i. 1; Esther i. 2), and is applied to the Temple
only here and verse 19. In Nehemiah ii. 8 (compare Ryle _in loco_) the
building which afterwards became the Tower of Antonia (ἡ παρεμβολή,
_the castle_, Acts xxi. 37, xxii. 24) which overlooked the Temple
is called _the castle_ (bīrāh) _which appertaineth to the house_. In
Nehemiah i. 1 Shushan is described as a _bīrāh_, probably as being a
fortress as well as a royal city. See G. A. Smith, _Jerusalem_, II. 347.
The Temple is frequently called _hēykāl_ (_palace_, _great house_) in
the Old Testament, but the normal appellation is simply _kabbayith_
(_the house_) or such a phrase as _the house of the Lord_, or again
_qǒdshěkhā_ (_Thy sanctuary_).
²Now I have prepared with all my might for the house of my
God the gold for the _things of_ gold, and the silver for the
_things of_ silver, and the brass for the _things of_ brass, the
iron for the _things of_ iron, and wood for the _things of_ wood;
onyx¹ stones, and _stones_ to be set, stones for inlaid work,
and of divers colours, and all manner of precious stones, and
marble stones in abundance.
¹ Or, _beryl_.
=2.= _onyx_] or, as margin, _beryl_. Compare Genesis ii. 12 (margin
_beryl_).
_stones for inlaid work_] Compare Isaiah liv. 11, _I will lay thy
stones with fair colours_ (the same word is used in Hebrew).
³Moreover also, because I have set my affection to the house of
my God, seeing that I have a treasure of mine own of gold and
silver, I give it unto the house of my God, over and above all
that I have prepared for the holy house;
=3.= _I give it_] not all his private fortune, but the splendid
offering announced in verses 4, 5. David then challenges the leaders to
display a like generosity (verse 5).
_even three thousand talents of gold_, etc.] i.e. about £20,000,000 or
£10,000,000 (light standard). The amount is impossibly vast, and may be
compared with the exaggeration noted in xxii. 14.
⁴even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and
seven thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls
of the houses withal:
=4.= _gold of Ophir_] _Ophir_ is probably to be identified with some
part of the south-east coast of Arabia; see note on 2 Chronicles viii.
18. The reference here is no doubt an anachronism, for it is clear that
Israelite tradition regarded this trade with Ophir as an innovation of
Solomon’s reign (see 2 Chronicles viii. 18, ix. 10 = 1 Kings ix. 28,
x. 11).
_to overlay_] compare 2 Chronicles iii. 4‒8.
_the houses_] i.e. the porch, the greater house, and the most holy
house; 2 Chronicles iii. 4, 5, 8.
⁵of gold for the _things of_ gold, and of silver for the _things
of_ silver, and for all manner of work _to be made_ by the
hands of artificers. Who then offereth willingly to consecrate
himself¹ this day unto the LORD?
¹ Hebrew _to fill his hand_.
=5.= _offereth willingly to consecrate himself_] The phrase _to
consecrate himself_ (Hebrew, _to fill his hand_) means properly _to
make himself a priest_, and is here used metaphorically. The sense is
“Who will give these gifts for the sacred Temple in the same willing
spirit which is required of a priest in his self-dedication to priestly
service?”
=6‒9.=
THE OFFERINGS OF THE CHIEFS OF ISRAEL.
⁶Then the princes of the fathers’ _houses_, and the princes of
the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands and of
hundreds, with the rulers over the king’s work, offered
willingly;
=6.= _over the king’s work_] See xxvii. 25‒31.
⁷and they gave for the service of the house of God of gold five
thousand talents and ten thousand darics, and of silver ten
thousand talents, and of brass eighteen thousand talents, and of
iron a hundred thousand talents.
=7.= _five thousand talents_] i.e. of uncoined gold by weight, an
immense sum, compare verse 3.
_ten thousand darics_] A _daric_ was a Persian gold coin worth about 22
shillings. Used thus in connection with the reign of David, the word is
of course a curious anachronism. The translation of Authorized Version
_drams_ (i.e. drachmæ) may possibly be right. The value of a gold
drachma was about 9s. 5d.
