sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1 Chronicles 1, 1 Chronicles 11, 1 Chronicles 12, 1 Chronicles 13, 1 Chronicles 14, 1 Chronicles 16

a Grace Notes course

First Chronicles

From Commentary on the

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch

adapted for Grace Notes training by Warren Doud

Grace Notes Web Site: http://www.gracenotes.info E-mail: [email protected]

1 Chronicles - Keil and Delitzsch Contents

Introduction ...... 4 ...... 27 ...... 32 1 Chronicles 3 ...... 44 ...... 49 1 Chronicles 5 ...... 58 1 Chronicles 6 ...... 68 ...... 75 1 Chronicles 8 ...... 82 ...... 87 ...... 97 ...... 100 ...... 105 ...... 113 ...... 115 1 Chronicles 15 ...... 116 ...... 121 ...... 129 1 Chronicles 18-20 ...... 133 ...... 136 ...... 142 1 Chronicles 23 ...... 146 ...... 153 ...... 157 ...... 160 1 Chronicles 27 ...... 166 ...... 170 ...... 174

The Authors Carl Friedrich Keil (26 February 1807 – 5 May 1888) was a conservative German Lutheran Old Testament commentator. He was born at Lauterbach near Oelsnitz, Kingdom of Saxony, and died at Rätz, Saxony. Franz Delitzsch (Leipzig, February 23, 1813 – Leipzig, March 4, 1890) was a German Lutheran theologian and Hebraist. Born in Leipzig, he held the professorship of theology at the University of Rostock from 1846 to 1850, at the University of Erlangen until 1867, and after that at the University of Leipzig until his death. Delitzsch wrote many commentaries on books of the , Jewish antiquities, biblical psychology, a history of Jewish poetry, and Christian apologetics. Grace Notes Grace Notes is a Bible study ministry which began in 1994 using the Internet to distribute lessons and articles to people who are interested in God's Word. Thousands of Christians, in more than 110 countries around the world, have received Grace Notes lessons on the Internet, by E-mail and the World Wide Web. All courses and materials are distributed free of charge, and the work is supported by believers who want to see the ministry continue and grow. Grace Notes studies are also distributed on diskette and CD-ROM in order to reach those who do not have Internet access. Verse-by-verse (expositional) courses are available in 50 books of the Bible. Some of the courses include word studies (categorical doctrine) or historical articles (isagogics) that are relevant to the passages being discussed. Other courses offered are Bible character studies, comprehensive studies of the Christian Life and Basics of the Christian Life, an extensive series on the Person and Word of Christ, and a thorough study of the Attributes of God. You are invited to write to the address below, or write by e-mail, to inquire about Grace Notes materials. Warren Doud, Director 1705 Aggie Lane, Austin, Texas 78757 E-Mail: [email protected] Web Site: http://www.gracenotes.info

1 CHRONICLES Page 4 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

1 Chronicles kingdom, after the death of , they contain only the history of the kingdom of Introduction , with special reference to the Levitical Introduction to the Hagiographic Historical worship, to the exclusion of the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes. From a comparison Books of the Old Testament of the manner of representing the history in the Besides the prophetico-historic writings— Chronicles with that in the books of and , Judges, Samuel, and Kings—which the Kings, we can clearly see that describe from a prophetic point of view the did not purpose to portray the development of development of the kingdom of God established the Israelitic theocracy in general, nor the facts by means of the mediatorial office of , and events which conditioned and constituted from the time of the bringing of the tribes of that development objectively, according to their Israel into the land promised to the fathers till general course. He has, on the contrary, so the Babylonian exile, the Old Testament connected the historical facts with the attitude contains five historical books,—Ruth, of the kings and the people to the Lord, and to Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. These His law, that they teach how the Lord rewarded latter stand in the Hebrew canon among the fidelity to His with blessing and i.e., in the hagiography, and are at once success both to people and kingdom, but ,כְּ תּובִ ים distinguished from the above-mentioned punished with calamity and judgments every prophetico-historic writings by this faithless revolt from His covenant ordinances. characteristic, that they treat only of single Now since Israel, as the people and parts of the history of the covenant people from congregation of Jahve, could openly show its individual points of view. The book of Ruth adherence to the covenant only by faithful gives a charming historical picture from the life observance of the covenant laws, particularly of of the ancestors of King . The Chronicles, the ordinances for worship, the author of the indeed, extend over a very long period of the Chronicles has kept this side of the life of the historical development of the Israelite kingdom people especially in view, in order that he might of God, embrace the history from the death of hold up before his contemporaries as a mirror King till the Babylonian exile, and go back the attitude of the fathers to the God-appointed in the genealogies which precede the narrative dwelling-place of His gracious presence in the of the history to , the father of the human holy place of the congregation. He does this, race; yet neither in the genealogical part do that they might behold how the faithful they give a perfect review of the genealogical maintenance of communion with the covenant ramifications of the twelve tribes of the God in His temple would assure to them the covenant people, nor in their historical portion fulfilment of the gracious promises of the contain the history of the whole people from covenant, and how falling away into idolatry, on the death of Saul till the exile. Besides the tables the contrary, would bring misfortune and of the first progenitors of humanity and the destruction. This special reference to the tribal ancestors of the people of Israel, worship meets us also in the books of Ezra and borrowed from Genesis, the genealogical part Nehemiah, which describe the deliverance of contains only a collection of genealogical and the Jews from exile, and their restoration as the topographical fragments differing in plan, covenant people in the land of their fathers. The execution, and extent, relating to the chief narrates, on the one hand, the families of the most prominent tribes and their return out of the Babylonian exile into the land dwelling-places. The historical part contains, of their fathers of a great part of the Jews who certainly, historical sketches from the history of had been led away by Nebuchadnezzar,—partly all Israel during the reigns of the kings David in the first year of the reign of Cyrus over and Solomon; but from the division of the , with Zerubbabel, a prince of the royal

1 CHRONICLES Page 5 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study race of David, and Joshua the high as power of his enemies, and found a kingdom, leaders; partly at a later period with the scribe which received the promise of eternal duration, Ezra, under Artaxerxes. On the other hand, it and which was to be established to all eternity relates the restoration of the altar of burnt- through Christ the Son of David and the Son of offering, and of the divine service; together God. The Chronicles supplement the history of with the re-erection of the temple, and the the covenant people, principally during the effort of Ezra to regulate the affairs of the period of the kings, by detailed accounts of the community according to the precepts of the form of the public worship of the congregation; Mosaic law, by doing away with the illegal from which we see how, in spite of the marriages with heathen women. And Nehemiah continual inclination of the people to idolatry, describes in his book what he had and to the worship of heathen gods, the service accomplished in the direction of giving a firm in the temple, according to the law, was the foundation to the civil welfare of the newly- spiritual centre about which the pious in Israel founded community in Judah: in the first place, crowded, to worship the Lord their God, and to by building the walls of so as to serve Him by sacrifice. We see, too, how this defend the city and holy place against the holy place formed throughout a lengthened attacks and surprises of the hostile peoples in period a mighty bulwark, which prevented the neighbourhood; and secondly, by various moral and religious decay from gaining the measures for the strengthening of the capital by upper hand, until at length, through the godless increasing the number of its inhabitants, and conduct of the kings Asa and Manasseh, the for the more exact modelling of the civil, moral, holy place itself was profaned by the idolatrous and religious life of the community on the abomination, and judgment broke in upon the precepts of the law of Moses, in order to lay incorrigible race in the destruction of Jerusalem enduring foundations for the prosperous and the temple, and the driving out of Judah development of the covenant people. In the from the presence of the Lord. But the books of book of Esther, finally, it is recounted how the Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther are the only Jewish inhabitants of the various parts of the historical writings we possess concerning the great Persian kingdom were delivered by the times of the restoration of the covenant people Jewess Esther (who had been raised to the after their emancipation from the captivity, and position of queen by a peculiar concatenation of their return into the promised land; and even in circumstances) from the destruction which the this respect they are very valuable component Grand Vizier Haman, in the reign of King parts of the Old Testament canon. The first two Ahashverosh (i.e., Xerxes), had determined show how God the Lord fulfilled His promise, upon, on account of the refusal of adoration by that He would again receive His people into the Jew Mordecai. favour, and collect them out of their dispersion Now, if we look somewhat more narrowly at among the heathen, if they should, in their the relation of these five historical books to the misery under the oppression of the heathen, prophetico-historic writings, more especially in come to a knowledge of their sins, and turn the first place in reference to their contents, we unto Him; and how, after the expiry of the see that the books of Ruth and the Chronicles seventy years of the Babylonian exile which had furnish us with not unimportant additions to been prophesied, He opened up to them, the and Kings. The book of through Cyrus the king of Persia, their return Ruth introduces us into the family life of the into the land of their fathers, and restored ancestors of King David, and shows the life- Jerusalem and the temple, that He might spring from which proceeded the man after preserve inviolate, and thereafter perfect, by God’s own heart, whom God called from being a the appearance of the promised David who was shepherd of sheep to be the shepherd of His to come, that gracious covenant which He had people, that He might deliver Israel out of the entered into with their fathers. But the

1 CHRONICLES Page 6 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study providence of God ruled also over the members appear which show themselves in the pursuit of of the covenant people who had remained paraenetico-didactic aims, which have acted as behind in heathen lands, to preserve them from a determining influence on the selection and the ruin which had been prepared for them by treatment of the historical facts, as the the heathen, in order that from among them introduction to the individual writings will also a remnant might be saved, and become show. partakers of the salvation promised in Christ. To show this by a great historical example is Name, Contents, Plan, and Aim of the Chronicles. the aim of the book of Esther, and the meaning The two books of the Chronicles originally of its reception into the canon of the Holy formed one work, as their plan at once makes Scriptures of the old covenant. manifest, and were received into the Hebrew If, finally, we consider the style of historical canon as such. Not only were they reckoned as writing found in these five books, we can one in the enumeration of the books of the Old scarcely characterize it in its relation to the Testament (cf. . c. Apion, i. 8; Origen, in prophetic books by a fitting word. The manner Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25; and Hieronym. Prolog. of writing history which is prevalent in the galeat.), but they were also regarded by the hagiography has been, it is true, called the Masorites as one single work, as we learn from national (volksthümlich) or annalistic, but by a remark of the Masora at the end of the this name the peculiarity of it has in no respect Chronicle, that the verse 1 Chronicles 27:25 is been correctly expressed. The narrative bears a the middle of the book. The division into two national impress only in the book of Esther, and books originated with the Alexandrian relatively also in the book of Ruth; but even translators (LXX), and has been transmitted by between these two writings a great difference the Latin translation of Hieronymus (Vulgata) exists. The narrative in Ruth ends with the not only to all the later translations of the Bible, genealogy of the ancestors of King David; but also, along with the division into chapters, whereas in the book of Esther all reference to into our versions of the . The first the theocratic relation, any, even the religious book closes, 1 Chronicles 29:29f., with the end contemplation of the events, is wholly wanting. of the reign of David, which formed a fitting But the books of the Chronicles, Ezra, and epoch for the division of the work into two Nehemiah, have no national impress; in them, books. The Hebrew name of this book in our on the contrary, the Levitico-priestly manner of Bible, by which it was known even by verba, or more ,דברי הימים viewing history prevails. Still less can the Hieronymus, is hagiographic histories be called annalistic. The correctly res gestae dierum, events of the days, books of Ruth and Esther follow definite aims, is to be supplied (cf. e.g., 1 סֶפֶ ר before which which clearly appear towards the end. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah contain, it is Kings 14:19, 29; 15:7, 23). true, in the genealogical, geographical, and Its full title therefore is, Book of the Events of historical registers, a mass of annalistic the Time (Zeitereignisse), corresponding to the material; but we find this also in the annalistic work so often quoted in our prophetico-historic works, and even in the canonical and Chronicles, the books of Moses. The only thing which is Book of the Events of the Time (Chronicle) of common to and characteristic of the whole of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Instead of this the the hagiographic historical books, is that the LXX have chosen the name Παραλειπόμενα, in prophetic contemplation of the course of order to mark more exactly the relation of our history according to the divine plan of salvation work to the earlier historical books of the Old which unfolds itself in the events, either falls Testament, as containing much historical into the background or is wanting altogether; information which is not to be found in them. while in its place individual points of view But the name is not used in the sense of

1 CHRONICLES Page 7 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study supplementa,—“fragments of other historical at the close we find the edict of Cyrus, which works,” as Movers, die Bibl. Chronicles S. 95, allowed the Jews to return into their country (1 interprets it,—but in the signification Chronicles 36:22, 23). Each of the two books, “praetermissa;” because, according to the therefore, falls into two, and the whole work explanation in the Synopsis script. sacr. in into four divisions. If we examine these Athanasii Opera, ii. p. 84, παραλειφθέντα πολλὰ divisions more minutely, six groups can be ἐν ταῖς βασιλειαῖς (i.e., in the books of Samuel without difficulty recognised in the and Kings) περιέχεται ἐν τούτοις, “many things genealogical part (1 Chronicles 1–9). These are: passed over in the Kings are contained in (1) The families of primeval and ancient times, these.” Likewise Isidorus, lib. vi. Origin. c. i. p. from Adam to the patriarchs , , 45: Paralipomenon graece dicitur, quod and his sons and Israel, together with the praetermissorum vel reliquorum nos dicere posterity of Edom (1 Chronicles 1); (2) the sons possumus, quia ea quae in lege vel in Regum of Israel and the families of Judah, with the sons libris vel omissa vel non plene relata sunt, in isto and posterity of David (2–4:23); (3) the families summatim et breviter explicantur. This of the tribe of , whose inheritance lay interpretation of the word παραλειπόμενα is within the tribal domain of Judah, and those of confirmed by Hieronymus, who, in his Epist. ad the trans-Jordanic tribes and , and Paulin. (Opp. ti. i. ed. Vallars, p. 279), says: the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 4:24– Paralipomenon liber, id est instrumenti veteris 5:26); (4) the families of , or of the epitome tantus et talis est, ut absque illo, si quis and , with an account of the dwelling- scientiam scripturarum sibi voluerit arrogare, places assigned to them (1 Chronicles 5:27– seipsum irrideat; per singula quippe nomina 6:66); (5) the families of the remaining tribes, juncturasque verborum et praetermissae in viz., , , , the half-tribe Regum libris tanguntur historiae et of Manasseh, Ephraim, and (only and innumerabiles explicantur Evangelii quaestones. being omitted), with the genealogy of He himself, however, suggested the name the (7, 8); and (6) a register of the Chronicon, in order more clearly to former inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Chronicles characterize both the contents of the work and 9:1–34), and a second enumeration of the at the same its relation to the historical books family of Saul, preparing us for the transition to from Gen. 1 to ; as he says in Prolog. the history of the kingdom of Israel (1 i.e., verba dierum, quod Chronicles 9:35–44). The history of David’s ,דברי הימים :.galeat significantius chronicon totius divinae historiae kingship which follows is introduced by an possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos account of the ruin of Saul and his house (1 Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur. Chronicles 10), and then the narrative falls into Through Hieronymus the name Chronicles two sections. (1) In the first we have David’s came into use, and became the prevailing title. election to be king over all Israel, and the taking of the fort in Jerusalem, which was Contents.—The Chronicles begin with built upon (1 Chronicles 11:1–9); genealogical registers of primeval times, and of then a list of David’s heroes, and the valiant the tribes of Israel (1 Chronicles 1–9); then men out of all the tribes who made him king (1 follow the history of the reign of King David (1 Chronicles 11:10–12:40); the removal of the Chronicles 10–29) and of King Solomon (2 ark to Jerusalem, the founding of his house, and Chronicles 1–9); the narrative of the revolt of the establishment of the Levitical worship the ten tribes from the kingdom of the house of before the ark in Zion (13–16); David’s design David (1 Chronicles 10); the history of the to build a temple to the Lord (17); then his kingdom of Judah from to the ruin of wars (18–20); the numbering of the people, the the kingdom, its inhabitants being led away into pestilence which followed, and the fixing of the exile to Babylon (1 Chronicles 11–36:21); and place for the future temple (21). (2) In the

1 CHRONICLES Page 8 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study second section are related David’s preparations to and connected with David’s family relations. for the building of the temple (22); the He makes no mention, for instance, of the scene numbering of the Levites, and the arrangement between David and Michal (2 Sam. 6:20–23); of their service (23–26); the arrangement of the the adultery with , with its military service (27); David’s surrender of the immediate and more distant results (2 Sam. kingdom to his son, and the close of his life (28 11:2–12); Amnon’s outrage upon Tamar, the and 29). The history of the reign of Solomon slaying of Amnon by and his flight to begins with his solemn sacrifice at , and the king of Geshur, his return to Jerusalem, his some remarks on his wealth (); rising against David, with its issues, and the then follows the building of the temple, with the tumult of Sheba (2 Sam. 13–20); and, finally, consecration of the completed holy place (1 also omits the thanksgiving psalm and the last Chronicles 2–7). To these are added short words of David (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7). Then (b) in aphoristic accounts of the cities which Solomon the history of Solomon there have been left built, the statute labour which he exacted, the unrecorded the attempt of Adonijah to usurp arrangement of the public worship, the voyage the throne, with the of Solomon at to Ophir, the visit of the queen of Sheba, and of Gihon, which it brought about; David’s last the might and glory of his kingdom, closing command in reference to and ; the with remarks on the length of his reign, and an punishment of these men and of Adonijah; account of his death (8–9). The history of the Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter (1 kingdom of Judah beings with the narrative of Kings 1:1–3:3); his wise judgment, the the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam (1 catalogue of his officials, the description of his Chronicles 10), and then in 1 Chronicles 11–36 royal magnificence and glory, and of his it flows on according to the succession of the wisdom (1 Kings 3:16–5:14); the building of the from Rehoboam to , the royal palace (1 Kings 7:1–12); and Solomon’s reigns of the individual kings forming the polygamy and idolatry, with their immediate sections of the narrative. results (1 Kings 11:1–40). Finally, (c) there is Plan and Aim.—From this general sketch of the no reference to the history of the kingdom of contents of our history, it will be already Israel founded by Jeroboam, or to the lives of apparent that the author had not in view a the prophets and Elisha, which are general history of the covenant people from the related in such detail in the books of Kings, time of David to the Babylonian exile, but while mention is made of the kings of the purposed only to give an outline of the history kingdom of the ten tribes only in so far as they of the kingship of David and his successors, came into hostile struggle or friendly union Solomon and the kings of the kingdom of Judah with the kingdom of Judah. But, in to its fall. If, whoever, in order to define more compensation for these omissions, the author clearly the plan and purpose of the historical of the Chronicle has brought together in his parts of our book in the first place, we compare work a considerable number of facts and events them with the representation given us of the which are omitted in the books of Samuel and history of Israel in those times in the books of the Kings. Samuel and Kings, we can see that the For example, in the history of David, he gives us chronicler has passed over much of the history. the list of the valiant men out of all the tribes (a) He has omitted, in the history of David, not who, partly before and partly after the death of only his seven years’ reign at over the Saul, went over to David to help him in his , and his conduct to the fallen King struggle with Saul and his house, and to bring Saul and to his house, especially towards the royal honour to him (1 Chronicles 12); the Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, who had been set up as detailed account of the participation of the rival king by Abner (2 Sam. 1–4 and 9), but in Levites in the transfer of the general has passed over all the events referring to Jerusalem, and of the arrangements made by

1 CHRONICLES Page 9 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

David for worship around this sanctuary (1 over the Ammonites (1 Chronicles 27:4–6); of Chronicles 15 and 16); and the whole section the increase of ’s riches (1 Chronicles concerning David’s preparations for the 32:27–30); of Manasseh’s capture and removal building of the temple, his arrangements for to Babylon, and his return out of captivity (1 public worship, the regulation of the army, and Chronicles 33:11–17). But the history of his last commands (1 Chronicles 22–29). Hezekiah and more especially is Further, the history of the kingdom of Judah rendered more complete by special accounts of from Rehoboam to Joram is narrated reforms in worship, and of celebrations of the throughout at greater length than in the books (29:3–31, 21, and 35:2–15); while we of Kings, and is considerably supplemented by have only summary notices of the godless detailed accounts, not only of the work of the conduct of (1 Chronicles 28) and prophets in Judah, of Shemaiah under Manasseh (1 Chronicles 33:3–10), of the Rehoboam (1 Chronicles 12:5–8), of campaign of against Jerusalem and and Hanani under Asa (1 Chronicles 15:1–8; Judah, of Hezekiah’s sickness and the reception 16:7–9), of son of Hanani, Jehaziel, and of the Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem (1 Ebenezer son of Dodava, under (1 Chronicles 32, cf. 2 Kings 28:13–20, 19); as also Chronicles 19:1–3; 20:14–20 and 37), and of the reigns of the last kings, , concerning Elijah’s letter under Joram (1 Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. From all this, it is Chronicles 21:12–15); but also of the efforts of clear that the author of the Chronicle, as Rehoboam (1 Chronicles 11:5–17), Asa (1 Bertheau expresses it, “has turned his attention Chronicles 14:5–7), and Jehoshaphat (1 to those times especially in which Israel’s Chronicles 17:2, 12–19) to fortify the kingdom religion had showed itself to be a power of Asa to raise and vivify the Jahve-worship (1 dominating the people and their leaders, and Chronicles 15:9–15), of Jehoshaphat to purify bringing them prosperity; and to those men the administration of justice and increase the who had endeavoured to give a more enduring knowledge of the law (1 Chronicles 17:7–9 and form to the arrangements for the service of 19:5–11), of the wars of against God, and to restore the true worship of Jahve; Jeroboam, and his victories (1 Chronicles 13:3– and to those events in the history of the worship 20), of Asa’s war against the Cushite Zerah (1 so intimately bound up with Jerusalem, which Chronicles 14:8–14), of Jehoshaphat’s conquest had important bearings.” of the Ammonites and Moabites (1 Chronicles This purpose appears much more clearly when 20:1–30), and, finally, also of the family we take into consideration the narratives which relations of Rehoboam (1 Chronicles 11:18–22), are common to the Chronicle and the books of the wives and children of Abijah (1 Chronicles Samuel and Kings, and observe the difference 13:21), and Joram’s brothers and his sickness which is perceptible in the mode of conception (1 Chronicles 21:2–4 and 18f.). Of the and representation in those parallel sections. succeeding kings also various undertakings are For our present purpose, however, those reported which are not found in the books of narratives in which the chronicler supplements Kings. In this way we are informed of ’s and completes the accounts given in the books defection from the Lord, and his fall into of Samuel and Kings by more exact and detailed idolatry after the death of the high priest information, or shortens them by the omission (1 Chronicles 24:15–22); how of unimportant details, come less into Amaziah increased his military power (1 consideration.1 For both additions and Chronicles 25:5–10), and worshipped idols (1 abridgments show only that the chronicler has Chronicles 25:14–16); of ’s victorious not drawn his information from the canonical wars against the and Arabs, and his books of Samuel and Kings, but from other fortress-building, etc. (1 Chronicles 26:6–15); more circumstantial original documents which of Jotham’s fortress-building, and his victory he had at his command, and has used these

1 CHRONICLES Page 10 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study sources independently. Much more important the God of their fathers, in His holy place in that for a knowledge of the plan of the Chronicle are way which He had established by the the variations in the parallel places between it ceremonial ordinances. The author of the and the other narrative; for in them the point of Chronicle attaches importance to the Levitic view from which the chronicler regarded, and worship only because the fidelity of Israel to has described, the events clearly appears. In the the covenant manifested itself in the careful number of such passages is to be reckoned the maintenance of it. narrative of the transfer of the ark (1 This point of view appears clearly in the Chronicles 13 and 15, cf. 2 Sam. 6), where the selection and treatment of the material drawn chronicler presents the fact in its religious by our historian from older histories and import as the beginning of the restoration of prophetic writings. His history begins with the the worship of Jahve according to the law, death of Saul and the anointing of David to be which had fallen into decay; while the author of king over the whole of Israel, and confines the books of Samuel describes it only in its itself, after the division of the kingdom, to the political import, in its bearing on the Davidic history of the kingdom of Judah. In the time of kingship. Of this character also is the narrative the judges especially, the Levitic worship had of the raising of Joash to the throne (2 fallen more and more into decay; and even Chronicles 23, cf. 2 Kings 11), where the share Samuel had done nothing for it, or perhaps of the Levites in the completion of the work could do nothing, and the ark remained during begun by the high priest Jehoiada is that whole period at a distance from the prominently brought forward, while in Kings it . Still less was done under Saul for is not expressly mentioned. The whole account the restoration of the worship in the also of the reign of Hezekiah, as well as other tabernacle; for “Saul died,” as we read in 1 passages, belong to this category. Now from Chronicles 10:13f., “for his transgression which these and other descriptions of the part the he had transgressed against the Lord; … and Levites played in events, and the share they because he inquired not of the Lord, therefore took in assisting the efforts of the pious kings to He slew him, and turned the kingdom unto revivify and maintain the temple worship, the David the son of .” After the death of Saul conclusion has been rightly drawn that the the elders of all Israel came to David with the chronicler describes with special interest the confession, “Jahve thy God said unto thee, Thou fostering of the Levitic worship according to the shalt feed my people Israel; and thou shalt be precepts of the law of Moses, and hold it up to ruler over my people Israel” (1 Chronicles his contemporaries for earnest imitation; yet 11:2). David’s first care, after he had as king this has been too often done in such a way as to over all Israel conquered the Jebusite hold on cause this one element in the plans of the Mount Zion, and made Jerusalem the capital of Chronicle to be looked upon as its main object, the kingdom, was to bring the ark from its which has led to a very onesided conception of obscurity into the , and to establish the character of the book. The chronicler does the sacrificial worship according to the law not desire to bring honour to the Levites and to near that sanctuary (1 Chronicles 13:15, 16). the temple worship: his object is rather to draw Shortly afterwards he formed the resolution of from the history of the kingship in Israel a proof building for the Lord a permanent house (a that faithful adherence to the covenant which temple), that He might dwell among His people, the Lord had made with Israel brings happiness for which he received from the Lord the and blessing; the forsaking of it, on the promise of the establishment of his kingdom for contrary, ensures ruin and a curse. But Israel ever, although the execution of his design was could show its faithfulness to the covenant only denied to him, and was committed to his son (1 by walking according to the ordinances of the Chronicles 17). Only after all this has been law given by Moses, and in worshipping Jahve, related do we find narratives of David’s wars