⁸And they with whom _precious_ stones were found gave them to
the treasure of the house of the LORD, under the hand of Jehiel
the Gershonite.
=8.= _Jehiel the Gershonite_] Compare xxiii. 8, xxvi. 21, 22.
⁹Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly,
because with a perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD:
and David the king also rejoiced with great joy.
=9.= _with a perfect heart_] i.e. with a single heart, ungrudgingly.
Compare xxviii. 9, note.
=10‒19.=
THE BLESSING OF DAVID.
¹⁰Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation:
and David said, Blessed be thou, O LORD, the God of Israel our
father, for ever and ever. ¹¹Thine, O LORD, is the greatness,
and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty:
for all that is in the heaven and in the earth _is thine_; thine
is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.
¹²Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou rulest over all;
and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to
make great, and to give strength unto all. ¹³Now therefore, our
God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.
=11.= _thou art exalted as head above all_] Better =thine it is to be
exalted as head over all=.
¹⁴But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able¹
to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of
thee, and of thine own² have we given thee.
¹ Hebrew _retain strength_.
² Hebrew _of thine hand_.
=14.= _be able_] Literally _retain strength_. David praises God for the
great success of the efforts of so transitory a creature as man.
_of thine own_] Literally _out of thine hand_, compare margin.
¹⁵For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as all our
fathers were: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there
is no abiding¹. ¹⁶O LORD our God, all this store that we have
prepared to build thee an house for thine holy name cometh of
thine hand, and is all thine own. ¹⁷I know also, my God, that
thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for
me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered
all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which
are present here, to offer willingly unto thee.
¹ Hebrew _hope_.
=15.= _strangers before thee, and sojourners_] David describes himself
and his people not as strangers _to_ God, but as strangers _dwelling
before_ God. In ancient states foreigners were sometimes allowed to
reside in the capital under the immediate protection of the king or
of the heads of the state; compare 1 Samuel xxii. 3, 4, xxvii. 3;
2 Samuel xv. 19; compare also the position of the aliens at Athens.
David appeals to God on the ground that Israel is immediately under
God’s protection. Compare Psalms xxxix. 12.
_no abiding_] Or, as margin, _hope_; i.e. no continuance, no hopeful
expectation, apart from the favour of Jehovah.
¹⁸O LORD, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel, our
fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts
of the heart of thy people, and prepare¹ their heart unto thee:
¹ Or, _establish_.
=18.= _in the imagination_] Render, =as the imagination=. _Imagination_
here means not the faculty, but the result of the exercise of the
faculty, a _mental image_ or _impression_.
_prepare_] Better, as margin, =establish=. David prays that the people
may continue in their present mind.
¹⁹and give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep thy
commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes, and to do all
these things, and to build the palace, for the which I have made
provision.
=19.= _a perfect heart_] See xxviii. 9, note.
_the palace_] See verse 1, note.
=20‒22.=
THE GREAT REJOICING.
²⁰And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD
your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD, the God of
their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the
LORD, and the king.
=20.= _worshipped_] i.e. prostrated themselves.
²¹And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the LORD, and offered
burnt offerings unto the LORD, on the morrow after that day,
even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs,
with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all
Israel;
=21.= _And they sacrificed_] Compare xvi. 1‒3.
²²and did eat and drink before the LORD on that day with great
gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second
time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be prince¹, and Zadok to
be priest.
¹ Or, _leader_.
=22.= _the second time_] Compare xxiii. 1. The first time which is
described in 1 Kings i. 39 (Solomon hastily anointed in order to assert
his claim to the throne against his brother Adonijah) is omitted in
Chronicles, unless perhaps the vague phrase of xxiii. 1 “Now David ...
made Solomon his son king over Israel” is intended to refer to it.
_Zadok_] One of Solomon’s earliest acts seems to have been to put an
end to the double priesthood by deposing Abiathar; compare 1 Kings
ii. 27, 35. The Chronicler appears to have this in mind, but he avoids
narrating anything so derogatory to the high-priesthood.
=23‒25.=
THE BEGINNING OF SOLOMON’S REIGN.