1 CHRONICLES Page 11 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study and his victories over all hostile peoples (1 the kingdom of Judah strong, and confirmed Chronicles 18–20), of the numbering of the Rehoboam’s power, for they walked in the ways people, and the pestilence, which, in of David and Solomon (1 Chronicles 11:17). consequence of the repentant resignation of But when the kingdom of Rehoboam had been David to the will of the Lord, gave occasion to firmly established, he forsook the law of Jahve, the determination of the place for the erection and all Israel with him (1 Chronicles 12:1). of the temple (1 Chronicles 21). The second Then the Egyptian king Shishak came up section of the history of the Davidic kingship against Jerusalem, “because they had contains the preparations for the building of the transgressed against the Lord” (1 Chronicles temple, and the laying down of more 12:2). The prophet Shemaiah proclaimed the permanent regulations for the ordering of the word of the Lord: “Ye have forsaken me, and worship; and that which David had prepared therefore have I also left you in the hand of for, and so earnestly impressed upon his son Shishak” (1 Chronicles 12:5). Yet when Solomon at the transfer of the crown, Solomon Rehoboam and the princes of Israel humbled carried out. Immediately after the throne had themselves, the anger of the Lord turned from been secured to him, he took in hand the him, that He would not destroy him altogether building of the temple; and the account of this (1 Chronicles 12:6, 12). King Abijah reproaches work fills the greater part of the history of his Jeroboam in his speech with his defection from reign, while the description of his kingly power Jahve, and concludes with the words, “O and splendour and wisdom, and of all the other children of Israel, fight not ye against the Lord undertakings which he carried out, is of the God of your fathers, for ye shall not prosper” (1 shortest. When ten tribes revolted from the Chronicles 13:12); and when the men of Judah house of David after his death, Rehoboam’s cried unto the Lord in the battle, and the priests design of bringing the rebellious people again blew the trumpets, then did God smite under his dominion by force of arms was Jeroboam and all Israel (1 Chronicles 13:15). checked by the prophet Shemaiah with the “Thus the children of Israel were brought under words, “Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, at that time, and the children of Judah nor fight against your brethren, for this thing is prevailed, because they relied upon the Lord done of me” (:4). But in their God of their fathers” (1 Chronicles 13:18). King revolt from the house of David, which Jeroboam Asa commanded his subjects to seek Jahve the sought to perpetuate by the establishment of an God of their fathers, and to do the law and the idolatrous national worship, Israel of the ten commandments (1 Chronicles 14:3). In the war tribes had departed from the covenant against the Cushites, he cried unto Jahve his communion with Jahve; and on this ground, and God, “Help us, for we rest on Thee;” and Jahve on this account, the history of that kingdom is smote the Cushites before Judah (1 Chronicles no further noticed by the chronicler. The 14:10). After this victory Asa and Judah priests and Levites came out of the whole sacrificed unto the Lord of their spoil, and Israelite dominion to Judah and Jerusalem, entered into a covenant to seek Jahve the God because Jeroboam and his sons expelled them of their fathers with all their heart, and with all from the priesthood. After them, from all the their soul. And the Lord was found of them, and tribes of Israel came those who gave their the Lord gave them rest round about (1 hearts to seek Jahve the God of Israel to Chronicles 15:11ff.). But when Asa afterwards, Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jahve the God of their in the war against Baasha of Israel, made an fathers (2 Chronicles 11:13–16), for “Jerusalem alliance with the Syrian king Benhadad, the is the city which Jahve has chosen out of all the prophet Hanani censured this act in the words, tribes of Israel to put His name there” (1 “Because thou hast relied on the king of , Chronicles 12:13). The priests, Levites, and and hast not relied on Jahve thy God, therefore pious people who went over from Israel made has the host of the king of Syria escaped out of

1 CHRONICLES Page 12 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study thy hand … Herein thou hast done foolishly,” against him in Jerusalem.” Of Uzziah it is said (1 etc. (1 Chronicles 16:7–9). Jehoshaphat became Chronicles 26:5), so long as he sought the Lord, mighty against Israel, and Jahve was with him; God made him to prosper, so that he conquered for he walked in the ways of his father David, his enemies and became very mighty. But when and sought not unto the Baals, but sought the he was strong his heart was lifted up, so that he God of his father, and walked in His transgressed against Jahve his God, by forcing commandments, and not after the doings of his way into the temple to offer incense; and for Israel. And Jahve established his kingdom in his this he was smitten with leprosy. Of Jotham it is hand, and he attained to riches and great said, in 27:6, “He became mighty, because he splendour (1 Chronicles 17:1–5). established his ways before Jahve his God.” After this fashion does the chronicler show how From these and similar passages, which might God blessed the reigns and prospered all the easily be multiplied, we clearly see that the undertakings of all the kings of Judah who chronicler had in view not only the Levitic sought the Lord and walked in His worship, but also and mainly the attitude of the commandments; but at the same time also, how people and their princes to the Lord and to His every defection from the Lord brought with it law; and that it is from this point of view that he misfortune and chastisement. Under Joram of has regarded and written the history of his Judah, Edom and Libnah freed themselves from people before the exile. But it is also not less the supremacy of Judah, “because Joram had clear, from the quotations we have made, in so forsaken Jahve the God of his fathers” (1 far as they contain practical remarks of the Chronicles 21:10). Because Joram had walked historian, that it was his purpose to hold up to in the ways of the kings of Israel, and had his contemporaries as a mirror the history of seduced the inhabitants of Jerusalem to the past, in which they might see the whoredom (i.e., idolatry), and had slain his consequences of their own conduct towards the brothers, God punished him in the invasion of God of their fathers. He does not wish, as the Judah by the Philistines and Arabs, who author of the books of Kings does, to narrate stormed Jerusalem, took away with them all the the events and facts objectively, according to furniture of the royal palace, and took captive the course of history; but he connects the facts his sons and wives, while He smote him besides and events with the conduct of the kings and with incurable disease (1 Chronicles 21:11ff., people towards the Lord, and strives to put the 16–18). Because of the visit which Ahaziah historical facts in such a light as to teach that made to Joram of Israel, when he lay sick of his God rewards fidelity to His covenant with wound at Jezreel, the judgment was (1 happiness and blessing, and avenges faithless Chronicles 22:7) pronounced: “The destruction defection from it with punitive judgments. of Ahaziah was of God by his coming to Joram.” Owing to this peculiarity, the historical When Amaziah, after his victory over the narrative acquires a hortative character, which Edomites, brought back the gods of Seir and set gives occasion for the employment of a highly them up for himself as gods, before whom he rhetorical style. The hortative-rhetorical worshipped, the anger of Jahve was kindled character impressed upon his narrative shows against him. In spite of the warning of the itself not only in many of the speeches of the prophets, he sought a quarrel with King Joash actors in the history which are interwoven with of Israel, who likewise advised him to abandon it, but also in many of the historical parts. For his design. “But Amaziah would not hear; for it example, the account given in 2 Chronicles was of God, that He might deliver them over, 21:16 of the punitive judgments which broke in because they had sought the gods of Edom” (1 upon Joram for his wickedness is rhetorically Chronicles 25:20). With this compare v. 27: arranged, so that the judgments correspond to “After the time that Amaziah turned away from the threatenings contained in the letter of the following Jahve, they made a conspiracy Elijah, vv. 12–15. But this may be much more

1 CHRONICLES Page 13 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study plainly seen in the description of the impious modern to allow of any inference being drawn conduct of King Ahaz, and of the punishments from it with reference to the Chronicle, but it which were inflicted upon him and the kingdom has itself originated, beyond a doubt, in an of Judah (1 Chronicles 28); as also in the imitation of our history. The reason for going descriptions of the crime of Manasseh (1 back to the beginnings of the human race is to Chronicles 33:3–13; cf. especially vv. 7 and 8), be sought in the importance for the history of and of the reign of Zedekiah, and the ruin of the the world of the people of Israel, whose kingdom of Judah (1 Chronicles 36:12–21). progenitor Abraham had been chosen and Now the greater part of the differences separated from all the peoples of the earth by between the chronicler’s account and the God, that his posterity might become a blessing parallel narrative in the books of Samuel and to all the families of the earth. But in order to Kings, together with the omission of see more perfectly the plan and object of the unimportant circumstances, and the careful historian in his selection and treatment of the manner in which the descriptions of the historical material at his command, we must arrangements for worship and the celebration still keep in view the age in which he lived, and of feasts are wrought out, can be accounted for for which he wrote. In respect to this, so much by this hortatory tendency so manifest in his in general is admitted, viz., that the Chronicle writings, and by his subjective, reflective was composed after the Babylonian exile. With manner of regarding history. For all these their release from exile, and their return into peculiarities clearly have it for their object to the land of their fathers, Israel did not receive raise in the souls of the readers pleasure and again its former political importance. That part delight in the splendid worship of the Lord, and of the nation which had returned remained to confirm their hearts in fidelity to the Lord under Persian supremacy, and was ruled by and to His law. Persian governors; and the descendants of the With this plan and object, the first part of our royal race of David remained subject to this history (1 Chronicles 1–9), which contains governor, or at least to the kings of Persia. They genealogies, with geographical sketches and were only allowed to restore the temple, and to isolated historical remarks, is in perfect arrange the divine service according to the harmony. The genealogies are intended to precepts of the Mosaic law; and in this they exhibit, on the one hand, the connection of the were favoured by Cyrus and his successors. In people of Israel with the whole human race; on such circumstances, the efforts and struggles of the other, the descent and genealogical the returned Jews must have been mainly ramifications of the tribes and families of Israel, directed to the reestablishment and permanent with the extent to which they had spread ordering of the worship, in order to maintain themselves abroad in the land received as a communion with the Lord their God, and by heritage from the Lord. In both of these that means to prove their fidelity to the God of respects they are the necessary foundation for their fathers, so that the Lord might fulfil His the following history of the chosen people, covenant promises to them, and complete the which the author designed to trace from the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. By this fact, time of the foundation of the promised kingdom therefore, may we account for the setting forth till the people were driven away into exile in our history of the religious and ecclesiastical because of their revolt from their God. And it is side of the life of the Israelitish community in not to be considered as a result of the custom such relief, and for the author’s supposed prevalent among the later Arabian historians, of “fondness” for the Levitic worship. If the author beginning their histories and chronicles ab ovo of the Chronicle wished to strengthen his with Adam, that our author goes back in this contemporaries in their fidelity to Jahve, and to introduction to Adam and the beginnings of the encourage them to fulfil their covenant duties human race; for not only is this custom far too by a description of the earlier history of the

1 CHRONICLES Page 14 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study covenant people, he could not hope to connected neither in form nor in subject-matter accomplish his purpose more effectively than with the grandsons of Zerubbabel, who have by so presenting the history as to bring been already enumerated, but forms a accurately before them the ordinances and genealogical fragment, the connection of which arrangements of the worship, the blessings of with Zerubbabel’s grandchildren is merely fidelity to the covenant, and the fatal fruits of asserted, but can neither be proved nor even defection from the Lord. rendered probable. (Vide the commentary on The chronicler’s supposed predilection for these verses.) Other grounds for the acceptance genealogical lists arose also from the of so late a date for the composition of the circumstances of his time. From Ezra 2:60ff. we Chronicle are entirely wanting; for the learn that some of the sons of priests who orthography and language of the book point returned with Zerubbabel sought their family only in general to the post-exilic age, and the registers, but could not find them, and were mention of the Daric, a Persian coin, in 1 consequently removed from the priesthood; Chronicles 29:7, does not bring us further down besides this, the inheritance of the land was than the period of the Persian rule over Judaea. 1) בִ ירָ ה bound up with the families of Israel. On this On the other hand, the use of the name account the family registers had, for those who Chronicles 29:1, 19) for the temple can scarcely had returned from the exile, an increased be reconciled with the composition of the book importance, as the means of again obtaining in the Macedonian or even the Seleucidian age, possession of the heritage of their fathers; and since an author who lived after Nehemiah, perhaps it was the value thus given to the when Jerusalem, like other Persian cities, had genealogical lists which induced the author of received in the fortress built by him (Neh. 2:8; the Chronicle to include in his book all the old 7:2), and afterwards called βᾶρις and Arx would scarcely have ,בִ ירָ ה registers of this sort which had been received Antonia, its own from antiquity. given this name to the temple. Age and Author of the Chronicles. In reference to the question of the authorship of our book, the matter which most demands The Chronicle cannot have been composed consideration is the identity of the end of the before the time of Ezra, for it closes with the Chronicle with the beginning of the book of intelligence that Cyrus, by an edict in the first Ezra. The Chronicle closes with the edict of year of his reign, allowed the Jews to return to Cyrus which summons the Jews to return to their country (:22f.), and it Jerusalem to build the temple; the book of Ezra brings down the genealogical tree of begins with this same edict, but gives it more Zerubbabel to his grandchildren (1 Chronicles completely than the Chronicle, which stops 3:19–21). The opinion brought into acceptance and let“ ,וְּיָעַ ל by de Wette and Ewald, that the genealogy (1 somewhat abruptly with the word everything is ויעל Chronicles 3:19–24) enumerates six or seven him go up,” although in this other generations after Zerubbabel, and so contained that we find in the remaining part of reaches down to the times of Alexander the the edict communicated in the book of Ezra. Great or yet later, is founded on the From this relation of the Chronicle to the book undemonstrable assumption that the twenty- of Ezra, many Rabbins, Fathers of the church, one names which in this passage (v. 21b) follow and older exegetes, have drawn the conclusion are the names of direct descendants of that Ezra is also the author of the Chronicle. But בני רפיה Zerubbabel. But no exegetical justification can of course it is not a very strong proof, since it be found for this assumption; since the list of can be accounted for on the supposition that names, “the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of the author of the book of Ezra has taken over Arnan, the sons of ,” etc. (vv. 21b24), is the conclusion of the Chronicle into his work,

1 CHRONICLES Page 15 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study and set it at the commencement so as to attach in their entirety, only because he intended to his book to the Chronicle as a continuation. In treat further of the edict, and the fulfilment of it support of this supposition, moreover, the by the return of the Jews from Babylon, in a further fact may be adduced, that it was just as second work. A later editor would certainly important for the Chronicle to communicate the have given the entire edict in both writings (the terms of Cyrus’ edict as it was for the book of Chronicle and the book of Ezra), and would, Chron.) into) בְּפִ י Ezra. It was a fitting conclusion of the former, to moreover, hardly have altered show that the destruction of Jerusalem and the . יְּהִיאֱ ֹלהָ יועִ ֹּמו into יְּהוָה אֱ ֹלהָ יועִ ֹּמו Ezra), and) מִפִ י leading away of the inhabitants of Judah to Babylon, was not the final destiny of Judah and The remaining grounds which are usually urged Jerusalem, but that, after the dark night of exile, for the original unity of the two writings, prove the day of the restoration of the people of God nothing more than the possibility or probability had dawned under Cyrus; and for the latter it that both originated with one author; certainly was an indispensable foundation and point of they do not prove that they originally formed departure for the history of the new one work. The long list of phenomena in immigration of the exiles into Jerusalem and Bertheau’s Commentary, pp. xvi.-xx., by which a Judah. Yet it still remains more probable that certainty is supposed to be arrived at that the one author produced both writings, yet not as a Chronicle and Ezra originally was one great single book, which has been divided at some historical work, compiled from various sources, later time by another hand. For no reason can greatly requires the help of critical bias. 1. “The be perceived for any such later division, predilection of the author for genealogical lists, especially such a division as would make it for detailed descriptions of great feasts, which necessary to repeat the edict of Cyrus.2 The occurred at the most various times, for exact introduction of this edict with the words, “And representations of the arrangement of the it came to pass in the first year of Cyrus, king of public worship, and the business of the Levites Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of and priests, which their classifications and might be accomplished,” connects it so ranks,” cannot be proved to exist in the book of closely with the end of the account of the Ezra. That book contains only one very much destruction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away abridged genealogy, that of Ezra (:1–5); into Babylon, contained in the words, “And they only two lists,—those, namely, of the families were servants to him and his sons until the who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel reign of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfil the word and Ezra (Ezra 2 and 8); only one account of the of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, … celebration of a feast, the by no means detailed to fulfil the seventy years” (v. 20f.), that it description of the consecration of the temple cannot be separated from what precedes. (Ezra 6:16); short remarks on the building of Rather it is clear, that the author who wrote the altar, the celebration of the feast of verses 20 and 21, representing the seventy , and the laying of the foundation- years’ exile as the fulfilment of the prophecy of stone of the temple, in ; and it contains Jeremiah, must be the same who mentions the nothing whatever as to the divisions and ranks edict of Cyrus, and sets it forth in its connection of the priests and Levites. That in these lists and with the utterances of the same prophet. This descriptions some expressions should recur, is connecting of the edict with the prophecy gives to be expected from the nature of the case. Yet us an irrefragable proof that the verses which all that is common to both books is the word ,in the signification כַֹּמִשְּ פָ ט the use of ,הִתְּ יַחֵ ׂש contain the edict form an integral part of the Chronicle. But, at the same time, the way in “according to the Mosaic law” (1 Chronicles which the edict is broken off in the Chronicle 23:31, :13, Ezra 3:4, and Neh. ,הודּו לַ יהוָ ה makes it likely that the author of the 8:18), and the liturgical formulae ,וְּיָעַ ל with Chronicle did not give the contents of the edict

1 CHRONICLES Page 16 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study which occurs also in Isa. 12:4 and Ps. 33:2, and single book? Is this view an idea peculiar to the with the addition, “Jahve is God, author of this book? In all the historical books לְּ הודות ּולְּהַ לֵ ל and His mercy endureth for ever” (1 Chronicles of the Old Testament, from Exodus and 16:34, 41; :6; Ezra 3:11). The Leviticus to Nehemiah, we find the idea that the other expressions enumerated by Bertheau are laying of the sacrifice upon the altar is the business of the priest; but does it follow from in נִקְּ בּו בְּשֵ מות :met with also in other writings that, that all those books were written by one Ex. man? But besides this, the representation given ,רָ אשֵי אָ בות and רָ אשֵ י בֵ ית־אָ בות ;Num. 1:17 by Bertheau is very one-sided. The fact is, that בְּ תורַ ת ) כַכָ תּוב בַ ֹּתורָ ה 6:14ff.; and the formula in the Chronicle, and in the books of Ezra and Chronicles 16:40; 2 1) לְּכָ ל־הַכָ תּוב or (יהוה Nehemiah, mention is made of the priests just Chronicles 35:12, 26; Ezra 3:2, 4) is just as as often as of the Levitical musicians, and common in other writings: cf. Josh. 1:8; 8:31, oftener than the doorkeepers are spoken of, as 34; :3; :6; 22:13; 23:21. will be seen from the proofs brought forward in Bertheau further remarks: “In those sections in the following remarks; nor can any trace be which the regulation of the public worship, the discovered of a “fondness” on the part of the duties, classification, and offices of the priests chronicler for the musicians and porters. They and Levites are spoken of, the author seizes are mentioned only when the subject every opportunity to tell of the musicians and demanded that they should be mentioned. doorkeepers, their duties at the celebration of 2. As to the language.—Bertheau himself the great festivals, and their classification. He admits, after the enumeration of a long list of speaks of the musicians, 1 Chronicles 6:16ff., linguistic peculiarities of the Chronicle and the 9:14–16, 33; 15:16–22, 27f., 16:4–42; 23:5, 25; books of Ezra and Nehemiah, that all these :12f., 7:6; 8:14f., 20:19, 21; 23:13, phenomena are to be met with separately in 18; 29:25–28, 30; 30:21f., 31:2, 11–18; 34:12; other books of the Old Testament, especially 35:15; Ezra 3:10f.; Neh. 11:17; 12:8, 24, 27–29, the later ones; only their frequent use can be 45–47; 13:5. The doorkeepers are mentioned set down as the linguistic peculiarity of one nearly as often, and not seldom in company author. But does the mere numbering of the with the singers: 1 Chronicles 9:17–29; 15:18, places where a word or a grammatical 23, 24; 16:38; 23:5; 26:1, 12–19; 2 Chronicles construction occurs in this or that book really 8:14; 23:4, 19; 31:14; 34:13; 35:15; Ezra 2:42, serve as a valid proof for the unity of the 70; 7:7; 10:24; Neh. 7:1, 45; 10:29; 11:19; 2 ,בִ זָ ה Now if these passages be authorship? When, for example, the form .13:5 ;47 ,45 ,12:25 compared, not only are the same expressions Chronicles 14:13; 28:14, Ezra 9:7, Neh. 3:36, only in Chron., Ezra, and occurs elsewhere only in Esther and Daniel, or מְּצִלְֹּּתַ יִם ,.met with (e.g in 1 Chronicles 12:18; 21:11, 2 Chronicles קִבֵ ל likewise only in these הַֹּמְּ שֹׁרְּרִ ים and הַֹּמְּ שֹׁרֵ ר ;.Neh 29:16, 22, and Ezra 8:30, is elsewhere found books, but here very frequently, some twenty- only in Proverbs once, in Job once, and thrice in eight times), and also very often in different Esther, does it follow that the Chronicle and the places the same names (cf. 1 Chronicles 9:17 book of Ezra are the work of one author? The with Neh. 12:25); but everywhere also we can greater number of the linguistic phenomena easily trace the same view as to the importance enumerated by Bertheau, such as the use of of the musicians and doorkeepers for the public partly ,לְּ the frequent use of ;יהוה for הָאֱ ֹלהִ ים worship, and see that all information respecting them rests upon a very well-defined view of before the infinitive to express shall or must, their duties and their position.” But does it partly for subordinating or introducing a word; עַ ד follow from this “well-defined view” of the the multiplication of prepositions,—e.g., in Chronicles 2 ,עַ דלִמְּ אֹׁד ;Chronicles 36:16 2 ,לְּאֵ ין ,business of the musicians and doorkeepers that the Chronicle, Ezra, and Nehemiah form a

1 CHRONICLES Page 17 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Chronicles 16:12; 17:12; whole lines. Moreover, in the parallel places the 2 ,עַ דלְּמַעְּלָ ה ;16:14 36:8,—are characteristics not arising from a names often differ greatly, so that all the peculiar use of language by our chronicler, but variations cannot be ascribed to errors of belonging to the later or post-exilic Hebrew in transcription. Compare the comparative table general. The only words and phrases which are of these parallel places in my apolog. Versuch characteristic of and common to the Chronicle über die Chronicles S. 159ff., and in the Handbook of Introduction, § 139, 1. All these bowl), 1) כְּ פור :and the book of Ezra are catalogues, together with that of the cities of Chronicles 28:17, :10; 8:27; the infinitive the Levites (1 Chronicles 6:39–66), have been used of the foundation of the derived from other, extra-biblical sources. But ,הּוסַ ד Hophal of the as Bertheau, S. xxxi., rightly remarks: “We ,פְּלֻגָ ה ;temple, :3, Ezra 3:11 divisions of the Levites, 2 Chronicles 35:5 and cannot hold the lists to be the result of historical investigation on the part of the ,of offerings, 1 Chronicles 29:5 ,הִתְּ נַדֵ ב ;Ezra 6:18 author of the Chronicle, in the sense of his with having culled the individual names carefully) דעַ לְּמֵרָ חוק ;Ezra 1:6; 2:68; 3:5 ,17 ,14 ,9 ,6 three prepositions), :15, Ezra either out of historical works or from traditions Chronicles 12:14; of the families, and then brought them into 2 ,הֵכִ יןלְּבָ בו לִדְּ רֹׁש and ;3:13 19:3; 30:19, and Ezra 7:10. These few words order: for in reference to Gad (1 Chronicles and constructions would per se not prove 5:12) we are referred to a genealogical register much; but in connection with the fact that prepared in the time of Jotham king of Judah neither in the language nor in the ideas are any and Jeroboam king of Israel; while as to considerable differences or variations to be Issachar (1 Chronicles 7:2) the reference is to observed, they may serve to strengthen the the numbering of the people which took place probability, arising from the relation of the end in the time of David; and it is incidentally (?) of the Chronicle to the beginning of the book of stated (1 Chronicles 9:1) that registers had Ezra, that both writings were composed by the been prepared of all (i.e., the northern priest and scribe Ezra.3 tribes).” Besides this, in 1 Chronicles 23:3, 27, and 26:31, numberings of the Levites, and in 1 The genealogical list in 1 Chronicles 1, which Chronicles 27:24 the numbering of the people gives us the origin of the human race and of the undertaken by Joab at David’s command, are nations, and that which contains the names of mentioned. With regard to the latter, however, the sons of (1 Chronicles 2:1 and 2), are it is expressly stated that its results were not to be found in and have been without doubt incorporated in the , i.e., in the book of דִבְּרֵ י הַ יָמִ ים extracted from Genesis, to be placed together here. For it is scarcely probable that the chronicles of King David, while it is said that genealogical lists belonging to primeval time the results of the genealogical registration of and the early days of Israel should have been the northern tribes of Israel were written in the preserved till the post-exilic period. But all the book of the kings of Israel. According to this, genealogical registers which follow, together then, it might be thought that the author had with the geographical and historical remarks taken his genealogical lists from the great interwoven with them (1 Chronicles 2:3–8:40), historical work made use of by him, and often have not been derived from the older historical cited, in the history of the kings of Judah—“the books of the Old Testament: for they contain for national annals of Israel and Judah.” But this the most part merely the names of the can be accepted only with regard to the short originators of those genealogical lines, of the lists of the tribes of the northern kingdom in 1 grandsons and some of the great-grandsons of Chronicles 5 and 7, which contain nothing Jacob, and of the ancestors, brothers, and sons further than the names of families and fathers’- of David; but nowhere do they contain the houses, with a statement of the number of males in these fathers’-houses. It is possible