²³Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of
David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.
=23.= _the throne of the LORD_] See xxviii. 5, note.
²⁴And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons
likewise of king David, submitted themselves¹ unto Solomon the
king.
¹ Hebrew _gave the hand under Solomon_.
=24.= _the mighty men_] Compare 1 Kings i. 10, 38, from which it
is clear that the faithfulness of Benaiah and the Cherethites and
Pelethites was the main factor in the elevation of Solomon to the
throne.
_all the sons_] The Chronicler here glances at the submission of
Adonijah (1 Kings i. 53).
²⁵And the LORD magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all
Israel, and bestowed upon him such royal majesty as had not been
on any king before him in Israel.
=25.= _such royal majesty as had not been on any king before him in
Israel_] Strictly speaking, the comparison is limited to Solomon on the
one side, and his predecessors, David and Saul (Ishbosheth is ignored
in Chronicles) on the other, but we may suppose that the Chronicler
is writing somewhat loosely from his own standpoint, and really means
to say that Solomon was surpassed in glory by no king of Israel. It
is just possible (compare Job xxxiv. 19) to render the Hebrew =royal
majesty which was not on any king more than on him in Israel=.
In Chronicles the character of Solomon is idealised somewhat in the
same fashion as that of David. He is depicted as the monarch who
attained the ideal of inspired wisdom and of royal splendour, and
whose piety was supremely manifested in the privilege permitted him of
building and dedicating the Temple. In this last fact the Chronicler
doubtless felt that Solomon had a claim to the praises of posterity
which completely outweighed any sinister traits of his character
revealed in Kings. Elsewhere he refers to Solomon’s failings in order
to point a moral; “Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin by these
things?... Even him did strange women cause to sin” (Nehemiah xiii.
26). But here, where he relates his reign as a whole, the darker
aspects――his many wives and his tolerance of their idolatrous
worship――are passed over and only the king’s zeal for Jehovah and
the glories of Israel in his day are allowed to appear.
=26‒30.=
A SUMMARY OF DAVID’S REIGN.
²⁶Now David the son of Jesse reigned over all Israel. ²⁷And
the time that he reigned over Israel was forty years; seven
years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three _years_ reigned
he in Jerusalem. ²⁸And he died in a good old age, full of days,
riches, and honour: and Solomon his son reigned in his stead.
=27.= _forty years_] Compare 2 Samuel v. 4, 5; 1 Kings ii. 11.
²⁹Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they
are written in the history¹ of Samuel the seer, and in the
history¹ of Nathan the prophet, and in the history¹ of Gad the
seer;
¹ Hebrew _words_.
=29.= On the “histories” cited in this verse, see the Introduction,
§ 5, pp. xxx‒xxxii. Compare 2 Chronicles ix. 29.
_in the history_] literally _words_. The Book of Chronicles itself is
called in Hebrew, _The words_ (or _the acts_) _of the days_.
_Samuel the seer_] Compare 1 Samuel ix. 9, 19.
_Nathan the prophet_] See 2 Samuel vii. 2 (= 1 Chronicles xvii. 1);
2 Samuel xii. 1; 1 Kings i. 8‒39.
_Gad the seer_] See 2 Samuel xxiv. 11 (= 1 Chronicles xxi. 9), _Gad the
prophet, David’s seer_.
In the Hebrew Samuel is called _rōeh_ (_seer_), Nathan, _nābī_
(_prophet_), and Gad, _ḥōzeh_ (_gazer_ or _seer of visions_).
³⁰with all his reign and his might, and the times that went over
him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries.
=30.= _the times_] i.e. the changes, vicissitudes. Compare xii. 32,
note.
THE SECOND BOOK OF
THE CHRONICLES
CHAPTERS I.‒IX.
SOLOMON.
CHAPTER I.
=1‒6.=
SOLOMON’S GREAT SACRIFICE AT GIBEON.
Verses 1‒5 are the composition of the Chronicler; for verse 6 compare
1 Kings iii. 4.
¹AND Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom,
and the LORD his God was with him, and magnified him exceedingly.