1 CHRONICLES Page 18 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study that these names and numbers were contained prophet , in the book of the kings of Judah in the national annals; but it is not likely that and Israel (:32); (13) as to these registers, which are of a purely Manasseh, Dibre of the kings of Israel, and genealogical nature, giving the descent of Dibre of Hozai (:18 and 19); families or famous men in longer or shorter (14) for the reign of Josiah, the book of the lines of ancestors, were received into the kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 35:27); national annals (Reichsannalen), and it does not and (15) for Jehoiakim, the book of the kings of at all appear from the references to the annals Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 36:8). that this was the case. These genealogical lists From this summary, it appears that two classes were most probably in the possession of the of writings, of historical and prophetic contents heads of the tribes and families and households, respectively, are quoted. The book of the kings from whom the author of the Chronicle would of Judah and Israel (No. 5, 8, 11), the book of appear to have collected all he could find, and the kings of Israel and Judah (10, 14, 15), the of the kings of Israel (13), and (דִבְּרֵ י) preserved them from destruction by histories incorporating them in his work. the -book of kings (7), are all historical. In the historical part (1 Chronicles 10–2 The first three titles are, as is now generally Chronicles 36), at the death of almost every admitted, only variations in the designation of king, the author refers to writings in which the one and the same work, whose complete title, events and acts of his reign are described. Only “Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel” (or in the case of Joram, Ahaziah, , and the Israel and Judah), is here and there altered into later kings Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, “Book of the Events (or History) of the Kings of are such references omitted. The books which Israel,” i.e., of the whole Israelitish people. This are thus named are: (1) For David’s reign, Dibre work contained the history of the kings of both of Samuel the seer, of the prophet , and kingdoms, and must have been essentially the of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29); (2) as to same as to contents with the two annalistic Solomon, the Dibre of the prophet Nathan, the writings cited in the canonical books of Kings: ,of Abijah the Shilonite, and the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (נְּבּואַ ת) prophecy of the seer Iddo against and the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of (חֲ ֹזות) the visions Jeroboam the son of Nebat (:29); Judah. This conclusion is forced upon us by the (3) for Rehoboam, Dibre of the prophet fact that the extracts from them contained in Shemaiah and the seer Iddo (2 Chronicles our canonical books of Kings, coincide with the 13:22); (5) for Asa, the book of the kings of extracts from the books of the kings of Israel Judah and Israel (:11); (6) as to and Judah contained in our Chronicle where Jehoshaphat, Dibre of Jehu the son of Hanani, they narrate the same events, either verbally, or which had been incorporated with the book of at least in so far that the identity of the sources the kings of Israel (:34); (7) for from which they have been derived cannot but the reign of Joash, Midrash-Sepher of the kings be recognised. The only difference is, that the (:27); (8) for the reign of author of the Chronicle had the two writings Amaziah, the book of the kings of Judah and which the author of the book of Kings quotes as Israel (:26); (9) in reference to two separate works, before him as one work, narrating the history of both kingdoms in a of the prophet Isaiah (2 (כָתַ ב) Uzziah, a writing single composition. For he cites the book of the Chronicles 26:22); (10) as to Jotham, the book Kings of Israel even for the history of those of the kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles kings of Judah who, like Jotham and Hezekiah, 27:7); (11) for the reign of Ahaz, the book of the had nothing to do with the kingdom of Israel kings of Judah and Israel (:26); (i.e., the ten tribes), and even after the kingdom ,of the of the ten tribes had been already destroyed (חֲ ֹזון) for Hezekiah, the vision (12)

1 CHRONICLES Page 19 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study for the reigns of Manasseh, Josiah, and defection by the prophet Zechariah, and the Jehoiakim. But we are entirely without any defeat of the numerous army of the Jews by a means of answering with certainty the small Syrian host (1 Chronicles 24:15–25); question, in how far the merging of the annals from which, in Bertheau’s opinion, we may of the two kingdoms into one book of the kings come, without much hesitation, to the of Israel was accompanied by remoulding and conclusion that the connection of these events revision. The reasons which Bertheau, in his had been already very clearly brought forward commentary on Chronicles, p. 41ff., brings in a Midrash of that book of Israel and Judah forward, after the example of Thenius and which is quoted elsewhere. This is certainly Ewald, for thinking that it underwent so possible, but it cannot be shown to be more thorough a revision as to become a different than a possibility; for the further remark of book, are without force. The difference in the Bertheau, that in the references which occur title is not sufficient, since it is quite plain, from elsewhere it is not so exactly stated as in 2 the different names under which the chronicler Chronicles 24:27 what the contents of the book quotes the work which is used by him, that he referred to are, is shown to be erroneous by the did not give much attention to literal accuracy. citation in 1 Chronicles 33:18 and 19. It cannot, מִדְּרַ ש סֵפֶ ר The character of the parallel places in our moreover, be denied that the title books of Kings and the Chronicle, as Bertheau ,is surprising, even if סֵפֶ ר instead of the simple himself admits, forms no decisive criterion for in the sense of מִדְּרָ ש an accurate determination of the relation of the with Ewald, we take chronicler to his original documents, which is “composition” or “writing,” and translate it now in question, since neither the author of the “writing-book” (Schriftbuch), which gives books of Samuel and Kings nor the author of ground for supposing that an expository the Chronicle intended to copy with verbal writing is here meant. Even taking the title in exactness: they all, on the contrary, treated the this sense, it does not follow with any certainty historical material which they had before them that the Midrash extended over the whole with a certain freedom, and wrought it up in history of the kings, and still less is it proved their own writings in accordance with their that this expository writing may have been various aims. used by the chronicler here and there in places It is questionable if the work quoted for the where it is not quoted. ,No. 7), is So much, however, is certain, that we must not) שמִדְּרַ רסֵפֶ הַֹּמְּ לָכִ ים ,reign of Joash identical with the book of the kings of Israel with Jahn, Movers, Staehelin, and others, hold and Judah, or whether it be not a commentary these annals of the kings of Israel and Judah, on it, or perhaps a revision of that book, or of a which are quoted in the canonical books of section of the history of the kings for purposes Kings and the Chronicle, to be the official of edification. The narrative in the Chronicle of records of the acts and undertakings of the They are rather 4.מַ ֹזְּכִ ירִ ים the chief events in the reign of Joash, his kings prepared by the accession, with the fall of Athaliah, and the annalistic national histories composed by repairing of the temple ( and prophets, partly from the archives of the 24), agrees with the account of these events in kingdom and other public documents, partly 2 Kings 11 and 12 where the annals of the kings from prophetic monographs containing of Judah are quoted, to such an extent, that both prophecy and history, either composed and the authors seem to have derived their continued by various prophets in succession accounts from the same source, each making during the existence of both kingdoms, or extracts according to his peculiar point of view. brought together in a connected form shortly But the Chronicle recounts, besides this, the fall before the ruin of the kingdom out of the then of Joash into idolatry, the censure of this existing contemporary historical documents

1 CHRONICLES Page 20 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

of Isaiah חָ ֹזון and prophetic records. Two circumstances are writings, the Dibre of Jehu and the strongly in favour of the latter supposition. On (6 and 12), that they were incorporated or the one hand, the references to these annals in received into the books of the Kings, does not both kingdoms do not extend to the last kings, justify the conclusion “that, since two of the but end in the kingdom of Israel with (2 above-named writings are expressly said to be Kings 15:31), in the kingdom of Judah with parts of the larger historical work, probably by Jehoiakim (:5 and 2 Chronicles 36:8). the others also only parts of this work are On the other hand, the formula “until this day” meant” (Ew., Berth. S. 34). For in the citations, occurs in reference to various events; and since those writings are not called parts of the book it for the most part refers not to the time of the of Kings, but are only said to have been exile, but to times when the kingdom still received into it as component parts; and from existed (cf. 1 Kings 8:8 with 2 Chronicles 5:9; 1 that it by no means follows that the others, Kings 9:13, 21, with :8; 1 Kings whose reception is not mentioned, were parts 12:19 with :19; :22 of that work. The admission of one writing into with :10, :22; 10:27; another book can only then be spoken of when 14:7, and 16:6), it cannot be from the hand of the book is different from the writing which is the authors of our canonical books of Kings and received into it. 2. Since some of the writings Chronicles, but must have come down to us of a prophet, from the דִבְּרֵ י are denominated from the original documents, and is in them verba and ,דְּבָרִ ים possible only if they were written at some double meaning of the word shorter or longer period after the events. When res, this title might be taken in the sense of Bähr, in the place already quoted, says, on the “events of the prophets,” to denote historical contrary, that the time shortly before the fall of writings. But it is much more natural to think, the kingdom, the time of complete uprooting, after the analogy of the superscriptions in Amos would appear to be the time least of all suited 1:1, Jer. 1:1, of books of prophecies like the for the collection and editing of national year- books of Amos and Jeremiah, which contained books, this arises from his not having fully prophecies and prophetic speeches along with weighed the fact, that at that very time historical information, just as the sections Amos prophets like Jeremiah lived and worked, and, 7:10–17, Jer. 40–45 do, and which differed from as is clear from the prophecies of Jeremiah, our canonical books of prophecies, in which the gave much time to the accurate study of the historical relations are mentioned only in older holy writings. exceptional cases, only by containing more The book composed by the prophet Isaiah detailed and minute accounts of the historical concerning the reign of King Uzziah (9) was a events which gave occasion to the prophetic historical work; as was also probably the utterances. On account of this fulness of Midrash of the prophet Iddo (4). But, on the historical detail, such prophetic writings, other hand, we cannot believe, as do Ewald, without being properly histories, would yet be Bertheau, Bähr, and others, that the other for many periods of the history of the kings prophetical writings enumerated under 1, 2, 3, very abundant sources of history. The above- 6, 12, and 13, were merely parts of the books of mentioned difference between our canonical the kings of Israel and Judah; for the grounds books of prophecy and the books now under which are brought forward in support of this discussion is very closely connected with the view do not appear to us to be tenable, or historical development of a theocracy, which rather, tend to show that those writings were showed itself in general in this, that the action independent books of prophecy, to which some of the older prophets was specially directed to historical information was appended. 1. The the present, and to vivâ voce speaking, while circumstance that it is said of two of those that of those of a later time was more turned towards the future, and the consummation of

1 CHRONICLES Page 21 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study the kingdom of God by the (cf. Küper, contained all that was important, and that the das Prophetenthum des A. Bundes, 1870, S. history of the kingdom contained also is, in information as to the work of the prophets in דִבְּרֵ י 93ff.). This signification of the word the present case, placed beyond all doubt by the the kingdom, while the prophetic writings fact that the writings of other prophets which contained likewise information as to the are mentioned along with these are called undertakings of the kings. The latter might contain more detailed accounts in reference to words which never—,חָ ֹזון and ,חָ ֹזות ,נְּבּואָ ה some kings, the former in reference to others; denote historical writings, but always only and this very circumstance, or some other prophecies and visions of the prophets. In reason which cannot now be ascertained by us, of Isaiah (12) is may have caused the writer of the Chronicle to חָ ֹזון accordance with this, the clearly distinguished from the writings of the refer to the former in reference to one king, and .to the latter in reference to another כָתַ ב same prophet concerning Uzziah, for which is used; while in the reign of Manasseh, the Finally, 4. Bähr remarks, S. viii.f.: “Quite a speeches of Hozai are named along with the number of sections of our books (of Kings) are events, i.e., the history of the kings of Israel (2 found in the Chronicle, where the words are Chronicles 33:18, 19), and a more exact account identical, and yet the reference there is to the of what was related about Manasseh in each of writings of single definite persons, and not to these two books is given. From this we learn the three original documents from which the that the historical book of Kings contained the Kings is compiled. Thus, in the first place, in the words which prophets had spoken against history of Solomon, in which the sections 2 Manasseh; while in the writing of the prophet Chronicles 6:1–40 and 1 Kings 8:12–50, 2 Hozai, of whom we know nothing further, Chronicles 7:7–22 and 1 Kings 8:64–9:9, 2 information as to the places where his idolatry Chronicles 8:2–10:17 and 1 Kings 9:17–23:26, 2 was practised, and the images which were the Chronicles 9:1–28 and 1 Kings 10:1–28, etc., are objects of it, was to be found. After all these identical, the Chronicle refers not to the book of facts, which speak decidedly against the the history of Solomon (as 1 Kings 11:41), but of the prophet Nathan, etc. (2 דִבְּרֵ י identification of the prophetic writings cited in to the the book of Kings with that book itself, the Chronicles 9:29); consequently the book of the after the formula of history of Solomon must either have been ,לְּהִתְּ יַחֵ ׂש enigmatic quotation, “They are written in the words compiled from those three prophetic writings, (speeches) of the prophet Shemaiah and of the or at least have contained considerable seer Iddo” (:15), can naturally portions of them. The case is identical with the not be looked upon as a proof that here second of the original documents, the book of prophetic writings are denominated parts of a the history of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29 larger historical work. 3. Nor can we consider it, and elsewhere). The narrative as to Rehoboam with Bertheau, decisive, “that for the whole is identical in 2 Chronicles 10:1–19 and 1 Kings as also in 2 Chronicles 1:1–4 and 1 ,19–12:1 דִבְּרֵי דָ וִ יד הַֹּמֶ לֶ ְך הָרִ אשֹׁנִים ) history of David Kings 12:20–24; further, in 2 Chronicles 12:13f. ), Solomon, Rehoboam, and as compared with 1 Kings 14:21f.; but the וְּהָאַחֲ רֹׁנִים Jehoshaphat, prophetic writings are referred to; history of the kings of Judah is not mentioned while for the whole history of Asa, Amaziah, as an authority, as is the case in 1 Kings 14:29, of the prophet Shemaiah and the דִבְּרֵ י Jotham, Ahaz, and Josiah, the references are to but the the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.” From seer Iddo (2 Chronicles 12:15). In the history of this fact no further conclusion can be drawn than that, in reference to the reigns of some King Abijah we are referred, in the very short account, 1 Kings 15:1–8, for further information kings the prophetic writings, and in reference to the book of the history of the kings of Judah; to those of others the history of the kingdom,

1 CHRONICLES Page 22 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study while the Chronicle, on the contrary, which the titles of the works quoted; while on the contrary supposition, that the special prophetic מִדְּרָ ש gives further information, quotes from the of the prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22). The writings quoted were parts of the larger history case is similar in the history of the kings Uzziah of the kings of Israel and Judah, it remains and Manasseh: our author refers in reference to inexplicable. But the references of the both to the book of the kings of Judah (2 Kings chronicler are not to be understood as if all he 15:6; 20:17); the chronicler quotes, for the first relates, for example, of the reign of David was contained in the words of the seer Samuel, of of the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz כָתַ ב the the prophet Nathan, and of the seer Gad, the writings he quotes for that reign. He may, as 2) ידִבְּרֵ חוֹזַי Chronicles 26:22), for the latter 2) Chronicles 33:19). By all these quotations it is Berth. S. xxxviii. has already remarked, “have satisfactorily shown that the book of the kings made use also of authorities which he did not of Judah is compiled from the historical feel called upon to name,”—as, for example, the writings of various prophets or seers.” But this lists of David’s heroes, 1 Chronicles 11:10–47, conclusion is neither valid nor necessary. It is and of those who gave in their adherence to not valid, for this reason, that the Chronicle, David before the death of Saul, and who besides the narratives concerning the reigns of anointed him king in Hebron, 1 Chronicles 12. Rehoboam, Abijah, Uzziah, and Manasseh, Such also are the catalogues of the leaders of which it has in common with the books of the host, of the princes of the tribes, and the Kings, and which are in some cases identical, stewards of the royal domains, 1 Chronicles 27; contains a whole series of narratives peculiar to of the fathers’-houses of the Levites, and the itself, which perhaps were not contained at all divisions of the priests, Levites, and singers, in the larger historical work on the kings of etc., 1 Chronicles 23–26. These lists contain Judah, or at least were not there so complete as records to whose sources he did not need to in the special prophetic writings cited by the refer, even if he had extracted them from the chronicler. As to Solomon also, the Chronicle public annals of the kingdom during the reign has something peculiar to itself which is not of David, because he has embodied them in found in the book of Kings. Nor is the their integrity in his book. conclusion necessary; for from a number of But our canonical books of Samuel and Kings identical passages in our canonical books of are by no means to be reckoned among the Kings and Chronicles, the only certain sources possibly used besides the writings conclusion which can be drawn is, that these which are quoted. It cannot well be denied that narratives were contained in the authorities the author of the Chronicle knew these books; quoted by both writers, but not that the but that he has used them as authorities, as de variously named authorities form one and the Wette, Movers, Ewald, and others think, we same work. must, with Bertheau and Dillmann, deny. The By all this we are justified in maintaining the single plausible ground which is usually view, that the writings quoted by the author of brought forward to prove the use of these the Chronicle under the titles, Words, Prophecy, writings, is the circumstance that the Chronicle Visions of this and that prophet, with the contains many narratives corresponding to exception of the two whose incorporation with those found in the books of Samuel and Kings, the book of Kings is specially mentioned, lay and often verbally identical with them. But that before him as writings separate and distinct is fully accounted for by the fact that the from the “Books of the Kings of Israel and chronicler used the same more detailed Judah,” that these writings were also in the writings as the authors of the books of Samuel hands of many of his contemporaries, and that and Kings, and has extracted the narratives in he could refer his readers to them. On this question, partly with verbal accuracy, partly supposition, we can comprehend the change in with some small alterations, from them. Against

1 CHRONICLES Page 23 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study the supposition that the above-named communication of narratives not elsewhere to canonical books were used by the chronicler, be found in the Old Testament, has followed his we may adduce the facts that the chronicle, authorities very closely, and that not only the even in those corresponding passages, differs in many registers which we find in his work—the many ways as to names and events from the lists in 1 Chronicles 12, 23–26, 27; the account in those books, and that it contains, on catalogue of cities fortified by Rehoboam, 2 an average, more than they do, as will be Chronicles 11:6–12; the family intelligence, 1 readily seen on an exact comparison of the Chronicles 11:18–23; 21:2, and such matters— parallel sections. Other and much weaker have been communicated in exact accordance grounds for believing that the books of Samuel with his authorities, but also the accounts of the and Kings were used by the chronicler, are wars of Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoshaphat (1 refuted in my Handbook of Introduction, § 141, Chronicles 20), Amaziah, etc. Only here and 2; and in it, at § 139, is to be found a synoptical there, Bertheau thinks, has he used the arrangement of the parallel sections. opportunity offered to him to treat the history in a freer way, so as to represent the course of The Historical Character of the Chronicles. the more weighty events, and such as specially The historic truth or credibility of the books of attracted his attention, according to his own the Chronicle, which de Wette, in the Beitrr. zur view. This appears especially, he says (1) in the Einleit. 1806, violently attacked, in order to get account of the speeches of David, 1 Chronicles rid of the evidence of the Chronicle for the 13:2f., 15:12f., 28:2–10, 20f., 29:1–5 and 10–19, Mosaic origin of the Sinaitic legislation, is now where, too, there occur statements of the value again in the main generally recognised.5 The of the precious metals destined for the building care with which the chronicler has used his of the temple (1 Chronicles 29:4, 7), which authorities may be seen, on a comparison of the clearly do not rest upon truthful historical narratives common to the Chronicle with the recollection, and can by no means have been books of Samuel and Kings, not only from the derived from a trustworthy source; as also in fact that in these parallel sections the story of the reports of those of Abijah (2 Chronicles the chronicler agrees in all essential points with 13:5–10) and of Asa (1 Chronicles 14:10, etc.); the accounts of these books, but also from the then (2) in the description of the religious variations which are to be met with. For these ceremonies and feasts (1 Chronicles 15 and 16; variations, in respect to their matter, give us in 2 Chronicles 5:1–7:10, 1 Chronicles 29–31, 1 many ways more accurate and fuller Chronicles 35): for in both speeches and information, and in every other respect are of a descriptions expressions and phrases purely formal kind, in great part affecting only constantly recur which may be called current the language and style of expression, or arising expressions with the chronicler. Yet these from the hortatory-didactic aim of the speeches stand quite on a level with those of narrative. But this hortatory aim has nowhere Solomon, 2 Chronicles 1:8–10, 1 Chronicles had a prejudicial effect on the objective truth of 6:4–11, 12–42, which are also to be found in the the statement of historical facts, as appears on books of Kings (1 Chronicles 3:6–9, 1 every hand on deeper and more attentive Chronicles 8:14–53), from which it is to be observation, but has only imparted to the inferred that the author here has not acted history a more subjective impress, as compared quite independently, but that in this respect with the objective style of the books of Kings. also older histories may have served him as a model. But even in these descriptions Now, since the parallel places are of such a information is not lacking which must rest character, we are, as Bertheau and Dillmann upon a more accurate historical recollection, frankly acknowledge, justified in believing that e.g., the names in 1 Chronicles 15:5–11, 17–24; the author of the Chronicle, in the the statement as to the small number of priests,

1 CHRONICLES Page 24 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study and the help given to them by the Levites, in 2 the temple, and the preparations for this work. Chronicles 29:14f., 30:17. Yet we must, beyond In these speeches the peculiarities of the doubt, believe that the author of the Chronicle chronicler come so strongly into view, in “has in these descriptions transferred that contents and form, in thought and language, which had become established custom in his that we must believe them to be free own time, and which according to general representations of the thoughts which in those tradition rested upon ancient ordinance, days moved the soul of the grey-haired king. without hesitation, to an earlier period.” But if we compare with these David’s prayer (1 Of these two objections so much is certainly Chronicles 29:10–19), we find in it not only that correct, that in the speeches of the persons multiplication of the predicates of God which is acting in the history, and in the descriptions of so characteristic of David (cf. Ps. 18), but also, the religious feasts, the freer handling of the in vv. 11 and 15, definite echoes of the Davidic authorities appears most strongly; but no . The speech of Abijah, again, against the alterations of the historical circumstances, nor apostate Israel (2 Chronicles 13:4–12), moves, additions in which the circumstances of the on the whole, within the circle of thought usual older time have been unhistorically with the chronicler, but contains in v. 7 ,בְּ נֵי בְּלִ יַעַ ל and אֲ נָשִ ים רֵ קִ ים represented according to the ideas or the taste expressions such as of the post-exilic age, can, even here, be which are quite foreign to the language of the anywhere pointed out. With regard, first of all, Chronicle, and belong to the times of David and to the speeches in the Chronicle, they are Solomon, and consequently point to sources certainly not given according to the sketches or contemporaneous with the events. The same written reports of the hearers, but sketched and thing is true of Hezekiah’s speech (2 Chronicles the“ ,ֹזְּ רועַ בָׂשָ ר composed by the historian according to a 32:7, 8), in which the expression truthful tradition of the fundamental thoughts. arm of flesh,” recalls the intimacy of this king For although, in all the speeches of the with the prophet Isaiah (cf. Isa. 31:3). The Chronicle, certain current and characteristic sayings and speeches of the prophets, on the expressions and phrases of the author of this contrary, are related much more in their book plainly occur, yet it is just as little doubtful original form. Take, for instance, the that the speeches of the various persons are remarkable speech of Azariah ben Oded to King essentially different from one another in their Asa (:1–7), which, on account of thoughts, and characteristic images and words. its obscurity, has been very variously explained, By this fact it is placed beyond doubt that they and which, as is well known, is the foundation have not been put into the mouths of the of the announcement made by Christ of the historical persons either by the chronicler or by destruction of Jerusalem and the last judgment the authors of the original documents upon (Matt. 24:6, 7; Luke 21:19). As C. P. Caspari (der which he relies, but have been composed syrisch-ephraimit. Krieg., Christiania 1849, S. according to the reports or written records of 54) has already remarked, it is so peculiar, and the ear-witnesses. For if we leave out of bears so little of the impress of the Chronicle, consideration the short sayings or words of the that it is impossible that it can have been various persons, such as 1 Chronicles 11:1f., produced by the chronicler himself: it must 12:12f., 15:12f., etc., which contain nothing have been taken over by him from his characteristic, there are in the Chronicle only authorities almost without alteration. From this three longer speeches of King David (1 one speech, whose contents he could hardly Chronicles 22:7–16; 28:2–10, 12–22, and 29:1– have reproduced accurately in his own words, 5), all of which have reference to the transfer of and which he has consequently left almost the kingdom to his son Solomon, and in great unaltered, we can see clearly enough that the part treat, on the basis of the divine promise (2 chronicler has taken over the speeches he Sam. 7 and 1 Chronicles 17), of the building of