=1.= _was strengthened_] or, _strengthened himself_, a favourite
expression of the Chronicler; compare xii. 13, xiii. 21 (_waxed
mighty_), xvii. 1, xxiii. 1, etc.
_magnified_] compare 1 Chronicles xxix. 25.
²And Solomon spake unto all Israel, to the captains of thousands
and of hundreds, and to the judges, and to every prince in all
Israel, the heads of the fathers’ _houses_.
=2.= _unto all Israel_] The impression, conveyed in the preceding
chapter, that Solomon’s accession was marred by no internal discord in
the nation, is again emphasised.
³So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the
high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tent of meeting
of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the
wilderness.
=3.= _the high place ... at Gibeon_] Compare 1 Chronicles xvi. 39, xxi.
29; 1 Kings iii. 4. The passage in Kings naïvely states that Solomon
offered his sacrifice at Gibeon (6 miles north-west of Jerusalem)
_because that was the great high place_. The Chronicler regarded the
worship of the high-places as an illegal act, and sought to justify
Solomon’s action in this undeniable instance by the theory that the
tent of meeting and the brasen altar (verse 5) were at the high-place
of Gibeon (see the head-note to 1 Chronicles xiii.). Without doubt the
high-place at Gibeon had been used by the Canaanites for worship from a
very early date.
_in the wilderness_] See Exodus xxv. 1 ff., xxxv. 4 ff.
⁴But the ark of God had David brought up from Kiriath-jearim to
_the place_ that David had prepared for it: for he had pitched a
tent for it at Jerusalem.
=4.= =Kiriath-jearim=] Compare 1 Chronicles xiii. 5.
_pitched a tent_] compare 1 Chronicles xv. 1.
⁵Moreover the brasen altar, that Bezalel the son of Uri, the son
of Hur, had made, was there¹ before the tabernacle of the LORD:
and Solomon and the congregation sought unto it.
¹ Or, as otherwise read, _he had put_.
=5.= _Bezalel_] See Exodus xxxi. 2, xxxviii. 1‒7, and compare 1
Chronicles ii. 20.
_was there_] margin _he had put_. In the Hebrew the position of a point
makes the difference between these two translations.
_sought unto it_] See 1 Chronicles xxviii. 8, note.
⁶And Solomon went¹ up thither to the brasen altar before the
LORD, which was at the tent of meeting, and offered a thousand
burnt offerings upon it.
¹ Or, _offered there, upon ... yea, he offered_.
=6.= _went up thither_] or, as margin, _offered there, upon_. It is to
be noted that the Chronicler does not ignore the exercise of priestly
functions by Solomon, although such exercise must have seemed wrong in
his eyes, but follows his authority (1 Kings iii. 4) without adding any
explanation.
=7‒13= (= 1 Kings iii. 5‒15).
SOLOMON’S VISION, AND RETURN TO JERUSALEM.
⁷In that night did God appear unto Solomon, and said unto him,
Ask what I shall give thee. ⁸And Solomon said unto God, Thou
hast shewed great kindness unto David my father, and hast made
me king in his stead.
=7.= _did God appear_] In Kings, _the LORD appeared in a dream_.
⁹Now, O LORD God, let thy promise unto David my father be
established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the
dust of the earth in multitude.
=9.= _thy promise_] i.e. that Solomon would be king after David, that
he would build the Temple, and that his house would reign over Israel
for ever (1 Chronicles xxii. 9 ff.). Part of this promise had come
true, and Solomon now prays for the fulfilment of the remainder. It is,
however, possible that the particular reference is to the first words
of 1 Chronicles xxii. 12, which may be translated as a promise, _Surely
the LORD will give thee wisdom and understanding_.
¹⁰Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come
in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that
is so great? ¹¹And God said to Solomon, Because this was in
thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour,
nor the life of them that hate thee, neither yet hast asked long
life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou
mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king:
=10.= _go out and come in_] The phrase denotes the transaction of
business of all kinds.
_judge_] Although every village by its headmen dispensed its own
justice to its inhabitants, yet enough cases too hard for local
decision remained over to make the king’s judicial functions of very
great importance; compare 2 Samuel xiv. 4 ff., xv. 2‒4.
¹²wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give
thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings
have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any
after thee have the like.
=12.= _wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee_] The incident
illustrates the truth that _To him that hath shall be given_; Solomon
had wisdom enough to offer a wise prayer; increase of wisdom followed
as the answer to the prayer.
¹³So Solomon came _from his journey_¹ to the high place that was
at Gibeon, from before the tent of meeting, unto Jerusalem; and
he reigned over Israel.
¹ The Septuagint and Vulgate have, _came from the high place_.
=13.= from his journey _to the high place that was at Gibeon_] This
clause yields no sense in the Hebrew and is probably a misplaced gloss.
Read simply, =Then Solomon came to Jerusalem= (compare 1 Kings iii. 15),
or, as margin following LXX., =came from the high place=....
=14‒17= (= 1 Kings x. 26‒29).
SOLOMON’S HORSES AND CHARIOTS.
¹⁴And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen: and he had a
thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen,
which he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at
Jerusalem.
=14.= _a thousand and four hundred chariots_] See note on ix. 25.
_the chariot cities_] The greater part of Palestine is unsuitable for
the evolutions of chariots, but flat country is found along the coast
of the Mediterranean, in the plain of Esdraelon, and east of Jordan,
and in these three districts the chariot cities were probably situated.
Compare G. A. Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, p. 667,
Appendix v.
¹⁵And the king made silver and gold to be in Jerusalem as stones,
and cedars made he to be as the sycomore trees that are in the
lowland, for abundance.
=15.= _to be in Jerusalem as stones_] In Kings this is asserted of
silver only. Jerusalem is one of the stoniest places in the world.
See Kelman, _Holy Land_, pp. 9‒11.
_the sycomore trees_] See 1 Chronicles xxvii. 28, note.
_lowland_] Literally _the Shephelah_; i.e. essentially the stretch
of low hills separating the maritime plain from the hill country of
Judah, yet perhaps also including the Philistine plain. See Hastings,
_Dictionary of the Bible_ III. 893‒894.
¹⁶And the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt;
the king’s merchants received them in droves, each drove at a
price.
=16.= _And the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt_]
Egypt is an agricultural not a pastoral country; it lacks the broad
plains suitable for the rearing of large numbers of horses. But the
Arabs of the Sinai peninsula stood in close political and mercantile
relations with Egypt, and it may be that though the horses were raised
in Arabia and Central Asia they passed through Egyptian hands (Barnes
on 1 Kings x. 28). It is possible, however, that the reading _Egypt_ is
a mistake――see the following note.
_in droves, each drove at a price_] The word “droves” is incorrectly
translated “linen yarn” in the Authorized Version The rendering
_droves_ is just possible; but it is probable that, on the basis of
some versions, we should read =from Ku‘i= (_or_ =Kuë=) =at a price=.
_Kuë_ is a district mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions and generally
identified with Cilicia. It is further proposed that, instead of
_Egypt_ (Hebrew _Miṣraim_), we should read _Muṣri_, a name applied
(1) to Egypt, and (2) extended beyond it to the area south of Palestine,
and (3) also denoting a district in north Syria, south of the Taurus,
and named in Assyrian inscriptions. In this case, in connection with
_Kuë_, we should identify it with the last mentioned.
¹⁷And they fetched up, and brought out of Egypt a chariot for
six hundred _shekels_ of silver, and an horse for an hundred and
fifty: and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and the kings
of Syria, did they bring them out by their means.
=17.= _out of Egypt_] Hebrew _Miṣraim_. If the suggestion mentioned in
the previous note be adopted, then here also read _Muṣri_, the north
Syrian district.
_and so ... by their means_] i.e. by means of Solomon’s merchants
horses were exported for the kings of the Hittites and of Syria.
_Hittites_] Settlements of Hittites seem to have existed here and there
in Canaan, but in the regions north-east of Syria they formed a
powerful state, able for many centuries to contend on equal terms with
the Assyrians and Egyptians. Their chief cities were Carchemish on the
Euphrates and Kadesh on the Orontes. They were subdued in the eighth
century by the Assyrians.