1 CHRONICLES Page 25 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study communicates with fidelity, so far as their matter in a vivid way, from among the psalms contents are concerned, and has only clothed sung in his own time on such solemn occasions, them formally, more or less, in his own for the psalm which was then sung, but which language. This treatment of the speeches in the was not communicated by his authority, Chronicle is, however, not a thing peculiar and nothing would be altered in the historical fact confined to the author of this book, but is, as that then for the first time, by Asaph and his Delitzsch has shown (Isaiah, p. 17ff. tr.), brethren, God was praised in psalms; for the common to all the biblical historians; for even psalm given adequately expresses the in the prophecies in the books of Samuel and sentiments and feelings which animated the Kings distinct traces are observable throughout king and the assembled congregation at that of the influence of the narrator, and they bear solemn festival. To give another example: the more or less visibly upon them in impress of historical details of the last assembly of princes the writer who reproduces them, without their which David held (1 Chronicles 28) are not historical kernel being thereby affected. altered if David did not go over with his son Now the historical truth of the events is just as Solomon, one by one, all the matters regarding little interfered with by the circumstance that the temple enumerated in 1 Chronicles 28:11– the author of the Chronicle works out 19. rhetorically the descriptions of the celebration There now remains, therefore, only some of the holy feasts, represents in detail the records of numbers in the Chronicle which are offering of the sacrifices, and has spoken in decidedly too large to be considered either almost all of these descriptions of the musical accurate or credible. Such are the sums of gold performances of the Levites and priests. The mentioned in 1 Chronicles 22:14 and 29:4, 7, conclusion which has been drawn from this, which David had collected for the building of that he has here without hesitation transferred the temple, and which the princes of the tribes to an earlier time that which had become expended for this purpose; the statements as to established custom in his own time, would only the greatness of the armies of Abijah and then be correct if the restoration of the Jeroboam, of the number of the Israelites who sacrificial worship according to the ordinance fell in battle (2 Chronicles 13:3, 17), of the of Leviticus, or the introduction of instrumental number of King Asa’s army and that of the music and the singing of psalms, dated only Cushites (:7f.), of the military from the time of the exile, as de Wette, force of Jehoshaphat (:14–18), Gramberg, and others have maintained. If, on and of the women and children who were led the contrary, these arrangements and away captive under Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:8). regulations be of Mosaic, and in a secondary But these numbers cannot shake the historical sense of Davidic origin, then the chronicler has credibility of the Chronicle in general, because not transferred the customs and usages of his they are too isolated, and differ too greatly from own time to the times of David, Asa, Hezekiah, statements of the Chronicle in other places and others, but has related what actually which are in accordance with fact. To estimate occurred under these circumstances, only provisionally and in general these surprising giving to the description an individual statements, the more exact discussion of which colouring. Take, for example, the hymn (1 belongs to the Commentary, we must consider, Chronicles 16:8–36) which David caused to be (1) that they all contain round numbers, in sung by Asaph and his brethren in praise of the which thousands only are taken into account, Lord, after the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem and are consequently not founded upon any into the tabernacle prepared for it (1 Chronicles exact enumeration, but only upon an 16:7). If it was not composed by David for this approximate estimate of contemporaries, and ceremony, but has been substituted by the attest nothing more than that the greatness of chronicler, in his endeavour to represent the the armies, and the multitude of those who had

1 CHRONICLES Page 26 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study fallen in battle or were taken prisoner, was multitude of differences is to be found in estimated at so high a number; (2) that the reference to the number of the exiled families actual amount of the mass of gold and silver who returned from Babylon, which can only be which had been collected by David for the explained on the supposition of the numeral building of the temple cannot with certainty be letters having been confounded. But almost all reckoned, because we are ignorant of the these different statements of numbers are to be weight of the shekel of that time; and (3) that found in the oldest translation of the Old the correctness of the numbers given is very Testament, that of the LXX, from which it doubtful, since it is indubitably shown, by a appears that they had made their way into the great number of passages of the Old Testament, MSS before the settlement of the Hebrew text that the Hebrews have from the earliest times by the Masoretes, and that consequently the expressed their numbers not by words, but by use of letters as numeral signs was customary letters, and consequently omissions might very in the pre-Masoretic times. This use of the easily occur, or errors arise, in copying or letters is attested and presupposed as generally writing out in words the sums originally known by both Hieronymus and the rabbins, written in letters. Such textual errors are so and is confirmed by the Maccabean coins. That manifest in not a few place, that their existence it is a primeval custom, and reaches back into cannot be doubted; and that not merely in the the times of the composition of the biblical books of the Chronicle, but in all the historical books, is clear from this fact, that the books of the Old Testament. The Philistines, employment of the alphabet as numeral signs according to 1 Sam. 13:5, for example, brought among the Greeks coincides with the Hebrew 30,000 chariots and 6000 horsemen into the alphabet. This presupposes that the Greeks field; and according to 1 Sam. 6:19, God smote received, along with the alphabet, at the same of the people at Beth-shemesh 50,070 men. time the use of the letters as numeral signs With respect to these statements, all from the Semites (Phoenicians or Hebrews). commentators are now agreed that the The custom of writing the numbers in words, numbers 30,000 and 50,000 are incorrect, and which prevails in the Masoretic text of the have come into the text by errors of the Bible, was probably first introduced by the copyists; and that instead of 30,000 chariots Masoretes in settling the rules for the writing of there were originally only 1000, or at most the books of the canon, or at least then 3000, spoken of, and that the 50,000 in the became law. second passage is an ancient gloss. There is, After all these facts, we may conclude the moreover, at present no doubt among Introduction to the books of the Chronicle, investigators of Scripture, that in 1 Kings 5:6 (in feeling assured of our result, that the books, in English version, 4:26) the number 40,000 regard to their historical contents, (stalls) is incorrect, and that instead of it, notwithstanding the hortatory-didactic aim of according to 2 Chronicles 9:25, 4000 should be the author in bringing the history before us, read; and further, that the statement of the age have been composed with care and fidelity of King Ahaziah at 42 years (2 Chronicles according to the authorities, and are fully 22:22), instead of 22 years (2 Kings 8:26), has deserving of belief. As to the exegetical literature, see my Handbook ם arisen by an interchange of the numeral signs .A similar case is to be found in Ezra 2:69, of Introduction, § 138 .ב and compared with Neh. 7:70–72, where, according to Ezra, the chiefs of the people gave 61,000 darics for the restoration of the temple, and according to Nehemiah only 41,000 (viz., 1000 + 20,000 + 20,000). In both of these chapters a

1 CHRONICLES Page 27 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

1 Chronicles 1 the other hand, the geographical position of their inheritance has been also taken into Genealogies, with Historical and Topographical account. That regard to the historical position Notes.—Ch. 1–9. and importance of the tribes was mainly 1 Chronicles 1–9. In order to show the determinative, is plain from the introductory connection of the tribal ancestors of Israel with remarks to the genealogies of the tribe of the peoples of the earth, in 1 Chronicles 1 are Reuben, 1 Chronicles 5:1, 2, to the effect that enumerated the generations of the primeval Reuben was the first-born of Israel, but that, world, from Adam till the Flood, and those of because of his offence against his father’s bed, the post-diluvians to Abraham and his sons, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, according to the accounts in Genesis; in 1 although they are not specified as possessors of Chronicles 2–8, the twelve tribal ancestors of it in the family registers; while it is narrated the people of Israel, and the most important that Judah, on the contrary, came to power families of the twelve tribes, are set down; and among his brethren, and that out of Judah had finally, in 1 Chronicles 9, we have a list of the come forth the prince over Israel. Judah is former inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the therefore placed at the head of the tribes, as genealogical table of King Saul. The that one out of which God chose the king over enumeration of the tribes and families of Israel His people; and Simeon comes next in order, forms, accordingly, the chief part of the because they had received their inheritance contents of this first part of the Chronicle, to within the tribal domain of Judah. Then follows which the review of the families and tribes of Reuben as the first-born, and after him are the primeval time and the early days of Israel placed GAd and the half tribe of Manasseh, form the introduction, and the information as to because they had received their inheritance the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the family of along with Reuben on the other side of the King Saul the conclusion and the transition, to Jordan. After Reuben, according to age, only the following historical narrative. Now, if we Levi could follow, and then after Levi come in glance at the order in which the genealogies of order the other tribes. The arrangement of the tribes of Israel are ranged,—Viz. (a) those them, however—Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, of the families of Judah and of the house of Manasseh, Ephraim, Asher, and again David, 1 Chronicles 2:1–4:23; (b) those of the Benjamin—is determined from neither the , with an account of their historical nor by the geographical point of view, dwelling-place, 1 Chronicles 4:24–43; (c) those but probably lay ready to the hand of the of the trans-Jordanic tribes, Reuben, Gad, and chronicler in the document used by him, as we the half tribe of Manasseh, 1 Chronicles 5:1–26; are justified in concluding from the character of (d) of the , or the priests and all these geographical and topographical lists. Levites, 1 Chronicles 5:27–6:66; (e) of the For if we consider the character of these lists remaining tribes, viz., Issachar, Benjamin, somewhat more carefully, we find that they are Naphtali, cis-Jordanic Manasseh, Ephraim, and throughout imperfect in their contents, and Asher, 1 Chronicles 7; and of some still fragmentary in their plan and execution. The remaining families of Benjamin, with the family imperfection in the contents shows itself in this, of Saul, 1 Chronicles 8, —it is at once seen that that no genealogies of the tribes of Dan and this arrangement is the result of regarding the Zebulun are given at all, only the sons of tribes from two points of view, which are Naphtali being mentioned (1 Chronicles 7:13); closely connected with each other. On the one of the half tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan we hand, regard is had to the historical position have only the names of some heads of fathers’- which the tribes took up, according to the order houses6 (1 Chronicles 5:24); and even in the of birth of their tribal ancestors, and which they relatively copious lists of the tribes of Judah, obtained by divine promise and guidance; on Levi, and Benjamin, only the genealogies of

1 CHRONICLES Page 28 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study single prominent families of these tribes are Chronicles 4:24–43; of Reuben, Gad, half enumerated. In Judah, little more is given than Manasseh, 1 Chronicles 5:1–24; and Ephraim, 1 the families descended from Pharez, 1 Chronicles 7:28, 29. Others give only the Chronicles 2:5–4:20, and a few notices of the number of men capable of bearing arms family of Shelah; of Levi, none are noticed but belonging to the individual fathers’-houses, as the succession of generations in the high- those of Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher, 1 priestly line of , some descendants of Chronicles 7:2–5, 7–11, 40; and finally, of the Gershon, Kohath, and , and the three longer genealogical lists of Judah and Benjamin, Levites, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, set over the those in 1 Chronicles 4:1–20 and in 1 service of song; while of Benjamin we have only Chronicles 8 consist only of fragments, loosely the genealogies of three families, and of the ranged one after the other, giving us the names family of Saul, which dwelt at Gibeon. But the of a few of the posterity of individual men, incompleteness of these registers comes still whose genealogical connection with the larger more prominently into view when we turn our divisions of these tribes is not stated. attention to the extent of the genealogical lists, By all this, it is satisfactorily proved that all and see that only in the cases of the royal house these registers and lists have not been derived of David and the high-priestly line of do from one larger genealogical historical work, the genealogies reach to the Babylonian exile, but have been drawn together from various old and a few generations beyond that point; while genealogical lists which single races and all the others contain the succession of families had saved and carried with them into generations for only short periods. Then, again, exile, and preserved until their return into the in regard to their plan and execution, these land of their fathers; and that the author of the genealogies are not only unsymmetrical in the Chronicle has received into his work all of these highest degree, but they are in many cases that he could obtain, whether complete or fragmentary. In the tribe of Judah, besides the imperfect, just as he found them. Nowhere is descendants of David, 1 Chronicles 3, two quite any trace of artificial arrangement or an independent genealogies of the families of amalgamation of the various lists to be found. Judah are given, in 1 Chronicles 2 and 4:1–23. Now, when we recollect that the Chronicle was The same is the case with the two genealogies composed in the time of Ezra, and that up to of the Levites, the lists in 1 Chronicles 6 that time, of the whole people, for the most part differing from those in 1 Chronicles 5:27–41 only households and families of the tribes of surprisingly, in 6:1, 28, 47, 56, Levi’s eldest son Judah, Levi, and Benjamin had returned to being called Gershom, while in 1 Chronicles Canaan, we will not find it wonderful that the 5:27 and 1 Chronicles 23:61, and in the Chronicle contains somewhat more copious Pentateuch, he is called Gershon. Besides this, registers of these three tribes, and gives us only there is in 1 Chronicles 6:35–38 a fragment fragments bearing on the circumstances of containing the names of some of Aaron’s prae-exilic times in the case of the remaining descendants, who had been already completely tribes. enumerated till the Babylonian exile in 1 Chronicles 5:29–41. In the genealogies of The Families of Primeval Time, and of the Benjamin, too, the family of Saul is twice Antiquity of Israel. entered, viz., in 1 Chronicles 8:29–40 and in 1 Chronicles 9:35–44. The genealogies of the 1 Chronicles 1:1–4. The patriarchs from Adam remaining tribes are throughout defective in to and his sons.—The names of the ten the highest degree. Some consist merely of an patriarchs of the primeval world, from the enumeration of a number of heads of houses or Creation to the Flood, and the three sons of families, with mention of their dwelling-place: Noah, are given according to Gen. 5, and as, for instance, the genealogies of Simeon, 1 grouped together without any link of

1 CHRONICLES Page 29 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study connection whatever: it is assumed as known register of seventy-one persons and tribes, from Genesis, that the first ten names denote descended from , , and Japhet, has generations succeeding one another, and that been taken from Gen. 10, is placed beyond the last three, on the contrary, are the names of doubt, by the fact that not only the names of our brethren. register exactly correspond with the table in 1 Chronicles 1:5–23. The peoples and races Gen. 10, with the exception of the few descended from the sons of Noah.—These are variations above mentioned, but also the plan enumerated according to the table in Gen. 10; and form of both registers is quite the same. In but our author has omitted not only the vv. 5–9 the sections of the register are from v. 10 ;ּובְּ נֵי introductory and concluding remarks (Ge. 10:1, connected, as in Gen. 10:2–7, by as in Gen. v. 8; in v. 17, again, by ,יָלַ ד but also the historical notices of the onwards by ,(32 ,21 founding of a kingdom in Babel by Nimrod, and , as in Gen. v. 22; and in v. 18 by , and v. 19 יָלַ ד בְּ נֵי the distribution of the Japhetites and Shemites as in Gen. vv. 24 and 25. The historical ,יֻלַ ד in their dwelling-places (Gen. 10:5, 9–12, by 18b20, and 30 and 31). The remaining and geographical explanation of the names has divergences are partly orthographic,—such as been given in the commentary to Gen. 10. v. 9, for According to Bertheau, the peoples descended ,רַ עְּמָ א Gen. 10:2, and ,ֹּתּובָ ל v. 5, for ,ֹּתֻבַ ת Gen. 10:7; and partly arising from errors from the sons of Noah amount to seventy, and ,רַ עְּמָ ה fourteen of these are enumerated as v. 6, for descendants of Japhet, thirty of Ham, and ,דִ יפַ ת ,of transcription,—as, for example v. 7, for twenty-six of Shem. These numbers he arrives ,רודָ נִים ,Gen. 10:3, and conversely ,רִ יפַ ת Gen. 10:4, where it cannot with certainty at by omitting Nimrod, or not enumerating him ,דֹׁדָ נִים among the sons of Ham; while, on the contrary, be determined which form is the original and he takes Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, and correct one; and finally, are partly due to a Joktan, all of which are the names of persons, different pronunciation or form of the same for names of people, in contradiction to Genesis, Gen. 10:4, according to which the five names indicate ,ֹּתַרְּשִ יש v. 7, for ,ֹּתַרְּשִ ישָ ה name,—as the ā of motion having been gradually fused persons, viz., the tribal ancestors of the v. 11, for Terahites and Joktanites, peoples descended ,לּודִ יִים ,into one word with the name .Gen. 10:13, just as in Amos 9:7 we have from Eber by Peleg and Joktan ,לּודִ ים 1 Chronicles 1:24–27. The patriarchs from .Gen ,עובָ ל for עֵ יבָ ל ,in v. 22 ;כּושִ ים for כּושִ יִים Shem to Abraham.—The names of these, again, .are simply ranged in order according to Gen ,מֶשֶ ְך where the LXX have also Εὐάλ, and ,10:28 Gen. 10:23, which last has not yet 11:10–26, while the record of their ages before ,מַ ש v. 17, for the begetting and after the birth of sons is is used מֶשֶ ְך been satisfactorily explained, since omitted. Of the sons of Terah only Abram is of an Arabian tribe. named, without his brothers; with the remark קֵדָ ר in Ps. 120:5 with before that Abram is Abraham, in order to point out to ּובְּ נֵי אֲרָ ם Finally, there is wanting in v. 17 the reader that he was the progenitor of the Gen. 10:23, because, as in the case of Noah’s ,עּוץ chosen people so well known from Genesis (cf. sons, v. 4, where their relationship is not Gen. 17). mentioned, so also in reference to the peoples 1 Chronicles 1:28–34. The sons of Abraham.— descended from Shem, the relationship In v. 28 only Isaac and are so called; subsisting between the names Uz, Hul, etc., and Isaac first, as the son of the promise. Then, in , is supposed to be already known from Genesis. Other suppositions as to the omission vv. 29–31, follow the posterity of Ishmael, with the remark that Ishmael was the first-born; in are improbable. That this ּובְּ נֵי אֲרָ ם of the words

1 CHRONICLES Page 30 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study vv. 32 and 33, the sons of Keturah; and finally in “Timna and ,” while we learn from Gen. v. 34, the two sons of Isaac. 36:12 that Timna was a concubine of , 1 Chronicles 1:29ff. The names of the who bore to him Amalek. The addition of the of Ishmael (Hebr. two names Timna and Amalek in the Chronicle (ֹּתולְּ דות) generations thus appears to be merely an abbreviation, Yishma’el) correspond to those in Gen. 25:12– which the author might well allow himself, as 15, and have been there explained. In v. 32f. the posterity of were known to his readers also, the names of the thirteen descendants of from Genesis. The name Timna, too, by its form Abraham by Keturah, six sons and seven (a feminine formation), must have guarded grandsons, agree with Gen. 25:1–4 (see against the idea of some modern exegetes that commentary on that passage); only the tribes Timna was also a son of Eliphaz. Thus, then, mentioned in Gen. 25:3, which were descended Esau had through Eliphaz six grandchildren, from Dedan the grandson of Keturah, are who in Gen. 36:12 are all set down as sons of omitted. From this Bertheau wrongly concludes Adah, the wife of Esau and the mother of that the chronicler probably did not find these Eliphaz. (Vide com. to Gen. 36:12, where the names in his copy of the Pentateuch. The reason change of Timna into a son of Eliphaz is of the omission is rather this, that in Genesis rejected as a misinterpretation.) the great-grandchildren are not themselves mentioned, but only the tribes descended from 1 Chronicles 1:37. To Reuel, the son of Esau by the grandchildren, while the chronicler wished Bashemath, four sons were born, whose names to enumerate only the sons and grandsons. correspond to those in Gen. 36:13. These ten (6 + 4) grandsons of Esau were, with his three after Gen. 25:6, where פִ ילֶגֶש Keturah is called sons by Aholibamah (Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah, Keturah and Hagar are so named. v. 35), the founders of the thirteen tribes of the 1 Chronicles 1:34. The two sons of Isaac. Isaac posterity of Esau. They are called in Gen. 36:15 heads of tribes (φύλαρχοι) of the ,אַ לּופֵ יבְּ נֵי עֵׂשָ ו ,has been already mentioned as a son of Abram along with Ishmael, in v. 28. But here the children of Esau, i.e., of the Edomites, but are all continuation of the genealogy of Abraham is again enumerated, vv. 15–19, singly.7 prefaced by the remark that Abraham begat Isaac, just as in Gen. 25:19, where the begetting 1 Chronicles 1:38–42. When Esau with his of Isaac the son of Abraham is introduced with descendants had settled in Mount Seir, they the same remark. Hence the supposition that subdued by degrees the aboriginal inhabitants the registers of the posterity of Abraham by of the land, and became fused with them into Hagar and Keturah (vv. 28–33) have been one people. For this reason, in Gen. 36:20–30 derived from Gen. 25, already in itself so the tribal princes of the Seirite inhabitants of probable, becomes a certainty. the land are noticed; and in our chapter also, v. 38, the names of these seven , and in vv. בְּ נֵי ׂשֵ עִ יר Chronicles 1:35–42. The posterity of Esau 1 and Seir.—An extract from Gen. 36:1–30. V. 35. 39–42 of their sons (eighteen men and one The five sons of Esau are the same who, woman, Timna), are enumerated, where only according to Gen. 36:4f., were born to him of his Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, also is mentioned in Gen. 36:25, is omitted. The names יְּעּוש .three wives in the land of Canaan correspond, except in a few unimportant Gen. v. 5 (Kethibh). points, which have been already discussed in ,יְּעִ יש another form of 1 Chronicles 1:36, 37. The grandchildren of the Commentary on Genesis. The inhabitants of Esau. In v. 36 there are first enumerated five Mount Seir consisted, then, after the immigration of Esau and his descendants, of צְּפִ י sons of his son Eliphaz, as in Gen. 36:11, for twenty tribes under a like number of phylarchs, Gen.). Next to these thirteen of whom were Edomite, of the family of) צְּ פו is only another form of Esau, and seven Seirite, who are called in the ,וְּתִמְּ נַע וַעֲמָ לֵ ק five names are ranged in addition

1 CHRONICLES Page 31 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

The first of these variations has arisen from a ,חֹׁרִ י and in Genesis ,בְּ נֵי ׂשֵ עִ יר Chronicle Troglodytes, inhabitants of the land, that is, transcriber’s error, the other from a different aborigines. pronunciation of the name. A somewhat more important divergence, however, appears, when If we glance over the whole posterity of in Gen. v. 39 the death of the king last named is Abraham as they are enumerated in vv. 28–42, not mentioned, because he was still alive in the we see that it embraces 9a) his sons Ishmael time of Moses; while in the Chronicle, on the and Isaac, and Isaac’s sons Israel and Esau contrary, not only of him also is it added, וַיָמָ ת together 4 persons); (b) the sons of Ishmael, or) because at the time of the writing of the ,הֲדָ ד ;(the tribes descended from Ishmael (12 names (c) the sons and grandsons of Keturah (13 Chronicle he had long been dead, but the list of persons or chiefs); (d) the thirteen phylarchs the names of the territories of the phylarchs, descended from Esau; (e) the seven Seirite which in Genesis follows the introductory is here connected with the ,וְּאֵ לֶה שֵ מות phylarchs, and eighteen grandsons and a formula granddaughter of Seir (26 persons). We have enumeration of the kings by , “Hadad died, וַיִהְּ יּו thus in all the names of sixty-eight persons, and to them we must add Keturah, and Timna the and there were chiefs of Edom.” This may mean concubine of Eliphaz, before we get seventy that, in the view of the chronicler, the reign of persons. But these seventy must not by any the phylarchs took the place of the kingship means be reckoned as seventy tribes, which is after the death of the last king, but that ו the result Bertheau arrives at by means of interpretation is by no means necessary. The strange calculations and errors in numbers.8 consec. may also merely express the succession Upon this conclusion he founds his hypothesis, of thought, only connecting logically the that as the three branches of the family of Noah mention of the princes with the enumeration of are divided into seventy peoples (which, as we the kings; or it may signify that, besides the have seen at p. 402f., is not the case), so also the kings, there were also tribal princes who could three branches of the family of Abraham are rule the land and people. The contents of the should וַיִהְּ יּו divided into seventy tribes; and in this again he register which follows require that finds a remarkable indication “that even in the be so understood. time of the chronicler, men sought by means of numbers to bring order and consistency into 1 Chronicles 1:51–54. The princes of Edom.— the lists of names handed down by tradition The names correspond to those in Gen. 36:40– from the ancient times.” 43, but the heading and the subscription in Genesis are quite different from those in the 1 Chronicles 1:43–50. The kings of Edom Chronicle. Here the heading is, “and the Allufim before the introduction of the kingship into of Edom were,” and the subscription, “these are Israel.—This is a verbally exact repetition of the Allufim of Edom,” from which it would be Gen. 36:31–39, except that the introductory the natural conclusion that the eleven names formula, Gen. v. 32, “and there reigned in given are proper names of the phylarchs. But Edom,” which is superfluous after the heading, the occurrence of two female names, Timna and and the addition “ben Achbor” (Gen. v. 39) in Aholibamah, as also of names which are the account of the death of Baal-hanan in v. 50, unquestionably those of races, e.g., Aliah, Pinon, are omitted; the latter because even in Genesis, Teman, and Mibzar, is irreconcilable with this where mention is made of the death of other interpretation. If we compare the heading and kings, the name of the father of the deceased subscription of the register in Genesis, we find king is not repeated. Besides this, the king that the former speaks of the names “of the v. 50), Allufim of Edom according to their habitations,9) פָעֶ י called Hadad (v. 46f.), and the city v. 39). according to their places in their names,” and) פָ עּו are in Genesis Hadar (v. 35f.) and the latter of “the Allufim of Edom according to

1 CHRONICLES Page 32 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study their habitations in the land of their 8); (2) the descendants of Hezron in the three possession.” It is there unambiguously declared branches corresponding to the three sons of that the names enumerated are not the names Hezron, into which they divided themselves (1 of persons, but the names of the dwelling- Chronicles 2:9), viz., the descendants of Ram to places of the Allufim, after whom they were David (1 Chronicles 2:10–17), of Caleb (1 wont to be named. We must therefore translate, Chronicles 2:18–24), and of Jerahmeel (1 “the Alluf of Timna, the Alluf of Aliah,” etc., Chronicles 2:25–41). Then there follow in 1 when of course the female names need not Chronicles 2:42–55 four other lists of cause any surprise, as places can just as well descendants of Caleb, who peopled a great receive their names from women as their number of the cities of Judah; and then in 1 possessors as from men. Nor is there any Chronicles 3 we have a list of the sons of David greater difficulty in this, that only eleven and the line of kings of the house of David, dwelling-places are mentioned, while, on the down to the grandsons of Zerubbabel; and contrary, the thirteen sons and grandsons of finally, in 1 Chronicles 4:1–23, other Esau are called Allufim. For in the course of genealogical fragments as to the posterity of time the number of phylarchs might have Pharez and Shelah. Of Hamul, consequently, no decreased, or in the larger districts two descendants are noticed, unless perhaps some phylarchs may have dwelt together. Since the of the groups ranged together in 1 Chronicles author of the Chronicle has taken this register 4:8–22, whose connection with the heads of the also from Genesis, as the identity of the names families of Judah is not given, are of his lineage. clearly shows he did, he might safely assume The lists collected in 1 Chronicles 4:1–20 are that the matter was already known from that clearly only supplements to the genealogies of book, and so might allow himself to abridge the the great families contained in 1 Chronicles 2 heading without fearing any misunderstanding; and 3, which the author of the Chronicle found of in the same fragmentary state in which they are אַ לּופֵ י seeing, too, that he does not enumerate communicated to us. and Edom had become the ,אַ לּופֵי אֱ דום Esau, but 1 Chronicles 2:1, 2. The twelve sons of Israel, name of a country and a people. arranged as follows: first, the six sons of ; 1 Chronicles 2 then Dan, the son of ’s handmaid; next, the sons of Rachel; and finally, the remaining Ch. 2–4:23.—The Twelve Sons of Israel and the sons of the handmaids. That a different place is Families of Judah. assigned to Dan, viz., before the sons of Rachel, 1 Chronicles 2:1–4:23. The list of the twelve from that which he holds in the list in Gen. sons of Israel (1 Chronicles 2:1, 2) serves as 35:23ff., is perhaps to be accounted for by foundation and starting-point for the Rachel’s wishing the son of her maid Bilhah to genealogies of the tribes of Israel which follow, be accounted her own (vide Gen. 30:3–6). 1 Chronicles 2:3–8. The enumeration of the 1 Chronicles 2:3–5. The sons of Judah and of families of the tribe of Judah commences in v. 3 Pharez, v. 3.f.—The five sons of Judah are given with the naming of Judah’s sons, and extends to according to Gen. 38, as the remark on Er which 1 Chronicles 4:23. The tribe of Judah has issued is quoted from v. 7 of that chapter shows, while from the posterity of only three of the five sons the names of the five sons are to be found also of Judah, viz., from Shelah, Pharez, and Zerah; in Gen. 46:12. The two sons of Pharez are but it was subdivided into five great families, as according to Gen. 46:12, cf. Num. 26:21. Hezron and Hamul, the two sons of Pharez, also 1 Chronicles 2:6–8. Sons and descendants of founded families. The lists of our three chapters Zerah.—In v. 6, five names are grouped of Zerah, which are found בָ נִים give us: (1) from the family of Zerah only the together as names of some famous men (1 Chronicles 2:6– nowhere else so united. The first, Zimri, may be

1 CHRONICLES Page 33 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

may perhaps be a grouped together. But, on the other hand, the ֹזִמְּרִ י strictly a son; but reasons which go to disprove the identity of the for Achan, who is in v. 7 the son ,ֹזַבְּדִ י mistake for persons in our verse with those named in 1 of Carmi, is in Josh. 7:1 called the son of Carmi, Kings 5:11 are not of very great weight. The is דרדע and דרע difference in the names ֹזַבְּדִ י the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah. But ,or he may obviously the result of an error of transcription ,ֹזִמְּרִ י Josh.) may also be an error for) Kings 5:11) is most 1) הָאֶ ֹזְּרָחִ י have been a son of Zimri, since in genealogical and the form lists an intermediate member of the family is ,ֹזֶרַ ח probably a patronymic from often passed over. Nothing certain can, however, be ascertained; both names are found notwithstanding that in Num. 26:20 it appears ,indigena ,אֶ ֹזְּרַ ח for even the appellative ,ֹזַרְּ חִ י elsewhere, but of persons belonging to other as We therefore hold that the .ֹזֶרַ ח tribes: Zimri as prince of the Simeonites, Num. is formed from 25:14; as Benjamite, 1 Chronicles 8:36; 9:42; persons who bear the same names in our verse and as king of Israel, 1 Kings 16:9; Zabdi, 1 and in 1 Kings 5:11 are most probably identical, Chronicles 8:19 (as Benjamite), and 27:27, Neh. to Calcol and בְּ נֵי מָ חול in spite of the addition 11:17. The four succeeding names, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara, are met with again in Darda (1 Kings 5:11). For that this addition 1 Kings 5:11, where it is said of Solomon he was belongs merely to these two names, and not to wiser than the Ezrahite Ethan, and Heman, and Ezrah, appears from Ps. 88:1 and 89:1, which, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Machol, with the according to the superscription, were composed by the Ezrahites Heman and Ethan. On this .דרע for דרדע unimportant variation of The authors of these psalms are unquestionably account, Movers and Bertheau, following the Heman and Ethan who were famed for their Clericus on 1 Kings 4:31 (1 Chronicles 5:11), wisdom (1 Kings 5:11), and therefore most hold the identity of the wise men mentioned in probably the same as those spoken of in our 1 Kings 5:11 with the sons (descendants) of verse as sons of Zerah. It is true that the Zerah to be beyond doubt. But the main reason authors of these psalms have been held by which Clericus produces in support of this many commentators to be Levites, nay, to be supposition, the consensus quatuor nominum et the musicians mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:17 quidem unius patris filiorum, and the difficulty and 19; but sufficient support for this view, of believing that in alia familia Hebraea there which I myself, on 1 Kings 5:11, after the should have been quatuor fratres cognomines example of Hengstenberg, Beitrr. ii. S. 61, and quatuor filiis Zerachi Judae filii, loses all its force on Ps. 88 defended, cannot be found. The from the fact that the supposition that the four statement of the superscription of Ps. 88:1—“a wise men in 1 Kings 5:11 are brothers by blood, psalm of the sons of Korah”—from which it is is a groundless and erroneous assumption. inferred that the Ezrahite Heman was of Levitic Since Ethan is called the Ezrahite, while the last origin, does not justify such a conclusion.10 For two are said to be the sons of Machol, it is clear though the musician Heman the son of Joel was that the four were not brothers. The mention of Korahite of the race of Kohath (1 Chronicles them as men famous for their wisdom, does not 6:18–23), yet the musician Ethan the son of at all require that we should think the men Kishi, or Kushaiah, was neither Korahite nor contemporary with each other. Even the Kohathite, but a Merarite (1 Chronicles 6:29ff.). enumeration of these four along with Zimri as Moreover, the Levites Heman and Ethan could ,in our verse does not necessarily involve not be enumerated among the Ezrahites, that is בְּ נֵי ֹזֶרַ ח that the five names denote brothers by blood; the descendants of Zerah, a man of Judah. for it is plain from vv. 7 and 8 that in this The passages which are quoted in support of genealogy only single famous names of the the view that the Levites were numbered with family of Zerah the son of Judah and Tamar are the tribes in the midst of whom they dwelt, and

1 CHRONICLES Page 34 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study that, consequently, there were Judaean and descendants of the Judaean Zerah; but whether Ephraimite Levites,—as, for example, 1 Sam. they were sons or grandsons, or still more 1:1, where the father of the Samuel is distant descendants, cannot be determined. It is called an Ephrathite because he dwelt in Mount certainly very probable that Zimri was a son, if Ephraim; and Judg. 17:7, where a Levite is he be identical with the Zabdi of Josh. 7:1; numbered with the family of Judah because he Ethan and Heman may have been later in , a city of descendants of Zerah, if they were the wise (גָ ר) dwelt as sojourner Judah,—certainly prove that the Levites were men mentioned in 1 Kings 5:11; but as to Calcol reckoned, as regards citizenship, according to and Dara no further information is to be the tribes or cities in which they dwelt, but obtained. From vv. 7 and 8, where of the sons of Zimri and Ethan only one man in each (בְּ נֵי) certainly do not show that they were incorporated genealogically with those tribes case is named, it is perfectly clear that in our because of their place of residence.11 The genealogy only individuals, men who have Levites Heman and Ethan, therefore, cannot be become famous, are grouped together out of in בְּ נֵי brought forward in our verse “as adopted sons the whole posterity of Zerah. The plural of Zerah, who brought more honour to their vv. 7 and 8, etc., even where only one son is father than his proper sons” (Hengstb.). This mentioned, is used probably only in those cases view is completely excluded by the fact that in where, out of a number of sons or descendants, our verse not only Ethan and Heman, but also one has gained for himself by some means a Zimri, Calcol, and Dara are called sons of Zerah, memorable name. This is true at least of Achan, yet these latter were not adopted sons, but true v. 7, who, by laying hands on the accursed descendants of Zerah. Besides, in v. 8, there is spoils of Jericho, had become notorious (Josh. an actual son or descendant of Ethan 7). Because Achan had thus troubled Israel he is called here at once Achar. As to ,(עָכַ ר) cannot בֵ ן and בְּ נֵי mentioned, and consequently possibly be understood in some cases as Carmi, vide on 4:1. implying only an adoptive relationship, and in 1 Chronicles 2:9. The only name given here as the others actual descent. But the similarity of that of a descendant of Ethan is Azariah, of the names is not of itself sufficient to justify us whom nothing further is known, while the in identifying the persons. As the name Zerah name recurs frequently. Nothing more is said of again appears in 1 Chronicles 6:26 in the the remaining sons of Zerah; they are merely genealogy of the Levite Asaph, so also the name set down as famous men of antiquity (Berth.). Ethan occurs in the same genealogy, plainly There follows in showing that more than one Israelite bore this name. The author of the Chronicle, too, has 1 Chronicles 2:9–41. The family of Hezron, the sufficiently guarded against the opinion that first-born son of Pharez, which branches off in Zerah’s sons Ethan and Heman are identical three lines, originating with his three sons with the Levitical musicians who bear the same respectively. The three sons of Hezron are names, by tracing back in 1 Chronicles 6 the Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai; but the family of those musicians to Levi, without families springing from them are enumerated calling them Ezrahites.12 But to hold, with in a different order. First (vv. 10–17) we have Movers, S. 237, that the recurrences of the same the family of Ram, because King David is names in various races are contradictions, descended from him; then (vv. 18–24) the which are to be explained only on the family of Chelubai or Caleb, from whose lineage supposition of genealogical combinations by came the illustrious Bezaleel; and finally (vv. various authors, will enter into the head of no 25–41), the posterity of the first-born, sensible critic. We therefore believe the five Jerahmeel. persons mentioned in our verse to be actual

1 CHRONICLES Page 35 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

which is found in 2 Sam. 13:3 and in 1 ,שִמְּעָ ה what was born to ,אֲשֶ ר נולַ ד לו .Chronicles 2:9 1 him. The passive stands impersonally instead of Chronicles 20:7, and is repeated in 2 Sam. 13:32 The names of .(שמעי) the more definite active, “to whom one bore,” and 21:21 in the Kethibh so that the following names are subordinated to the other three sons here mentioned (vv. 14 .The third person singular Niph. and 15) are met with nowhere else .אֵ ת it with occurs thus also in 3:4 and 26:6; the 1 Chronicles 2:16f. The sisters of David have .frequently (Gen. become known through their heroic sons אֵ ת construction of Niph. with 4:18; 21:5, and elsewhere). Ram is called, in the Zeruiah is the mother of the heroes of the Job Davidic history, Abishai, Joab, and Asahel (cf. 1 ,רָ ם .genealogy in Matt. 1:3, 4, Aram; comp Sam. 26:6; 2 Sam. 2:18; 3:39; 8:16, and 32:2, with , Gen. 22:21. is called ,elsewhere). Their father is nowhere mentioned כְּ לּובַ י אֲרָ ם cf. on v. 18. “because their more famous mother challenged ;כָלֵ ב afterwards 1 Chronicles 2:10–17. The family of Ram (vv. the greater attention” (Berth.). Abigail was, 10–12), traced down through six members of according to 2 Sam. 17:25, the daughter of Jesse.—This genealogy is also to be found in Nahash, a sister of Zeruiah, and so was only a Ruth. 4:19–21; but only here is Nahshon made half-sister of David, and was the mother of more prominent than the others, by the Amasa the captain of the host, so well known on addition, “prince of the sons of Judah.” Nahshon account of his share in the conspiracy of was a prince of Judah at the exodus of the Absalom; cf. 2 Sam. 17:25; 19:14, and 20:10. His Israelites from Egypt (Num. 1:7; 2:3; 7:12). father was Jether, or Jithra, the Ishmaelite, who Now between him, a contemporary of Moses, in the Masoretic text of 2 Sam. 17:25 is called, instead of הַ יִׂשְּרְּ אֵ לִ י ,and Pharez, who at the immigration of Jacob through a copyist’s, error .see comm. on passage ;הַ יִשְּ מְּעֵ אלִ י into Egypt was about fifteen years old, lies a period of 430 years, during which the Israelites 1 Chronicles 2:18–24. The family of Caleb.— remained in Egypt. For that time only three or ,כְּ לּובַ י is merely a shortened form of כָלֵ ב names—Hezron, Ram, and Amminidab—are That mentioned, from which it is clear that several a form of that word resulting from the friction links must have been passed over. So also, from of constant use, is so clear from the context, Nahshon to David, for a period of over 400 that all exegetes recognise it. We have first (vv. years, four generations—Salma, Boaz, Obed, 18–20) a list of the descendants of Caleb by two and Jesse—are too few; and consequently here wives, then descendants which the daughter of also the less famous ancestors of David are the Gileadite Machir bore to his father Hezron vv. 21–23), and finally the sons whom) ׂשַ לְּמָ ה ,is called in :20, 21 ׂשַ לְּמָ א .omitted Hezron’s wife bore him after his death (v. 24). and . In vv. 13–15, seven sons and two The grouping of these descendants of Hezron ׂשַ לְּ מון daughters of Jesse, with those of their sons who with the family of Caleb can only be accounted became famous (vv. 16, 17), are enumerated. for by supposing that they had, through According to 1 Sam. 17:12, Jesse had eight sons. circumstances unknown to us, come into a This account, which agrees with that in 1 Sam. more intimate connection with the family of 16:8–12, may be reconciled with the Caleb than with the families of his brothers enumeration in our verse, on the supposition Ram and Jerahmeel. In vv. 42–55 follow some that one of the sons died without posterity. In 1 other lists of descendants of Caleb, which will Sam. 16:6ff. and 17:13, the names of the eldest be more fully considered when we come to three—Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah—occur. these verses. The first half of the 18th verse is v. 13); obscure, and the text is probably corrupt. As the) אִ ישַ י we meet with the form ,יִשַ י Besides ,is only another form of words stand at present, we must translate שַֹּמָ ה and the name “Caleb the son of Hezron begat with Azubah, a

1 CHRONICLES Page 36 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

we find in v. 50 the lengthened feminine אֶפְּרָ ת woman, and with Jerioth, and these are her (the ,cf. also 4:4. From descended ;אֶפְּרָתָ ה filii ejus, form ,בָ נֶיהָ .one wife’s) sons, Jesher,” etc suggests that only one wife of Caleb had been by Uri, the famous Bezaleel, the skilful architect before mentioned; and, as appears from the of the tabernacle (Ex. 31:2; 35:30). “and Azubah died” of v. 19, Azubah is certainly 1 Chronicles 2:21–24. The descendants of meant. The construction , “he begat (Hezron numbered with the stock of Caleb: (a הולִיד אֵ ת with,” is, it is true, unusual, but is analogous to those begotten by Hezron with the daughter of and is explained by the fact that Machir, vv. 21–23; (b) those born to Hezron ,8:9 ,הולִיד מִ ן .may mean to cause to bear, to bring to after his death, v. 24 הולִ יד i.e., after ,(אַחַ ר) bearing; cf. Isa. 66:9: therefore properly it is, 1 Chronicles 2:21. Afterwards “he brought Azubah to bearing.” The difficulty the birth of the sons mentioned in v. 9, whose for, mother is not mentioned, when he was sixty ,אִשָ הוְּאֶ ת־יְּרִ יעות of the verse lies in the according to the usual phraseology, we would years old, Hezron took to wife the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, who bore him אִשָ ה But .אִשָ ה instead of אִשְּ ֹּתו have expected Segub. Machir was the first-born of Manasseh may be, under the circumstances, to some (Gen. 50:23; Num. 26:29). But Machir is not extent justified by the supposition that Azubah called in vv. 21 and 23 the father of Gilead is called indefinitely “woman,” because Caleb because he was the originator of the Israelite gives no suitable וְּאֶ ת־יְּרִ יעות .had several wives has here its proper אָ ב population of Gilead, but meaning. The explanation of Kimchi, “with signification. Machir begot a son of the name of Azubah a woman, and with Jerioth,” cannot be Gilead (Num. 26:29); and it is clear from the accepted, for only the sons of Azubah are genealogy of the , hereafter mentioned; and the idea that the communicated in Num. 27:1, that this children of the other wives are not enumerated expression is to be understood in its literal here because the list used by the chronicler was sense. Machir is distinguished from other men defective, is untenable: for after two wives had of the same name (cf. 2 Sam. 9:4; 17:27) by the been named in the enumeration of the children addition, father of Gilead. Segub the son of of one of them, the mother must necessarily Hezron and the daughter of Machir begat Jair. This Jair, belonging on his mother’s side to the ,בָ נֶיהָ have been mentioned; and so, instead of ,.Hiller and J. H. tribe of Manasseh, is set down in Num. 32:40f .בְּ נֵי עֲ ֹזּובָ ה we should have had as explicative, “with Azubah Deut. 3:14, as a descendant of Manasseh. After וְּאֶ ת Michaelis take Moses’ victory over Og king of Bashan, Jair’s a woman, viz., with Jerioth;” but this is family conquered the district of Argob in manifestly only the product of exegetical Bashan, i.e., in the plain of Jaulan and Hauran; embarrassment. The text is plainly at fault, and and to the conquered cities, when they were the easiest conjecture is to read, with the bestowed upon him for a possession by Moses, .instead of the name Havvoth-Jair, i.e., Jair’s-life, was given אִשְֹּּתו אֶ ת ,Peschito and the he begat with Azubah his wife, Jerioth Cf. Num. 32:41 and Deut. 3:14, where this name“ , האִשָ וְּאֶ ת (a daughter); and these are her sons.” In that is explained. These are the twenty-three cities .to guard in the land of Gilead, i.e., Peräa ,עֲ ֹזּובָ ה would be added to אִשָ ה case 1 Chronicles 2:23. These cities named Jair’s- being taken for acc. obj. The עֲ ֹזּובָ ה against life were taken away from the Jairites by names of the sons of Azubah, or of her daughter Geshur and Aram, i.e., by the Arameans of Jerioth, do not occur elsewhere. Geshur and of other places. Geshur denotes the 1 Chronicles 2:19. When Azubah died, Caleb inhabitants of a district of Aram, or Syria, on the took Ephrath to wife, who bore him Hur. For north-western frontier of Bashan, in the

1 CHRONICLES Page 37 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study neighbourhood of Hermon, on the east side of Machir. Only two names, it is true, Segub and the upper Jordan, which had still its own kings Jair, are enumerated; but from these two issue in the time of David (2 Sam. 3:3; 13:37; 14:23; the numerous families which took Jair’s-life. To .כָל־אֵ לֶ ה but which had been assigned to the these, therefore, must we refer the ,(15:8 Manassites by Moses; cf. Josh. 13:13. The 1 Chronicles 2:24. After the death of Hezron following must not be taken as an there was born to him by his wife Abiah (the אֶ ת־קְּ נָ ת וגו׳ ,Jair’s- third wife, cf. vv. 9 and 21) another son, “ :אֶ ת־חַ ּוֹׁת יָאִ יר explanatory apposition to life, Kenath and her daughters, sixty cities” the father of Tekoa, whose descendants are refers to the collective enumerated in 1 Chronicles 4:5–7. Hezron’s מֵאִֹּתָ ם Berth.). For since) in Caleb“ ,בְּכָלֵב אֶפְּרָתָ ה name Jair, Geshur and Aram could not take death took place away from Jair sixty cities, for Jair only Ephrathah.” This expression is obscure. possessed twenty-three cities. But besides this, According to 1 Sam. 30:14, a part of the Negeb according to Num. 32:42, Kenath with her (south country) of Judah was called Negeb daughters had been conquered by Nobah, who Caleb, as it belonged to the family of Caleb. gave his own name to the conquered cities; and According to this analogy, the town or village in according to Deut. 3:4, the kingdom of Og in which Caleb dwelt with his wife Ephrath may Bashan had sixty fenced cities. But this have been called Caleb of Ephrathah, if Ephrath kingdom was, according to Num. 32:41, and 42, had brought this place as a dower to Caleb, as in conquered by two families of Manasseh, by Jair the case mentioned in Josh. 15:18f. Ephrathah, and Nobah, and was divided between them; and or Ephrath, was the ancient name of Bethlehem as appears from our passage, twenty-three (Gen. 33:19; 48:1), and with it the name of cities were bestowed upon Jair, and all the rest Caleb’s wife Ephrath (v. 19) is unquestionably of the land, viz., Kenath with her daughters, fell connected; probably she was so called after her to Nobah. These two domains together included birthplace. If this supposition be well founded, sixty fenced cities, which in Deut. 3:14 are then Caleb of Ephrathah would be the little (אֲבִ י) called Jair’s-life; while here, in our verse, only town of Bethlehem. Ashur is called father twenty-three cities are so called, and the of Tekoa, i.e., lord and prince, as the chief of the remaining thirty-seven are comprehended inhabitants of Tekoa, now Tekua, two hours under the name of Kenath had her daughters. south of Bethlehem (vide on Josh. 15:59). ,copul. 1 Chronicles 2:25–41. The family of Jerahmeel ו WE must therefore either supply a in the the first-born of Hezron, which inhabited a part אֶ ת־ק׳ or we must take ,אֶ ת־קְּ נָ ת before of the Negeb of Judah called after him the south שִשִ ים עִ יר signification “with Kenath,” and refer of the Jerahmeelites (1 Sam. 27:10; 30:29). to both Jair’s-life and Kenath. Cf. herewith the discussion on Deut. 3:12–14; and for Kenath, 1 Chronicles 2:25. Four sons were born to the ruins of which still exist under the name Jerahmeel by his first wife. Five names indeed although met with ,אֲ חיָה ,Kanuat on the western slope of the Jebel follow; but as the last Hauran, see the remarks on Num. 32:42. The elsewhere as a man’s name, is not ranged with copul., as those that precede are ו time when these cities were taken away by the the others by Arameans is not known. From Judg. 10:4 we with each other, it appears to be the name of a only learn that the Jair who was judge at a later has fallen out after ם woman, and probably a time again had possession of thirty of these .So Cler., J. H .ם the immediately preceding כָל־אֵ לֶ ה .cities, and renewed the name Jair’s-life is not all these sixty cities, but the before- Mich., Berth. This conjecture gains in mentioned descendants of Hezron, who are probability from the mention in v. 26 of another called sons, that is offspring, of Machir, because wife, whence we might expect that in v. 25 the they were begotten with the daughter of first wife would be named.

1 CHRONICLES Page 38 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

1 Chronicles 2:26. Only one son of the second various parts of the Old Testament, of none of wife is given, Onam, whose posterity follows in them can it be proved that they belonged to vv. 28–33; for in v. 27 the three sons of Ram, men of this family, so as to show that one of the first-born of Jerahmeel, are enumerated. these person shad become famous in history. 1 Chronicles 2:28. Onam had two sons, 1 Chronicles 2:42–55. Other renowned Shammai and Jada; the second of these, again, descendants of Caleb.—First of all there are two sons, Nadab and Abishur. enumerated, in vv. 42–49, three lines of 1 Chronicles 2:29. To Abishur his wife Abihail descendants of Caleb, of which the two latter, bore likewise two sons, with whom his race vv. 46–49, are the issue of concubines.—The terminates.—In vv. 30, 31, Nadab’s posterity first series, vv. 42–45, contains some things follow, in four members, ending with Ahlai, in which are very obscure. In v. 42 there are the fourth generation. But Ahlai cannot well menitioned, as sons of Caleb the brother of have been a son, but must have been a Jerahmeel, Mesha his first-born, with the daughter, the heiress of Sheshan; for, according addition, “this is the father of Ziph; and the sons to v. 34, Sheshen had no sons, but only of Mareshah, the father of Hebron,” as it reads daughters, and gave his daughter to an according to the traditional Masoretic text. Now Egyptian slave whom he possessed, to wife, by it is here not only very surprising that the sons whom she became the mother of a numerous of Mareshah stand parallel with Mesha, but it is is not irreconcilable with still more strange to find such a collocation as בְּ נֵי שֵשָ ן posterity. The “sons of Mareshah the father of Hebron.” The denotes in genealogies only last-mentioned difficulty would certainly be בְּ נֵי this, for descendants in general, and has been here greatly lessened if we might take Hebron to be correctly so explained by Hiller in Onomast. p. the city of that name, and translate the phrase 736: quicquid habuit liberorum, sive nepotum, “father of Hebron,” lord of the city of Hebron, sustulit ex unica filia Achlai. according to the analogy of “father of Ziph,” 1 Chronicles 2:32, 33. The descendants of “father of Tekoa” (v. 24), and other names of Jada, the brother of Shammai, in two that sort. But the continuation of the genealogy, generations, after which this genealogy closes “and the sons of Hebron were Korah, and with the subscription, “these were the sons of Tappuah, Rekem, and Shema” (v. 43), is Jerahmeel.”13—In vv. 34–41 there follows the irreconcilable with such an interpretation. For family of Sheshan, which was originated by the of these names, Tappuah, i.e., apple, is indeed marriage of his daughter with his Egyptian met with several times as the name of a city slave, and which is continued through thirteen (Josh. 12:17; 15:34; 16:8); and Rekem is the generations. The name of this daughter is in v. name of a city of Benjamin (Josh. 18:27), but 25f. not mentioned, but she is without doubt occurs also twice as the name of a person— the Ahlai mentioned in v. 31. But since this once of a Midianite prince (Num. 31:8), and Ahlai is the tenth in descent from Judah through once of a Manassite (1 Chronicles 7:16); but the Pharez, she was probably born in Egypt; and other two, Korah and Shema, only occur as the the Egyptian slave Jarha was most likely a slave names of persons. In v. 44f., moreover, the whom Sheshan had in Egypt, and whom he descendants of Shema and Rekem are spoken adopted as his son for the propagation of his of, and that, too, in connection with the word he begat,” which demonstrably can only“ ,הולִ יד race, by giving him his daughter and heir to wife. If this be the case, the race begotten by denote the propagation of a race. We must Jarha with the daughter of Sheshan is traced therefore take Hebron as the name of a person, down till towards the end of the period of the as in 5:28 and Ex. 6:18. But if Hebron be the judges. The Egyptian slave Jarha is not name of a man, then Mareshah also must be elsewhere met with; and though the names interpreted in the same manner. This is also which his posterity bore are found again in

1 CHRONICLES Page 39 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study required by the mention of the sons of impossible. That the verse does not treat of Mareshah parallel with Mesha the first-born; post-exilic times is clear, although even after but still more so by the circumstance that the the exile, and in the time of the Maccabees and interpretation of Mareshah and Hebron, as the Romans, Hebron was not in a position of names of cities, is irreconcilable with the dependence on Marissa. Bertheau himself holds position of these two cities, and with their Caleb, of whose son our verses treat, for a historical relations. Bertheau, indeed, imagines contemporary of Moses and Joshua, because in that as Mareshah is called the father of Hebron, v. 49 Achsa is mentioned as daughter of Caleb the famous capital of the tribe of Judah, we (Josh. 15:16; Judg. 1:12). The contents of our must therefore make the attempt, however verse would therefore have reference to the inadmissible it may seem at first sight, to take first part of the period of the judges. But since Mareshah, in the connection of our verse, as the Hebron was never dependent on Mareshah in name of a city, which appears as father of the manner supposed, the attempt, which even Hebron, and that we must also conclude that at first sight appeared so inadmissible, to the ancient city Hebron (Num. 13:23) stood in interpret Mareshah as the name of a city, loses some sort of dependent relationship to all its support. For this reason, therefore, the Mareshah, perhaps only in later time, although city of Hebron, and the other cities named in v. we cannot at all determine to what time the 43ff., which perhaps belonged to the district of representation of our verse applies. But at the Mareshah, cannot be the sons of Mareshah here foundation of this argument there lies an error spoken of; and the fact that, of the names as to the position of the city Mareshah. mentioned in vv. 43 and 44, at most two may Mareshah lay in the Shephelah (Josh. 15:44), denote cities, while the others are undoubtedly and exists at present as the ruin Marasch, the names of persons, points still more clearly twenty-four minutes south of Beit-Jibrin: vide to the same conclusion. We must, then, hold on Josh. 15:44; and Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, § Hebron and Mareshah also to be the names of 129 and 142f. Ziph, therefore, which is persons. mentioned in 2 Chronicles 11:8 along with Now, if the Masoretic text be correct, the use of Mareshah, and which is consequently the Ziph the phrase, “and the sons of Mareshah the mentioned in our verse, cannot be, as Bertheau father of Hebron,” instead of “and Mareshah, believes, the Ziph situated in the hill country of the sons of the father of Hebron,” can only have Judah, in the wilderness of that name, whose arisen from a desire to point out, that besides ruins are still to be seen on the hill Zif, about Hebron there were also other sons of Mareshah four miles south-east from Hebron (Josh. who were of Caleb’s lineage. But the mention of 15:55). It can only be the Ziph in the Shephelah the sons of Mareshah, instead of Mareshah, and (Josh. 15:24), the position of which has not the calling him the father of Hebron in this indeed been discovered, but which is to be connection, make the correctness of the sought in the Shephelah at no great distance traditional text very questionable. Kimchi has, from Marasch, and thus far distant from on account of the harshness of placing the sons Hebron. Since, then, Mareshah and Ziph were in of Mareshah on a parallel with Mesha the first- the Shephelah, no relation of dependence born of Caleb, supposed an ellipse in the et ex filiis ,ובני מר׳ between the capital, Hebron, situated in the expression, and construes mountains of Judah, and Mareshah can be Ziphi Mareshah. But this addition cannot be thought of, neither in more ancient nor in later justified. If we may venture a conjecture in so time. The supposition of such a dependence is obscure a matter, it would more readily suggest not made probable by the remark that we אֲבִ י and that ,מֵ ישָ ע is an error for מרשה cannot determine to what time the itself that is to be taken as a nomen compos., when חֶבְּ רון representation of our verse applies; it only serves to cover the difficulty which renders it the meaning would be, “and the sons of Mesha

1 CHRONICLES Page 40 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

dwelling,” does not per se“ ,מָ עון were Abi-Hebron.” The probability of the city. The word existence of such a name as Abihebron along point to a village or town, and in Judg. 10:12 with the simple Hebron has many analogies in denotes a tribe of non-Israelites. its favour: cf. Dan and Abidan, Num. 1:11; Ezer, 1 Chronicles 2:46–49. Descendants of Caleb by 12:9, Neh. 3:19, with Abi-ezer; Nadab, Ex. 6:23, occurs in v. 47 עֵ יפָ ה and Abinadab. In the same family even we have two concubines.—The name Abiner, or Abner, the son of Ner (1 Sam. 14:50f.; and 1:33 as a man’s name. Caleb’s concubine of 2 Sam. 2:8; cf. Ew. § 273, S. 666, 7th edition). this name bore three sons: Haran, of whom Abihebron would then be repeated in v. 43, in nothing further is known; Moza, which, though the shortened form Hebron, just as we have in in Josh. 18:26 it is the name of a Benjamite Josh. 16:8 Tappuah, instead of En-Tappuah, town, is not necessarily on that account the Josh. 17:7. The four names introduced as sons name of a town here; and Gazez, unknown, of Hebron denote persons, not localities: cf. for perhaps a grandson of Caleb, especially if the Korah, 1:35, and concerning Tappuah and clause “Haran begat Gazez” be merely an Rekem the above remark (p. 68). In v. 44 are explanatory addition. But Haran may also have mentioned the sons of Rekem and of Shema, the given to his son the name of his younger latter a frequently recurring man’s name (cf. brother, so that a son and grandson of Caleb 5:8; 8:13; 11:44; Neh. 8:4). Shema begat Raham, may have borne the same name. is quite 1 Chronicles 2:47. The genealogical יָרְּ קְּעָ ם the father of Jorkam. The name unknown elsewhere. The LXX have rendered it connection of the names in this verse is entirely Ιεκλὰν, and Bertheau therefore holds Jorkam to wanting; for Jahdai, of whom six sons are be the name of a place, and conjectures that enumerated, appears quite abruptly. Hiller, in Josh. 15:56) stood here also. Onomast., supposes, but without sufficient) יָקְּדְּ עָ ם originally is another name of Moza. Of יֶהְּדַ י But the LXX give also Ιεκλὰν for the following ground, that from which it is clear that we cannot his sons’ names, Jotham occurs frequently of ,רֶקֶ ם name different persons; Ephah, as has been already rely much on their authority. The LXX have remarked, is in 1:33 the name of a chief of a .v. 44, is the son of Midianite tribe; and lastly, Shaaph is used in v ,רקם overlooked the fact that the Hebron mentioned in v. 43, whose 49 of another person. descendants are further enumerated. Shammai 1 Chronicles 2:48f. Another concubine of occurs as a man’s name also in v. 28, and is Caleb was called Maachah, a not uncommon again met with in 4:17. His son is called in v. 45 woman’s name; cf. 3:2; 7:16; 8:29; 11:43, etc. She bore Sheber and Tirhanah, names quite בֵ ית־צּור .Maon, and Maon is the father of Bethzur ,יָלְּדָ ה .instead of the fem יָלַ ד .is certainly the city in the mountains of Judah unknown. The masc which Rehoboam fortified (2 Chronicles 11:7), v. 46, is to be explained by the supposition that and which still exists in the ruin Bet-sur, lying the father who begat was present to the mind of south of Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron. the writer. V. 49. Then she bore also Shaaph Maon also was a city in the mountains of Judah, (different from the Shaaph in v. 47), the father now Main (Josh. 15:55); but we cannot allow of Madmannah, a city in the south of Judah, ,because perhaps identical with Miniay or Minieh ,מָ עון that this city is meant by the name Maon is called on the one hand the son of southwards from Gaza (see on Josh. 15:31). Shammai, and on the other is father of Bethzur, Sheva (David’s Sopher [scribe] is so called in and there are no well-ascertained examples of a the Keri of 2 Sam. 20:25), the father of of a man, its Machbenah, a village of Judah not further (בֵ ן) city being represented as son founder or lord, nor of one city being called the mentioned, and of Gibea, perhaps the Gibeah father of another. Dependent cities and villages mentioned in Josh. 15:57, in the mountains of are called daughters (not sons) of the mother Judah, or the village Jeba mentioned by

1 CHRONICLES Page 41 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Robinson, Palest. ii. p. 327, and Tobler, Dritte be called in the genealogical language, which Wanderung, S. 157f., on a hill in the Wady sometimes expresses geographical relations, Musurr (vide on Josh. 15:57). This list closes the son of Hezron, along with Ram and with the abrupt remark, “and Caleb’s daughter Jerahmeel, as the names Ram and Jerahmeel was Achsah.” This notice can only refer to the certainly denote families in Judah, who, Achsah so well known in the history of the originally at least, dwelt in other domains than conquest of the tribal domain of Judah, whom that of Caleb; and again, that the individual Caleb had promised, and gave as a reward to families as well as the towns and villages in the conqueror of Debir (Josh. 15:16ff.; Judg. these various domains may be conceived of as 1:12); otherwise in its abrupt form it would sons and descendants of those who represent have no meaning. Women occur in the the great families of the tribe, and the divisions genealogies only when they have played an of the tribal territory. But we must deny the important part in history. Since, however, the geographical signification of the genealogies father of this Achsah was Caleb the son of when pressed so far as this: for valid proofs are Jephunneh, who was about forty years old entirely wanting that towns are represented as when the Israelites left Egypt, while our Caleb, sons and brothers of other towns; and the on the contrary, is called in v. 42 the brother of section vv. 42–49 does not treat merely, or Jerahmeel, and is at the same time designated principally, of the geographical relations of the son of Hezron, the son of Pharez (v. 9), these families of Judah, but in the first place, and in two Calebs cannot be one person: the son of the main, deals with the genealogical Hezron must have been a much older Caleb ramifications of the descendants and families of than the son of Jephunneh. The older the sons of Judah. It by no means follows, commentators have consequently with one because some of these descendants are brought voice distinguished the Achsah mentioned in forward as fathers of cities, that in vv. 42–49 our verse from the Achsah in Josh. 15:16; while towns and their mutual connection are spoken Movers, on the contrary (Chronicles S. 83), of; and the names Caleb, Ram, and Jerahmeel do would eliminate from the text, as a later not here denote families, but are the names of interpolation, the notice of the daughter of the fathers and chiefs of the families which Caleb. Bertheau, however, attempts to prove descended from them, and dwelt in the towns the identity of Caleb the son of Hezron with just named. We accordingly distinguish Caleb, Caleb the son of Jephunneh. The assertion of whose daughter was called Achsah, and whose Movers is so manifestly a critical tour de force, father was Jephunneh (Josh. 15:16ff.), from that it requires no refutation; but neither can Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel and the son of we subscribe to Bertheau’s view. He is, indeed, Hezron. but we explain the mention of Achsah right in rejecting Ewald’s expedient of holding as daughter of Caleb, at the end of the that vv. 18–20 and 45–50 are to be referred to genealogical lists of the persons and families Chelubai, and vv. 42–49 to a Caleb to be descended by concubines from Caleb, by the carefully distinguished from him; for it supposition that the Caleb who lived in the time contradicts the plain sense of the words, of Moses, the son of Jephunneh, was a according to which both Chelubai, v. 9, and descendant of an older Caleb, the brother of Caleb, vv. 18 and 42, is the son of Hezron and Jerahmeel. But it is probable that the Caleb in v. the brother of Jerahmeel. But what he brings 49 is the same who is called in v. 42 the brother forward against distinguishing Caleb the father of Jerahmeel, and whose descendants are ,בַ ת of Achsah, v. 49, from Caleb the brother of specified vv. 42–49; and we take the word Jerahmeel, v. 42, is entirely wanting in force. “daughter,” in its wider sense, as signifying a The reasons adduced reduce themselves to later female descendant, because the father of these: that Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the the Achsah so well known from Josh. 15:16ff. is conqueror and possessor of Hebron, might well

1 CHRONICLES Page 42 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study also called son of Jephunneh in the genealogy, 1 to the family of Ram, the former to the family of Chronicles 4:15. Caleb. Hareph is called the father of Beth-Geder, 1 Chronicles 2:50–55. The families descended which is certainly not the same place as Gedera, from Caleb through his son Hur.—V. 50. The Josh. 15:36, which lay in the Shephelah, but is superscription, “These are the sons probably identical with Gedor in the hill (descendants) of Caleb,” is more accurately country, Josh. 15:58, west of the road which defined by the addition, “the son of Hur, the leads from Hebron to Jerusalem (vide on 1 first-born of Ephratah;” and by this definition Chronicles 12:4). Nothing further is told of the following lists of Caleb’s descendants are Hareph, but in the following verses further limited to the families descended from his son descendants of both the other sons of Hur are .are to be so enumerated בֶ ן־חּור וגו׳ Hur. That the words הָ רֹׁאֶ ה ,Caleb 1 Chronicles 2:52, 53. Shobal had sons“ ,כָלֵ ב understood, and not as apposition to These words, which are translated .חֲ יצִ הַֹּמְּ נֻ חות the son of Hur,” is shown by v. 19, according to which Hur is a son of Caleb and Ephrath. On in the Vulgate, qui videbat dimidium that account, too, the relationship of Hur to requietionum, give, so interpreted, no fitting Caleb is not given here; it is presupposed as sense, but must contain proper names. The LXX known from v. 19. A famous descendant of Hur have made from them three names, ραὰ κα has already been mentioned in v. 20, viz., σ κα μμαν θ on mere conjecture. Most for the name of the הראה Bezaleel the son of Uri. Here, in vv. 50 and 51, commentators take three sons of Hur are named, Shobal, Salma, man who, in 1 Chronicles 4:2, is called under and Hareph, with the families descended from the son of Shobal. This is ,ראיה ,the name Reaiah the first two. All information is wanting as to הָ רֹׁאֶ ה whether these sons of Hur were brothers of Uri, doubtless correct; but we must not take or his cousins in nearer or remoter degree, as for another name of Reaiah, but, with Bertheau, or a ,רְּ אָ יָה indeed is every means of a more accurate must hold it to be a corruption of determination of the degrees of relationship. conjecture arising from a false interpretation of by a transcriber or reader, who did חֲ יצִ הַֹּמְּ נֻ חות in genealogies mark only הולִ יד and בֵ ן Both descent in a straight line, while intermediate not take Hazi-Hammenuhoth for a proper members of a family are often omitted in the name, but understood it appellatively, and might have been attempted to bring some sense out of the words בְּ נֵי־חּור ,בֶ ן־חּור lists. Instead of The .רֹׁאֶ ה into the participle ראיה expected, as two sons are mentioned. The by changing חֲ צִ י in v. 54 corresponds to our חֲ צִ יהַֹּמָ נַ חְֹּּתִ י shows that the words are not to be בֶ ן singular fused with the following into one sentence, but, as one half of a race or district ,הַֹּמְּ נֻ חות as the Masoretic punctuation also shows, are meant for a superscription, after which the corresponds to the other, for the connection and the הַֹּמְּ נֻ חות names to be enumerated are ranged without between the substantive .cannot but be acknowledged הַֹּמָ נַחְֹּּתִ י any more intimate logical connection. For the adjective signifies resting-place מְּנּוחָ ה copul. Now, although ו three names are not connected by the They stand thus: “sons of Hur, the first-born of (Num. 10:33; Judg. 20:43), and the words “the Ephratah; Shobal … Salma … Hareph.” Shobal is half of the resting-place,” or “of the resting- called father of Kirjath-jearim, now Kureyet el places,” point in the first instance to a district, Enab (see on Josh. 9:17). Salma, father of yet not only does the context require that Hazi- Bethlehem, the birth-place of David and Christ. Hammenuhoth should signify a family sprung This Salma is, however, not the same person as from Shobal, but it is demanded also by a Salma mentioned in v. 11 and Ruth 4:20 among .in v חצי המנחתי comparison of our phrase with the ancestors of David; for the latter belonged

1 CHRONICLES Page 43 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

54, which unquestionably denotes a family. It Num. 32:34f.; Josh. 16:2, 5, 7; 18:13. Hazi- does not, however, seem necessary to alter the Hammanahath is certainly to be sought in the for as in v. 54 Bethlehem neighbourhood of Manahath, 8:6, whose ;הַֹּמָ נַחְֹּּתִ י into הַֹּמְּ נֻ חות stands for the family in Bethlehem descended position has, however, not yet been is only another form of הַצָרְּ עִ י .from Salma, so the district Hazi-Hammenuhoth ascertained and is derived from the masculine of the ,הַצָרְּ עָתִ י may be used in v. 52 to denote the family residing there. As to the geographical position word. The Zorites here spoken of formed a of this district, see on v. 54. second division of the inhabitants of Zoreah 1 Chronicles 2:53. Besides the families and the neighbourhood, along with the mentioned in v. 52, the families of Kirjath- Zoreathites descended from Shobal, v. 53. jearim, which in v. 53 are enumerated by name, 1 Chronicles 2:55. “And the families of the is simply a writers (scribes) who inhabited Jabez.” The ּומִשְּ פְּ חות ק׳ .came of Shobal also continuation of the families already mentioned, position of the town Jabez, which is mentioned and the remark of Berth., that “the families of only here, and which derived its name from a Kirjath-jearim are moreover distinguished from descendant of Judah, has not yet been the sons of Shobal,” is as incorrect as the discovered, but is to be sought somewhere in in v. 52 is the neighbourhood of Zoreah. This may be הֲצִ י הם׳ cop. before ו supplying of ,בְּ נֵיׂשַ לְּמָ א unnecessary. The meaning is simply this: inferred from the fact that of the six Shobal had sons Reaiah, Hazi-Hammenuhoth, two are always more closely connected with cop.: (1) Bethlehem and ו and the families of Kirjath-jearim, viz., the each other by family of Jether, etc. David’s heroes, Ira and Netophathite, (2) Ataroth-beth-Joab and Hazi- Gareb, 11:40, 2 Sam. 23:38, belonged to the Hammanahath, (3) the Zoreites and the families The other three families of the Sopherim inhabiting Jabez. These last .(הַ יִתְּרִ י) family of Jether ,ֹּתִרְּ עָתִ ים ,of these, the were divided into three branches ,מֵאֵ לֶ ה .are not met with elsewhere ,i.e., those descended from Tira ,ׂשּוכָתִ ים ,שִמְּעָתִ ים ,four families of Kirjath-jearim just mentioned came the Zoreathites and the Eshtaulites, the Shimea, and Suchah. The Vulgate has taken inhabitants of the town of Zoreah, the home of these words in an appellative sense of the Samson, now the ruin Sura, and of Eshtaol, occupations of these three classes, and which perhaps may be identified with Um translates canentes et resonantes et in Eshteyeh (see in Josh. 15:33). tabernaculis commemorantes. But this 1 Chronicles 2:54, 55. The descendants of interpretation is not made even probable by all Salma: Bethlehem, i.e., the family of Bethlehem that Bertheau has brought forward in support might perhaps be connected ׂשּוכָתִ ים see on v. 52), the Netophathites, i.e., the of it. Even if) inhabitants of the town of Netophah, which, with , and interpreted “dwellers in סֻכָ ה according to our verse and Ezra 2:22, and especially Neh. 7:26, is to be looked for in the tabernacles,” yet no tenable reason can be by שִמְּעָתִ ים and ֹּתִרְּ עָתִ ים neighbourhood of Bethlehem (cf. 9:16); a family found for translating that“ ,שִמְּעָ ה from ,שִמְּעָתִ י .which produced at various times renowned canentes et resonantes men (cf. 2 Sam. 23:28f.; 2 Kings 25:23; Ezra which is heard,” cannot signify those who i.e., repeat in words and song that which has been ,עַטְּ רות ב׳ י׳ ,The following words .(2:22 no more means canentes than ֹּתִרְּ עָתִ י crowns of the house of Joab,” can only be the heard; and“ name of a place which is mentioned instead of it is connected (as Bertheau tries to show) with ,occurs elsewhere עטרות its inhabitants; for being ֹּתְּרַ ע doorkeepers” (the Chaldee“ ,שֹׁעֲרִ ים sometimes alone, and sometimes in conjunction equivalent to the Hebrew ); and the שַ עַ ר .with a proper name, as the name of places: cf

1 CHRONICLES Page 44 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study addition, “These are the Kenites who came of further followed out. In vv. 1–9 all the sons of David are enumerated; in vv. 10–16, the line of בוא ) ”Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab kings of the house of David from Solomon to to issue from any one, to be descended from ,מִ ן and Zedekiah; in 17–21, the any one), gives no proof of this, for the phrase descendants of Jeconiah to the grandsons of are not Zerubbabel; and finally, in vv. 22–24, other קִ ינִים .itself is to us so very obscure inhabitants of the city Kain (Josh. 15:57) in the descendants of Shechaniah to the fourth tribal domain of Judah (Kimchi), but, judging generation. from the succeeding relative sentence, were 1 Chronicles 3:1–9. The sons of David: (a) descendants of Keni the father-in-law of Moses Those born in Hebron; (b) those born in (Judg. 1:16), who had come with Israel to Jerusalem.—Vv. 1–4. The six sons born in Canaan, and dwelt there among the Israelites Hebron are enumerated also in 2 Sam. 3:2–5, (Judg. 4:11, 17; 5:24; 1 Sam. 15:6; 27:10; with mention of their mother as here: but there ,here, on the contrary ;כִלְּאָ ב and Hemath, the father of the house of the second is called ;(30:29 Rechab, i.e., of the Rechabites (Jer. 35:6), is a difference which cannot well have—,דָ נִיֵאל probably the grandfather of Jonadab the son of Rechab, with whom Jehu entered into alliance arisen through an error of a copyist, but is (:15, 23). But how can the families of probably to be explained on the supposition Sopherim inhabiting Jabez, which are here that this son had two different names. In enumerated, be called descendants of Salma, reference to the others, see on 2 Sam. 3. The after a preceding plural subject אֲשֶ ר נולַ ד לו .who is descended from Hur the son of Caleb, a sing without the ,שֵ נִי .man of Judah, if they were Kenites, who issued is to be explained as in 2:9 from or were descendant of the grandfather of 1 ,הַֹּמִשְּ נֶ ה Sam. 3:3, or 2 ,מִשְּ נֵ הּו the family of the Rechabites? From lack of article, for information, this question cannot be answered Chronicles 5:12, is surprising, as all the other with certainty. In general, however, we may numbers have the article; but the enumeration, explain the incorporation of the Kenites in the the first-born, a second, the third, etc., may be Judaean family of the Calebite Salma, on the justified without any alteration of the text being supposition that one of these Kenites of the necessary. But the difference between our text family of Hobab, the brother-in-law of Moses, and that of 2 Sam. in regard to the second son, married an heiress of the race of Caleb. On this shows that the chronicler did not take the before לְּ account the children and descendants sprung of register from 2 Sam. 3. The preposition seems to have come into the text only אַבְּשָ לום this marriage would be incorporated in the family of Caleb, although they were on their through a mistake occasioned by the preceding father’s side Kenites, and where they followed for no reason is apparent for any strong ,לַאֲבִ יגַיִל the manner of life of their fathers, might being לְּ continue to be regarded as such, and to bear the emphasis which might be implied in the name. placed on the name of Absalom. The addition of v. 3) seems introduced only to) עֶ גְּלָ ה to אִשְּ ֹּתו Chronicles 3 1 1 Chronicles 3. The sons and descendants of conclude the enumeration in a fitting way, as David.—After the enumeration of the chief the descent of Eglah had not been families of the two sons of Hezron, Caleb and communicated; just as, for a similar reason, the Jerahmeel, in 1 Chronicles 2:18–55, the additional clause “the wife of David” is inserted genealogy of Ram the second son of Hezron, in 2 Sam. 3:5, without Eglah being thereby which in 1 Chronicles 2:10–17 was only traced distinguished above the other wives as the down to Jesse, the father of the royal race of most honoured. The concluding formula, “six David, is in 1 Chronicles 3 again taken up and were born to him in Hebron” (v. 4), is followed

1 CHRONICLES Page 45 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study by a notice of how long David reigned in being that of the usurper Athaliah, because she Hebron and in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam. 2:11 and did not belong to the posterity of David. But in 55), which is intended to form a fitting v. 15 four sons of Josiah are mentioned, not “in transition to the following list of the sons who order to allow of a halt in the long line of were born to him in Jerusalem. David’s descendants after Josiah the great 1 Chronicles 3:5–8. In Jerusalem thirteen reformer” (Berth.), but because with Josiah the other sons were born to him, of whom four regular succession to the throne in the house of were the children of Bathsheba. The thirteen David ceased. For the younger son Jehoahaz, names are again enumerated in the history of who was made king after his father’s death by David, in 1 Chronicles 14:7–11, which in the the people, was soon dethroned by Pharaoh- parallel passage, 2 Sam. 5:14–16, only eleven Necho, and led away captive to Egypt; and of are mentioned, the two last being omitted (see the other sons Jehoiakim was set up by on the passage). Some of the names are Pharaoh, and Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar, so somewhat differently given in these passages, that both were only vassals of heathen lords of owing the differences of pronunciation and the land, and the independent kingship of David came properly to an end with the death of ,אֱ לִ ישָמָ ע ;שַ מּועַ is in both places שִמְּעָ ה :form Josiah. Johanan, the first-born of the sons of between Ibhar and Eliphalet, is in 1 Chronicles Josiah, is not to be identified with Jehoahaz, Elishama is whom the people raised to the throne. For, in .אֱ לִ ישּועַ more correctly written 14 clearly a transcriber’s error, occasioned by one the first place, it appears from the statement as to the ages of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim in 2 ,אֱ לִ יפֶלֶ ט .of the following sons bearing this name are Kings 23:31, 36, 2 Chronicles 36:2, 5, that ,נוגָ ה and ,אֶ לְּפֶלֶ ט shortened in 14:6 into Jehoahaz was two years younger than wanting in 2 Sam. 5:15, probably because they Jehoiakim, and consequently was not the first- v. 8, 2 Sam. 5:16, appears in 1 born. In Jer. 22:11 it is expressly declared that ,אֶ לְּ יָ דָ ע .died early the mother also of Shallum, the fourth son of Josiah, was king of ;בְּעֶלְּ יָדָ ע Chronicles 14:7 as the daughter of Judah instead of his father, and was led away ,בַתְּ שּועַ ,the four first named into captivity, and never saw his native land e.g., 2 again, as history narrates of Jehoahaz. From this ,בַ ת־שֶ בַ ע Ammiel, is elsewhere always Sam. 11:3, and :11, 15, etc.; and her it would appear that Shallum took, as king, the has been name Jehoahaz. Johanan, the first-born, is not בַֹּתְּ שּועַ .(father, Eliam (2 Sam. 11:3 is softened from met with again in history, either because he בַתְּשֶ וָ ע and ,בַתְּשֶ וָ ע derived from died early, or because nothing remarkable has arisen by transposition of could be told of him. Jehoiakim was called אֱ לִיעָ ם but ;בַתְּשֶ בַ ע or Ammiel has Eliakim before he was raised to the throne (2 ,עַֹּמִיאֵ ל the two parts of the name been altered to Eliam. Besides these, David had Kings 23:24). Zedekiah was at first Mattaniah also sons by concubines, whose names, (2 Kings 24:17). Zedekiah, on his ascending the however, are nowhere met with. Of David’s throne, was younger than Shallum, and that daughters only Tamar is mentioned as “their event occurred eleven years after the accession sister,” i.e., sister of the before-mentioned sons, of Shallum = Jehoahaz. Zedekiah was only because she had become known in history twenty-one years old, while Jehoahaz had through Amnon’s crime (2 Sam. 13). become king in his twenty-third year. But in our genealogy Zedekiah is introduced after 1 Chronicles 3:10–16. The kings of the house Jehoiakim, and before Shallum, because, on the of David from Solomon till the exile.—Until one hand, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah had Josiah the individual kings are mentioned in occupied the throne for a longer period, each their order, each with the addition , son of having been eleven years king; and on the בְּ נו the preceding, vv. 10–14; the only omission other, Zedekiah and Shallum were sons of

1 CHRONICLES Page 46 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Hamutal (:31; 24:18), while into exile with the others, but died in Judah Jehoiakim was the son of Zebudah (2 Kings before the breaking up of the kingdom. 23:36). According to age, they should have 1 Chronicles 3:17–24. The descendants of the followed each other in this order—Johanan, captive and exiled Jeconiah, and other Jehoiakim, Shallum, and Zedekiah; and in families.—V. 17. In the list of the son of be the name of a אַסִ ר respect to their kingship, Shallum should have Jeconiah it is doubtful if stood before Jehoiakim. But in both cases those son, or should be considered, as it is by Luther born of the same mother, Hamutal, would have and others, an appellative, “prisoner,” in been separated. To avoid this, apparently, the sons of Jeconiah, the“ ,יְּכָ נְּיָה Shallum has been enumerated in the fourth apposition to place, along with his full brother Zedekiah. In v. captive, is Shealtiel” (A. V. Salathiel). The 6 it is remarkable that a son of Jehoiakim’s son reasons which have been advanced in favour of Jeconiah is mentioned, named Zedekiah, while this latter interpretation are: the lack of the בְּ נו the position of ;שְּאַ לְֹּּתִיאֵ ל the sons of Jeconiah follow only in vv. 17 and conjunction with and the circumstance ;אַסִ ר not after ,שאלת׳ Jeconiah (cf. Jer. 24:1; shortened Coniah, Jer. after .18 22:24, 28, and 37:1) is called, as kings, in 2 that Assir is nowhere to be met with, either in Kings 24:8ff. and 2 Chronicles 36:9, Jehoiachin, Matt. 1:12 or in Seder olam zuta, as an another form of the name, but having the same intervening member of the family between signification, “Jahve founds or establishes.” Jeconiah and Shealtiel (Berth.). But none of Zedekiah can only be a son of Jeconiah, for the these reasons is decisive. The want of the which is added constantly denotes that the .conjunction proves absolutely nothing, for in v בְּ נו person so called is the son of his predecessor. 18 also, the last three names are grouped Many commentators, certainly, were of opinion together without a conjunction; and the ,is just as strange שאלת׳ after בְּ נו that Zedekiah was the same person as the position of brother of Jehoiakim mentioned in v. 15 under whether Shealtiel be the first named son or the the name Zidkijahu, and who is here introduced second, for in v. 18 other sons of Jeconiah as son of Jeconiah, because he was the follow, and the peculiarity of it can only be successor of Jeconiah on the throne. For this accounted for on the supposition that the case view support was sought in a reference to v. of Shealtiel differs from that of the remaining 10ff., in which all Solomon’s successors in the sons. The omission of Assir in the genealogies kingship are enumerated in order with . But in Matthew and the Seder olam also proves בְּ נו all the kings who succeeded each other from nothing, for in the genealogies intermediate Solomon to Josiah were also, without exception, members are often passed over. Against the appellative interpretation of the word, on the בְּ נו sons of their predecessors; so that there throughout denotes a proper son, while King contrary, the want of the article is decisive; as .it should have the article ,יְּכָ נִיָה Zedekiah, on the contrary, was not the son, but apposition to an uncle of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). We must But besides this, according to the genealogy of for a literal son of Jesus in :27, Shealtiel is a son of Neri, a צִדְּ קִ יָה therefore hold Jeconiah, and that so much the more, because descendant of David, of the lineage of Nathan, ,as the not of Solomon; and according to Hagg. 1:1, 12 ,צִדְּ קִ יָהּו differs also from צִדְּ קִ יָה the name Ezra 3:2; 5:2, and Matt. 1:12, Zerubbabel is son name of the king is constantly written in 2 of Shealtiel; while, according to vv. 18 and 19 of Kings 24:17ff. and in 2 Chronicles 36:10. But our chapter, he is a son of Pedaiah, a brother of mention is made of this Zedekiah in v. 16 apart Shealtiel. These divergent statements may be from the other sons of Jeconiah (vv. 17 and 18), reconciled by the following combination. The perhaps because he was not led away captive discrepancy in regard to the enumeration of Shealtiel among the sons of Jeconiah, a

1 CHRONICLES Page 47 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study descendant of Solomon, and the statement that because of his right of heritage only, on his he was descended from Neri, a descendant of mother’s side. As to the orthography of the see on Hagg. 1:1. The six ,שאלתיאל Nathan, Solomon’s brother, is removed by the name supposition that Jeconiah, besides the Zedekiah persons named in v. 18 are not sons of Shealtiel, mentioned in v. 16, who died childless, had as Kimchi, Hiller, and others, and latterly Hitzig another son, viz., Assir, who left only a also, on Hagg. 1:1, believe, but his brothers, as daughter, who then, according to the law as to requires. The מַ לְּכִ ירָ ם before ו .the cop heiresses (Num. 27:8; 36:8f.), married a man belonging to a family of her paternal tribe, viz., supposition just mentioned is only an attempt, Neri, of the family of David, in the line of irreconcilable with the words of the text, to Nathan, and that from this marriage sprang form a series, thus: Shealtiel, Pedaiah his son, Shealtiel, Malchiram, and the other sons Zerubbabel his son,—so as to get rid of the (properly grandsons) of Jeconiah mentioned in differences between our verse and Hagg. 1:1, v. 18. If we suppose the eldest of these, Ezra 3:2. In vv. 19 and 20, sons and grandsons Shealtiel, to come into the inheritance of his of Pedaiah are registered. Nothing further is maternal grandfather, he would be legally known of the Bne Jeconiah mentioned in v. 18. regarded as his legitimate son. In our Pedaiah’s son Zerubbabel is unquestionably the genealogy, therefore, along with the childless prince of Judah who returned to Jerusalem in Assir, Shealtiel is introduced as a descendant of the reign of Cyrus in the year 536, at the head of Jeconiah, while in Luke he is called, according to a great host of exiles, and superintended their his actual descent, a son of Neri. The other settlement anew in the land of their fathers discrepancy in respect to the descendants of (Ezra 1–6). Of Shimei nothing further is known. Zerubbabel is to be explained, as has been In vv. 19b and 20, the sons of Zerubbabel are already shown on Hagg. 1:1, by the law of mentioned, and in v. 21a two grandsons are some MSS ּובֶ ן Levirate marriage, and by the supposition that named. Instead of the singular and the old versions also have the ,ּובְּ נֵי Shealtiel died without any male descendants, have leaving his wife a widow. In such a case, plural. This is correct according to the sense, according to the law (Deut. 25:5–10, cf. Matt. cannot be objected to on critical ּובֶ ן although 22:24–28), it became the duty of one of the brothers of the deceased to marry his brother’s grounds, and may be explained by the writer’s widow, that he might raise up seed, i.e., having had mainly in view the one son who posterity, to the deceased brother; and the first continued the line of descendants. By the son born of this marriage would be legally mention of their sister after the first two names, incorporated with the family of the deceased, the sons of Zerubbabel are divided into two and registered as his son. After Shealtiel’s groups, probably as the descendants of death, his second brother Pedaiah fulfilled this different mothers. How Shelomith had gained Levirate duty, and begat, in his marriage with such fame as to be received into the family his sister-in-law, Zerubbabel, who was now register, we do not know. Those mentioned in v. regarded, in all that related to laws of heritage, 20 are brought together in one group by the grace is restored,” is“ ,יּושַב חֶסֶ ד ”.as Shealtiel’s son, and propagated his race as number “five his heir. According to this right of heritage, one name. The grandsons of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel is called in the passages quoted Pelatiah and Jesaiah, were without doubt from Haggai and Ezra, as also in the genealogy contemporaries of Ezra, who returned to seems Jerusalem from Babylon seventy-eight years בְּ נו in Matthew, the son of Shealtiel. The to hint at this peculiar position of Shealtiel with after Zerubbabel. reference to the proper descendants of After these grandsons of Zerubbabel, there are Jeconiah, helping to remind us that he was son ranged in v. 21b, without any copula whatever, of Jeconiah not by natural birth, but only four families, the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of

1 CHRONICLES Page 48 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

,ּובְּ נֵישְּ כַ נְּיָה Arnan, etc.; and of the last named of these, the conjunction, and in which the words sons of Shecaniah, four generations of and a statement of the names of one of these descendants are enumerated in vv. 22–24, and his further descendants, follow the בָ נִים without any hint as to the genealogical has no ,בְּ נֵישְּ כַ נְּיָה connection of Shecaniah with the grandsons of immediately preceding Zerubbabel. The assertion of more modern meaning, and is clearly corrupt, as has been critics, Ewald, Bertheau, and others, that recognised by Heidegger, Vitringa, Carpzov, and Shecaniah was a brother or a son of Pelatiah or others. Owing, however, to want of information Jesaiah, and that Zerubbabel’s family is traced from other sources regarding these families and down through six generations, owes its origin their connection with the descendants of to the wish to gain support for the opinion that Zerubbabel, we have no means whatever of the Chronicle was composed long after Ezra, restoring the original text. The sons of and is without any foundation. The argument of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., were, it may Bertheau, that “since the sons of Rephaiah, etc., be supposed, branches of the family of David, run parallel with the preceding names Pelatiah whose descent or connection with Zerubbabel ,בְּ נֵי רְּ פָ יָה and Jesaiah, and since the continuation of the is for us unascertainable. The list from list in v. 22 is connected with the last v. 21b, to the end of the chapter, is a mentioned Shecaniah, we cannot but believe genealogical fragment, which has perhaps come that Pelatiah, Jesaiah, Rephaiah, Arnan, into the text of the Chronicle at a later time.14 Obadiah, and Shecaniah are, without exception, Many of the names which this fragment sons of Hananiah,” would be well founded if, contains are met with singly in genealogies of and only if, the names Rephaiah, Arnan, etc., other tribes, but nowhere in a connection from stood in our verse, instead of the sons of which we might drawn conclusions as to the Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., for Pelatiah origin of the families here enumerated, and the and Jesaiah are not parallel with the sons of age in which they lived. Bertheau, indeed, Arnan. Pelatiah and Jesaiah may perhaps be thinks “we may in any case hold Hattush, v. 22, sons of Hananiah, but not the sons of Rephaiah, for the descendant of David of the same name Arnan, etc. These would be grandsons of mentioned in Ezra 8:2, who lived at the time of Hananiah, on the assumption that Rephaiah, Ezra;” but he has apparently forgotten that, Arnan, etc., were brothers of Pelatiah and according to his interpretation of our verse, Jesaiah, and sons of Hananiah. But for this Hattush would be a great-grandson of assumption there is no tenable ground; it Zerubbabel, who, even if he were then born, would be justified only if our present Masoretic could not possibly have been a man and the text could lay claim to infallibility. Only on the head of a family at the time of his supposed ground of a belief in this infallibility of the return from Babylon with Ezra, seventy-eight traditional text could we explain to ourselves, years after the return of his great-grandfather as Bertheau does, the ranging of the sons of to Palestine. Other men too, even priests, have Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., along with borne the name Hattush; cf. Neh. 3:10; 10:5; Pelatiah and Jesaiah, called sons of Hananiah, 12:2. There returned, moreover, from Babylon by supposing that Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, with Ezra sons of Shecaniah (Ezra 8:3), who and Shecaniah are not named as individuals, may as justly be identified with the sons of but are mentioned together with their families, Shecaniah mentioned in v. 22 of our chapter as because they were the progenitors of famous forefathers or ancestors of Hattush, as the races, while Pelatiah and Jesaiah either had no Hattush here is identified with the Hattush of descendants at all, or none at least who were at Ezra 8:2. But from the fact that, in the all renowned. The text, as we have it, in which genealogy of Jesus, Matt. 1, not a single one of the sons of Rephaiah, etc., follow the names of the names of descendants of Zerubbabel there the grandsons of Zerubbabel without a enumerated coincides with the names given in

1 CHRONICLES Page 49 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study our verses, we may conclude that the the families registered in the following lists descendants of Shecaniah enumerated in vv. traced their origin to them, although in the 22–24 did not descend from Zerubbabel in a enumeration which follows the genealogical direct line. Intermediate members are, it is true, connection of the various groups is not clearly often omitted in genealogical lists; but who brought out. The enumeration begins, would maintain that in Matthew seven, or, 1 Chronicles 4:2. V. 2, with the descendants of according to the other interpretation of our Shobal. As to Reaiah the son of Shobal, see 2:52. verse, nine, consecutive members have been at He begat Jahath, a name often occurring in one bound overleapt? This weighty Levite families, cf. 6:5, 28; 23:10ff., 24:22, 2 consideration, which has been brought forward Chronicles 34:12; but of the descendant of by Clericus, is passed over in silence by the David who bore this name nothing further is defenders of the opinion that our verses known. His sons Ahumai and Lahad founded contain a continuation of the genealogy of the families of the Zorathites, i.e., the Zerubbabel. The only other remark to be made inhabitants of Zora, who also, according to 2:53, about this fragment is, that in v. 22 the number were descended from sons of Shobal. Our verse of the sons of Shecaniah is given as six, while therefore gives more detailed information only five names are mentioned, and that regarding the lineage of these families. consequently a name must have fallen out by 1 Chronicles 4:3, 4. Vv. 3 and 4 contain notices mistake in transcribing. Nothing further can be of the descendants of Hur. The first words of said of these families, as they are otherwise the third verse, “these, father of Etam, Jezreel,” quite unknown. have no meaning; but the last sentence of the should be מִ שְּ פְּ חות Chronicles 4 second verse suggests that 1 supplied, when we read, “and these are the Ch. 4:1–23.—Fragments of the Genealogies of families of (from) Abi-Etam.” The LXX and Descendants and Families of Judah. which is also to be ,אלה בני עיטם Vulgate have 1 Chronicles 4:1. V. 1 is evidently intended to found in several codices, while other codices be a superscription to the genealogical Both readings are .אלה בני אבי עיטם read fragments which follow. Five names are is אבי עיטם mentioned as sons of Judah, of whom only probably only conjectures. Whether Pharez was his son (1 Chronicles 2:4); the to be taken as the name of a person, or others are grandchildren or still more distant appellatively, father = lord of Etam, cannot be is in v. 32, and probably also in עֵיטָ ם .descendants. Nothing is said as to the decided genealogical relationship in which they stood to Judg. 15:8, 11, the name of a town of the each other; that is supposed to be already Simeonites; and in 2 Chronicles 11:6, the name known from the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2. of a little town in the highlands of Judah, south Hezron is the son of Pharez, and consequently be the name of a place, only עיטם of Jerusalem. If grandson of Judah, 2:8. Carmi, a descendant of Zerah, the brother of Pharez, see on 2:6, 7. Hur the lest named can be here meant. The names is a son of Caleb, the son of Hezron, by Ephratah Jezreel, Ishma, and Idbash denote persons as (see on 2:19 and 50); and Shobal is the son of progenitors and head of families or branches of .as the name of a person, cf יִ ֹזְּרְּ עֶ אל Hur, who has just been mentioned (1 families. For Chronicles 2:50). These five names do not Hos. 1:4. That these names should be those of denote here, any more than in 1 Chronicles 2, persons is required by the succeeding remark, “families of the tribe of Judah” (Berth.), but “and their sister Hazelel-poni.” The formation signify persons who originated or were heads of this name, with the derivative termination i, of families. The only conceivable ground for seems to express a relationship of race; but the these five being called “sons of Judah,” is that

1 CHRONICLES Page 50 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study word may also be an adjective, and as such may 1 Chronicles 4:7. The first wife, Helah, bore be a proper name: cf. Ew. § 273, e. three sons, Zereth, Jezoar, and Ethnan, who are יצחר Chronicles 4:4. Penuel, in Gen. 22:31f., Judg. not elsewhere met with. For the Kethibh 1 the name of a son of ,וְּ צֹׁחַ ר name of a place in the East-Jordan land, as there is in the Keri ,8:8 here, and in 8:25 the name of a man. Gedor is, Simeon (Gen. 46:10), and of a Hittite chief in the we may suppose, the town of that name in the time of the patriarchs (Gen. 23:8), with whom mountains of Judah, which is still to be found in the son of Helah has nothing to do. the ruin Jedur (see on Josh. 15:58). Penuel is here called father of Bedor, while in v. 18 one 1 Chronicles 4:8–10. Vv. 8–10 contain a Jered is so called, whence we must conclude fragment, the connection of which with the that the inhabitants of Gedor were descended sons of Judah mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2 is not occurs קוץ from both. Ezer (Help) occurs in 7:21; 12:9, clear. Coz begat Anub, etc. The name is found, of a הַ קוץ Neh. 3:19, of other men; father of Hushah, i.e., only here; elsewhere only according to the analogy of Abi-Gedor, also the Levite, 24:10, cf. Ezra 2:61 and Neh. 3:4, —in name of a place not elsewhere mentioned, the latter passage without any statement as to where the hero Sibbecai had his birth, 11:29, 2 the tribe to which the sons of Hakkoz belonged. Sam. 23:27. Those thus named in vv. 3 and 4 are The names of the sons begotten by Coz, v. 8, do sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah (1 not occur elsewhere. The same is to be said of Chronicles 2:19), the father of Bethlehem. The Jabez, of whom we know nothing beyond what inhabitants of Bethlehem then, according to יַעְּבֵ ץ is communicated in vv. 9 and 10. The word this, were descended from Hur through his son Salma, who is called in 2:51 father of denotes in 2:55 a town or village which is quite Bethlehem. The circumstance, too, that in our unknown to us; but whether our Jabez were verses (3 and 4) other names of persons are father (lord) of this town cannot be determined. enumerated as descendants of Hur than those If there be any genealogical connection given in 2:50–55 gives rise to no discrepancy, between the man Jabez and the locality of this for there is no ground for the supposition that name or its inhabitants (1 Chronicles 2:55), in 2:50–55 all the descendants of Hur have then the persons named in v. 8 would belong to been mentioned. the descendants of Shobal. For although the connection of Jabez with Coz and his sons is not 1 Chronicles 4:5–7. Sons of Ashur, the father of clearly set forth, yet it may be conjectured from Tekoa, who, according to 2:24, was a the statements as to Jabez being connected with posthumous son of Hezron. Ashur had two the preceding by the words, “Jabez was more wives, Helah and Naarah. Of the latter came honoured than his brethren.” The older four sons and as many families: Ahuzam, of commentators have thence drawn the whom nothing further is known; Hepher, also conclusion that Jabez was a son or brother of unknown, but to be distinguished from the Coz. Bertheau also rightly remarks: “The Gileadite of the same name in 1 Chronicles statements that he was more honoured than his 11:36 and Num. 26:32f. The conjecture that the brethren (cf. Gen. 34:19), that his mother called name is connected wit the land of Hepher (1 him Jabez because she had borne him with Kings 4:10), the territory of a king conquered sorrow; the use of the similarly sounding word by Joshua (Josh. 12:17) (Berth.), is not very well along with the name (cf. Gen. 4:25; יַעְּבֵ ץ עֹׁצֶ ב supported. Temani (man of the south) may be simply the name of a person, but it is probably, 19:37f., 29:32, 33, 35; 30:6, 8, etc.); and the like the following, the name of a family. statement that Jabez vowed to the God of Israel Haahashtari, descended from Ahashtar, is quite (cf. Gen. 33:20) in a prayer (cf. Gen. 28:20),—all unknown. bring to our recollection similar statements of Genesis, and doubtless rest upon primeval

1 CHRONICLES Page 51 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

—.Chronicles 4:13–15. Descendants of Kenaz 1 ,לְּבִלְֹּּתִי עָצְּבִ י ,tradition.” In the terms of the vow ,is a descendant of Hezron the son of Pharez קְּ נַֹז so that sorrow may not be to me,” there is a“ play upon the name Jabez. But of the vow itself as may be inferred from the fact that Caleb the only the conditions proposed by the maker of son of Jephunneh, a descendant of Hezron’s son the vow are communicated: “If Thou wilt bless Caleb, is called in Num. 32:12 and Josh. 14:6 and consequently was also a descendant of ,קְּ נִזִ י me, and enlarge my coast, and Thy hand shall be with me, and Thou wilt keep evil far off, not Kenaz. Othniel and Seraiah, introduced here as to bring sorrow to me,”—without the are not sons (in the narrower sense of ,בְּ נֵיקְּ נַֹז conclusion, Then I vow to do this or that (cf. Gen. 28:20f.), but with the remark that God the word), but more distant descendants of granted him that which he requested. The Kenaz; for Othniel and Caleb the son of reason of this is probably that the vow had Jephunneh were, according to Josh. 15:17 and 15 acquired importance sufficient to make it Judg. 1:13, brothers. Kenaz, therefore, can worthy of being handed down only from God’s neither have been the father of Othniel nor having so fulfilled his wish, that his life became father of Caleb (in the proper sense of the a contradiction of his name; the son of sorrow word), but must at least have been the having been free from pain in life, and having grandfather or great-grandfather of both. attained to greater happiness and reputation Othniel is the famous first judge of Israel, Judg. than his brothers. 3:9ff. Of Seraiah nothing further is known, although the name is often met with of different 1 Chronicles 4:11, 12. The genealogy of the persons. men of Rechah.—As to their connection with ,בְּ נֵי the larger families of Judah, nothing has been The sons of Othniel are Hathath. The plural handed down to us. Chelub, another form of the even when only one name follows, is met with name Caleb or Chelubai (see 2:9 and 18), is elsewhere (vide on 2:7); but the continuation is distinguished from the better known Caleb son somewhat strange, “and Meonothai begat of Hezron (1 Chronicles 2:18 and 42), and from Ophrah,” for as Meonothai is not before the son of Jephunneh (v. 15), by the additional mentioned, his connection with Othniel is not clause, “the son of Shuah.” Shuah is not met given. There is evidently a hiatus in the text, with elsewhere, but is without reason identified which may most easily be filled up by repeating at the end of v. 13. According to this ּומְּ עונֹׁתַ י .with Hushah, v. 4, by the older commentators Mehir the father of Eshton is likewise unknown. conjecture two sons of Othniel would be Eshton begat the house (the family) of Rapha, of named, Hathath and Meonothai, and then the whom also nothing further is said; for they can מְּ עונֹׁתַ י posterity of the latter is given. The name be connected neither with the Benjamite Rapha (1 Chronicles 8:2) nor with the children of (my dwellings) is not met with elsewhere. It is Rapha (:4, 6, 8). Paseah and not at all probable that it is connected with the Tehinnah are also unknown, for it is uncertain town Maon, and still less that it is so in any way whether the sons of Paseah mentioned among with the Mehunim, Ezra 2:50. Ophrah is the Nethinim, Ezra 2:49, Neh. 7:51, have any unknown, for of course we must not think of connection with our Paseah. Tehinnah is called the towns called Ophrah, in the territory of “father of the city of Nahash.” The latter name is Benjamin, Josh. 18:23, and in that of Manasseh, probably not properly the name of a town, but Judg. 6:11, 24. Seraiah, who is mentioned in v. rather the name of a person Nahash, not 13, begat Joab the father (founder) of the valley unlikely the same as the father of Abigail (2 of the craftsmen, “for they (i.e., the inhabitants Sam. 17:25), the step-sister of David (cf. 2:16). of this valley, who were descended from Joab) חֲ רָשִ ים The men (or people) of Rechah are unknown. were craftsmen.” The valley of the (craftsmen) is again mentioned in Neh. 11:35,

1 CHRONICLES Page 52 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study whence we may conclude that it lay at no great the definite statement that Mered had two distance from Jerusalem, in a northern wives, with whom he begat sons; and (3) an direction. arrangement by which the sons are enumerated 1 Chronicles 4:15. Of Iru, Elah, and Naam, the after the names of their respective mothers.” sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh (cf. on v. After this transposition the 17th verse would 13), nothing more is known. To connect Elah read thus: “And the sons of Ezra are Jether, with the Edomite chief of that name (1 Mered, … and Jalon; and these are the sons of Chronicles 1:52) is arbitrary. Of Elah’s sons Bithia the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered copul. took; and she conceived (and bare) , and ו only “and Kenaz” is mentioned; the Shammai, and Ishbah, the father of Eshtemoa shows clearly that a name has been (v. 18), and his wife Jehudijah bore Jered the קְּ נַֹז before dropped out before it. father of Gedor, etc.” This conjecture commends 1 Chronicles 4:16–20. Descendants of various itself by its simplicity, and by the clearness men, whose genealogical connection with the which it brings into the words. From them we sons and grandsons of Judah, mentioned in v. 1, then learn that two families, who dwelt in a is not given in the text as it has come to us. number of the cities of Judah, were descended 1 Chronicles 4:16. Sons of Jehaleleel, a man from Mered the son of Ezra by his two wives. not elsewhere mentioned. Ziph, Ziphah, etc., are We certainly know no more details concerning met with only here. There is no strong reason them, as neither Mered not his children are met with elsewhere. From the circumstance, with the towns of ֹזִיף for connecting the name however, that the one wife was a daughter of that name, Josh. 15:24, 55. Pharaoh, we may conclude that Mered lived 1 Chronicles 4:17. Ezra, whose four sons are before the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. enumerated, is likewise unknown. The singular The name Miriam, which Moses’ sister bore, is is peculiar, but has analogies in 3:19, 21, and here a man’s name. The names introduced by בֶ ן are the names of towns. Ishbah is father אֲבִ י Of the names of his sons, Jether and Epher .23 again occur, the former in 2:53, and the latter in (lord) of the town Eshtemoa, in the mountains 1:33 and 5:24, but in other families. Jalon, on of Judah, now Semua, a village to the south of the contrary, is found only here. The children of Hebron, with considerable ruins dating from means הַ יְּהּודִ יָה .(two wives of Mered are enumerated in vv. 17b ancient times (cf. on Josh. 15:50 and 18, but in a fashion which is quite properly “the Jewess,” as distinguished from unintelligible, and shows clear traces of a the Egyptian woman, Pharaoh’s daughter. corruption in the text. For (1) the name of a Gedor is a town in the high lands of Judah (cf. and she conceived on v. 4). Socho, in the low land of Judah, now“ ,וַֹּתַהַ ר woman as subject of (bare),” is wanting; and (2) in v. 18 the names Shuweikeh, in Wady Sumt (cf. on Josh. 15:35). of two women occur, Jehudijah and Bithiah the Zanoah is the name of a town in the high lands daughter of Pharaoh. But the sons of Jehudijah of Judah, Josh. 15:56 (which has not yet been are first given, and there follows thereupon the discovered), and of a town in the low land, now formula, “and these are the sons of Bithiah,” Zanua, not far from Zoreah, in an easterly without any mention of the names of these direction (cf. on Josh. 15:34). Perhaps the latter sons. This manifest confusion Bertheau has is here meant. In v. 19, “the sons of the wife of sought to remove by a happy transposition of Hodiah, the sister of Naham, are the father of the words. He suggests that the words, “and Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the הודִ יָה before אֵשֶ ת .these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Maachathite.” The stat. contr Pharaoh, whom Mered had taken,” should be shows that Hodiah is a man’s name. Levites of ;By this means this name are mentioned in Neh. 8:7; 9:5“ .וְּיָלון placed immediately after The relationship of Hodiah and Naham .10:11 (2) ;וַֹּתַהַ ר we obtain (1) the missing subject of

1 CHRONICLES Page 53 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study to the persons formerly named is not given. over , and Jashubi-lehem.” Kimchi כְּ ֹזִ יב was the place called כֹֹׁזֵבָ ה is a locality in the low land of Judah not conjectured that קְּעִ ילָ ה ,Josh. 15:44, in the low land ,אַכְּ ֹזִ יב = yet discovered (see on Josh. 15:44). The origin in Gen. 38:5 is a strange יָשֻ בִ י לֶחֶ ם .we do not know. Before where Shelah was born הַ גַרְּ מִ י of the Epithet copul. is probably to be name, “which the punctuators would hardly ו with אֲבִ י ,אֶשְֹּּתְּ מֹׁעַ repeated; and the Maachathite, the chief of a have pronounced in the way they have done if it part of the inhabitants of Eshtemoa, is perhaps had not come down to them by tradition” a descendant of Caleb by Maachah (1 (Berth.). The other names denote heads of Chronicles 2:48). families or branches of families, the branches 1 Chronicles 4:20. Of Shimon and his four and families being included in them.16 Nothing is one name. is told us of them beyond what is found in our בֶן־חָ נָ ן .sons, also, nothing is known verses, according to which the four first named Ishi is often met with, e.g., v. 42 and 2:31, but ruled over Moab during a period in the nowhere in connection with Zoheth (not primeval time; fir, as the historian himself further noticed). The names of the sons are remarks, “these things are old.” .בֶ ן־ֹזוחֵ ת wanting after 1 Chronicles 4:23. “These are the potters and 1 Chronicles 4:21–23. Descendants of Shelah, the inhabitants of Netaim and Gedera.” It is refers to all the הֵֹּמָ ה the third son of Judah, 2:3, and Gen. 38:5.—All doubtful whether the families of Judah enumerated in vv. 2–20 descendants of Shelah, or only to those named in v. 22. Bertheau holds the latter to be the ,ו are connected together by the conjunction and so are grouped as descendants of the sons more probable reference; “for as those named and grandsons of Judah named in v. 1. The in v. 21 have already been denominated Byssus-workers, it appears fitting that those in ,בְּ נֵי שֵ לָ ה conjunction is omitted, however, before ”.in v. 3, to show that the v. 22 should be regarded as the potters, etc בְּ נֵייְּהּודָ ה as also before But all those mentioned in v. 22 are by no descendants of Shelah form a second line of means called Byssus-weavers, but only the descendants of Judah, co-ordinate with the sons families of Ashbea. What the descendants of Er of Judah enumerated in vv. 1–19, concerning and Laadan were is not said. The may הֵֹּמָ ה whom only a little obscure but not unimportant information has been preserved. Those consequently very probably refer to all the sons mentioned as sons are Er (which also was the of Shelah enumerated in vv. 21 and 22, with the name of the first-born of Judah, 2:3f.), father of exception of the families designated Byssus- Lecah, and Laadan, the father of Mareshah. The weavers, who are, of course, understood to be signifies “plantings;” but since נְּטָעִ ים .latter name denotes, beyond question, a town excepted is probably the name of a city Gedera in גְּדֵרָ ה which still exists as the ruin Marash in the Shephelah, Josh. 15:44 (see on 2:42), and the lowlands of Judah (cf. Josh. 15:36; and for also is the name of a the situation, see on 1 Chronicles 12:4), Netaim (לֵכָ ה) consequently Lecah locality not elsewhere mentioned. The further also will most likely denote a village where descendants of Shelah were, “the families of the there were royal plantations, and about which Byssus-work of the house of Ashbea,” i.e., the these descendants of Shelah were employed, as families of Ashbea, a man of whom nothing the words “with the king in his business to is not an הַֹּמֶ לֶ ְך .further is known. Of these families some were dwell there” expressly state connected with a famous weaving-house or individual king of Judah, for we know not linen (Byssus) manufactory, probably in Egypt; merely “of King Uzziah that he had country and then further, in v. 22, “Jokim, and the man lands, 2 Chronicles 26:10” (Berth.); but we of Chozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, which ruled learn from 1 Chronicles 27:25–31 that David

1 CHRONICLES Page 54 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study also possessed great estates and country lands, distinguished from the other sons. His family is which were managed by regularly appointed traced down, in vv. 25 and 26, through six officers. generations to one Shimei. But this list is We may therefore with certainty assume that divided into two groups by the words “and the all the kings of Judah had domains on which not sons of Mishma,” inserted at the beginning of v. only agriculture and the rearing of cattle, but 26, but the reasons for the division are also trades, were carried on.17 unknown. The plural, sons of Mishma, refers to Hammuel and his descendants Zacchur and Ch. 4:24–43.—The Families and the Dwelling- Shimei. Perhaps these two together form, with places of the Tribe of Simeon. the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons mentioned in v. 25, a single larger family. 1 Chronicles 4:25–27. In 25–27 we have, traced down through several generations, the 1 Chronicles 4:27. Shimei had sixteen sons and genealogy of only one of all the families of the six daughters, by whom he became the father of tribe of Simeon. There follows thereupon, in vv. a numerous race. “His brothers,” i.e., the other 28–33, an enumeration of the ancient dwelling- Simeonites, on the contrary, had not many sons. places of this tribe; and finally, in vv. 34–43, Hence it happens that they made not their information it given concerning the emigrations whole race, i.e., the whole race of the of Simeonite families into other Simeonites, numerous unto the sons of Judah, neighbourhoods. i.e., that the Simeonites were not so numerous as the descendants of Judah. This account is 1 Chronicles 4:24–27. The families of corroborated by the statement made at the Simeon.—Of the six sons of Simeon, Gen. 46:10 numberings of the people under Moses; see on and Ex. 6:15, only the five are here named who, Num. 1–4 (1 Chronicles 1:2, S. 192). according to Num. 26:12–14, founded the families of this tribe. The third son, Ohad, is 1 Chronicles 4:28–33. The ancient dwelling- omitted even in Num. 26:12 in the list of the places of the Simeonites, which they received families of Simeon, at the numbering of the within the tribal domain of Judah at the division people in the fortieth year of the journey of the land by Joshua; cf. Josh. 19:1ff.—There through the wilderness, clearly only because are in all eighteen cities, divided into two the posterity of Ohad had either died out, or groups, numbering thirteen and five had so dwindled away that it could form no respectively, as in Josh. 19:2–6, where these independent family. The names of the five sons same cities are enumerated in the same order. agree with the names in Num. 26:12–14, except The only difference is, that in Joshua thirteen in the case of Jarib, who in Num. 26:12, which cities are reckoned in the first group and four in coincides here with Gen. 46:10 and Ex. 6:15, is the second, although the first group contains consequently, must be looked fourteen names. Between Beersheba and ,יָרִ יב ;called Jachin which is not שֶ בַ ע Moladah there stands there a Nemuel .יָכִ ין upon as a transcriber’s error for found in our list, and which might be the rising of the sun) are called considered to be a repetition of the second part ,ֹזֶרַ ח) and Zerah if it were not that in the list of the ,בְּאֵ ר־שֶ בַ ע in Genesis and Exodus Jemuel (a different form of of the same name) and Zohar ( , i.e., candor), before שְּמָ ע cities, Josh. 15:26, the name צֹׁחַ ר another name of similar meaning, which, at first Moladah corresponds to it. The other used only as a by-name, afterwards supplanted differences between the two passages arise the original name. partly from different forms of the same name בָלָ ה for בִלְּהָ ה ,Chronicles 4:25. “Shallum (was) his son;” being used,—as, for example 1 without doubt the son of the last named Shaul, and ;בְּ תּול for בְּתּואֵ ל ,אֶ לְּ ֹּתולַ ד for ֹּתולַ ד ,(.who in Genesis and Exodus is called the son of a (Josh Canaanitish woman, and is thereby partly from different names being used of the

1 CHRONICLES Page 55 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

,v. 31) instead of tribe at a later time” (Berth.). had been) בֵ ית־בִרְּ אִ י ,.same city,—e.g even before the reign of David, taken away from שַ עֲרַ יִם ,(.the house of lions” (Josh“ ,בֵ ית־לְּבָ אות the Simeonites by the Philistines, and had Josh.). All these cities lie in the become the property of King Achish, who in the) שָרּוחֶ ן instead of south land of Judah, and have therefore been reign of Saul presented it to David, and through named in Josh. 15:26–32 among the cities of him it became the property of the kings of that district. As to Beersheba, now Bir es Seba, Judah (1 Sam. 27:6). The subscription can only see on Gen. 21:31; and for Moladah, which is to mean that till the reign of David these cities be identified with the ruin el Milh to the south rightfully belonged to the Simeonites, but that of Hebron, on the road to Ailah, see on Josh. during and after David’s reign this rightful Ezem, possession of the Simeonites was trenched ,(בַעֲלָ ה ,Bilhah (in Josh. 15:29 .15:26 Tolad, and Bethuel (for which in Josh. 15:31 upon; and of this curtailing of their rights, the transfer of the city of Ziklag to the kings of .is found), have not yet been discovered; cf כְּסִ יל Judah gives one historically attested proof. This, on Josh. 15:29 and 30. Hormah, formerly however, might not have been the only instance Sephat, is now the ruin Sepata, on the western of the sort; it may have brought with it other slope of the Rakhma table-land, 2 1/2 hours alterations in the possessions of the Simeonites south of Khalasa (Elusa); cf. on Josh. 12:14. as to which we have no information. The Ziklag is most probably to be sought in the remark of R. Salomo and Kimchi, that the men ancient village Aschludsch or Kasludsch, to the of Judah, when they had attained to greater east of Sepata; cf. on Josh. 15:31. Beth- power under David’s rule, drove the Simeonites Marcaboth, i.e., “carriage-house,” and Hazar- out of their domains, and compelled them to Susim (or Susa), i.e., horse-village, both seek out other dwelling-places, is easily seen to evidently by-names, are called in Josh. 15:31 be an inference drawn from the notices in vv. Madmannah and Sansannah. Their position has 33–43 of emigrations of the Simeonites into not yet been discovered. Beth-Birei, or Beth- other districts; but it may not be quite Lebaoth, is also as yet undiscovered; cf. on Josh. incorrect, as these emigrations under Hezekiah 15:32. Shaaraim, called in Josh. 15:32 Shilhim, presuppose a pressure upon or diminution of is supposed to be the same as Tell Sheriah, their territory. We would indeed expect this between Gaza and Beersheba; cf. Van de Velde, remark to occur after v. 33, but it may have Reise, ii. S. 154. The enumeration of these been placed between the first and second thirteen cities concludes in v. 31 with the groups of cities, for the reason that the strange subscription, “These (were) their cities alterations in the dwelling-places of the until the reign of David, and their villages.” Simeonites which took place in the time of which, according to the Masoretic David affected merely the first group, while the ,וְּחַ צְּרֵ יהֶ ם division of the verses, stands at the beginning of cities named in v. 32f., with their villages, v. 32, should certainly be taken with v. 31; for remained at a later time even the untouched the places mentioned in v. 32 are expressly possession of the Simeonites. called cities, and in Josh. 19:6, cities and their 1 Chronicles 4:32. Instead of the five cities, are spoken of. This Etam, Ain, Rimmon, Tochen, and Ashan, only ,חַ צְּרֵ יהֶ ם ,villages subscription can hardly “only be intended to four are mentioned in Josh. 19:7, viz., Ain, is written עֶתֶ ר ;remind us, that of the first-mentioned cities, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan is wanting. According עֵיטָ ם and ,ֹּתוכֶ ן one (viz., Ziklag, 1 Sam. 27:6), or several, in the instead of time of David, no longer belonged to the tribe of to Movers, p. 73, and Berth. in his commentary Simeon;” nor can it only be meant to state that “till the time of David the cities named were in on the passage, the list of these cities must have ,עֶתֶ ר ,(one city) עֵ ין רִ ֹּמון :possession of the tribe of Simeon, though they been at first as follows did not all continue to be possessed by this

1 CHRONICLES Page 56 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

must have fallen out assigned to them in the Negeb and the ֹּתוכֶ ן in Joshua ;עָשָ ן and ,ֹּתוכֶ ן Shephelah. The existence of a second Etam, has been עֶתֶ ר by mistake, in our text besides that in the neighbourhood of erroneously exchanged for the better known Bethlehem, is placed beyond doubt by Judg. in the tribe of Judah, while by 15:8 and 11; for mention is there made of an עֵיטָ ם city the number four has Etam in the plain of Judah, which is to be sought רִ ֹּמון and עין reckoning both become five. These conjectures are shown to be in the neighbourhood of Khuweilife, on the groundless by the order of the names in our border of the Negeb and the mountainous district: cf. on Judg. 15:8. It is this Etam which is עיטם ,עֵיטָ ם been exchanged for עֶתֶ ר text. For had spoken of in our verse, and it is rightly grouped would not stand in the first place, at the head of with Ain and Rimmon, which were situated in the four or five cities, but would have occupied the Negeb, while Tochen and Ashan were in the in Shephelah. The statement of Josh. 19:7 and עָשָ ן which is connected with ,עֶתֶ ר the place of ֹּתוכֶ ן Josh. 19:7 and 15:43. Then again, the face that 15:42 leaves no doubt as to the fact that the Etam .עֶתֶ ר of our verse is only another name for ו by the עַ יִן is separated from רִ ֹּמון in Josh. 15:32 cop., and in Josh. 19:7 is reckoned by itself as must therefore have come into the possession one city as in our verse, is decisive against of the Simeonites after Joshua’s time, but as to together as one name. The when, or under what circumstances, we have רִ ֹּמון and עַ יִן taking want of the conjunction, moreover, between the no information. two names here and in Josh. 19:7, and the 1 Chronicles 4:33. Concerning the villages ,belonging to these cities, cf. on Josh. 19:8 ,עֵ ין־רִ ֹּמון ,uniting of the two words into one name בַעֲלַ ת we have the more accurate בַעַ ל Neh. 11:29, is explained by the supposition that where for and Ramah of the south. The position of ,בְּאֵ ר the towns lay in the immediate neighbourhood of each other, so that they were at a later time these places has not yet been certainly united, or at least might be regarded as one city. ascertained. “These are their dwelling-places, Rimmon is perhaps the same as the ruin Rum er and their family register was to them;” i.e., Rummanim, four hours to the north of although they were only a small tribe and dwelt Beersheba; and Ain is probably to be identified in the midst of Judah, they yet had their own with a large half-ruined and very ancient well infin. is used הִתְּ יַחֵ ׂש .(.which lies at from thirty to thirty-five minutes family register (Berth distance, cf. on Josh. 15:32. Finally, the substantively, “the entering in the family ”.has come into our register עֵיטָ ם assertion that the name for the 1 Chronicles 4:34–43. Emigrations of עֶתֶ ר text by an ex change of the unknown Simeonite families into other districts.—Vv. 34– name of this better known city of Judah, is 41 record an expedition of the Simeonites, in founded upon a double geographical error. It the time of Hezekiah, undertaken for purposes rests (1) upon the erroneous assumption that of conquest. In vv. 34–36, thirteen princes of besides the Etam in the high lands of Judah to the tribe of Simeon are enumerated who the south of Bethlehem, there was no other city undertook this expedition. The families of some of this name, and that the Etam mentioned in of them are traced through several generations, Judg. 15:8, 11 is identical with that in the high but in no case are they traced down so far as to lands of Judah; and (2) on the mistaken idea show their connection with the families named that Ether was also situated in the high lands of in vv. 24–26. Judah, whereas it was, according to Josh. 15:42, one of the cities of the Shephelah; and the 1 Chronicles 4:38. “These mentioned by their Simeonites, moreover, had no cities in the high names were princes in their families; whose lands of Judah, but had their dwelling-places fathers’-houses had increased to a multitude.

1 CHRONICLES Page 57 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

properly valley in the neighbourhood of Gedor is ,הַבָאִ ים בְּשֵ מות .And they went,” etc 18 “those who have come with their names,” i.e., meant. Even the further statements in v. 30, those who have been mentioned by name; for with regard to the district, that they found there fat and good pasture, and that the land to come with, is to bring something = בְּ with בוא extended on both sides (i.e., was wide), and at in, to introduce: cf. Ps. 71:16. This formula is rest and secure, because formerly the Hamites v. 41; but we dwelt there, and the statement of v. 41, that the ,הַכְּ תּובִ ים בְּשֵ מות synonymous with cannot consider it, as J. H. Mich., Berth., and Simeonites found the Meunim there, and smote them, give us no firm foothold for the אֲשֶ רנִקְּ בּו others do, identical in meaning with ascertainment of the district referred to. The Num. 1:17, etc. The predicate to ,12:31 ,בְּשֵ מות whole Negeb of Judah has been as yet too little is a relative sentence, travelled over and explored by modern הַבָאִ ים and ,נְּׂשִיאִ ים is אֵ לֶ ה travellers, to allow of our forming any probable .אֵ לֶ ה more accurately defining the subject Princes in their families are not heads of conjecture as to Gedor and the wide valley families, but heads of fathers’-houses, into stretching out on both sides. The description of reminds us ,שֹׁקֶטֶ תּושְּ לֵוָ ה ,which the families had divided themselves. the Hamite inhabitants .is not construed with the plural, as of the inhabitants of the ancient Laish (Judg בֵ ית־אָ בות ,.are people from Ham, i.e מִן חָ ם being collective (Berth.), but as the plural of the 18:7, 27). Those ,cf. Ew. § 270, c. Hamites, and they may have been Egyptians :בֵ ית־אָ ב word Cushites, or even Canaanites (1 Chronicles 1:8). 1 Chronicles 4:39. The princes named “went This only is certain, that they were a peaceful westward from Gedor to the east side of the shepherd people, who dwelt in tents, and were מְּ בוא גְּדֹׁר ”.valley, to seek pasture for their flocks formerly,” before the“ ,לְּפָ נִים .therefore nomads does not mean the entrance of Gedor (Mich., Simeonites took possession of the land. Berth., and others); but is, as the corresponding 1 Chronicles 4:41. The above-mentioned rising” of the sun, i.e., east, requires, a“ ,מִ ֹזְּרַ ח Simeonite princes, with their people, fell upon designation of the west, and is abridged from the peaceful little people of the Hamites in the ,as in statements with reference to days of Hezekiah, and smote, i.e., destroyed ,מְּ בוא הַשֶמֶ ש The their tents, and also the Meunites whom they מִ .ֹזְּרַ ח הַשֶמֶ ש is used instead of מִ ֹזְּרַ ח places locality itself, however, is to us at present found there. The Meunites were strangers in unknown. So much is clear, that by Gedor, the this place, and were probably connected with Gedor mentioned in Josh. 15:58, situated in the the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to high lands of Judah, north of Hebron, cannot be the east of Wady Musa (cf. on 2 Chronicles 20:1 intended, for in that district there is no open and 26:7), who dwelt in tents as nomads, with valley stretching out on either hand; and the the Hamites in their richly pastured valley. and they destroyed them utterly, as the ,וַיַחֲרִ ימֻ ם Simeonites, moreover, could not have carried on a war of conquest in the territory of the tribe Vulgate rightly renders it, et deleverunt; and J. of Judah in the reign of Hezekiah. But where H. Mich., ad internecionem usque eos exciderunt. to smite with the curse, having ,הֶחֱרִ ים this Gedor is to be sought cannot be more The word ,is certainly not gradually lost its original religious signification הַ גָיְּא accurately determined; for “the valley in which the lies, and the came to be used in a wider sense, to denote southern continuation of that valley,” as Ewald complete extirpation, because all accursed and Berth. think: that valley has, in the Old persons were slain. Undoubted examples are 2 .From the Chronicles 20:23; 32:14, :11, Isa .הָעֲרָ בָ ה Testament, always the name 19 use of the article, “the valley,” no further 37:11; and it is to be so understood here also. conclusion can be drawn, than that a definite “Until this day,” i.e., till the composition of the

1 CHRONICLES Page 58 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study historical work used by the author of the Joseph, although the birthright was given to Chronicle, i.e., till the time before the exile. him, according to the disposition made by the 1 Chronicles 4:42, 43. A part of the Simeonites patriarch (Gen. 48:5ff.), yet was not entered in undertook a second war of conquest against the family registers as first-born. The reason of Mount Seir. Led by four chiefs of the sons of this was, “for Judah was strong among his Shimei (cf. v. 27), 500 men marched thither, brethren, and (one) from him became the smote the remainder of the Amalekites who Prince;” scil. on the strength of the patriarchal had escaped, and they dwell there to this day blessing (Gen. 49:8–12), and by means of the is more accurately defined by historic fulfilment of this blessing. The מֵהֶ ם .(as in v. 41) “prevailing” of Judah among his brethren and is therefore to be referred to the showed itself even under Moses at the ,מִבְּ נֵי ש׳ Simeonites in general, and not to that part of numbering of the people, when the tribe of them only mentioned in v. 33 (Berth.). From the Judah considerably outnumbered all the other circumstance that the leaders were sons of tribes (cf. t. i. 2, S. 192). Then, again, it appeared Shimei, we may conclude that the whole troop after the division of the land of Canaan among belonged to this family. The escaped of Amalek the tribes of Israel, Judah being called by a are those who had escaped destruction in the declaration of the divine will to be the vanguard victories of Saul and David over this hereditary of the army in the war against the Canaanites enemy of Israel (1 Sam. 14:48; 15:7; 2 Sam. (Judg. 1:1f.); and it was finally made manifest over Israel being chosen by God from נָגִיד A remnant of them had been driven into by the .(8:12 the mountain land of Idumea, where they were the tribe of Judah, in the person of David (cf. smitten, i.e., extirpated, by the Simeonites. It is 28:4 with 1 Sam. 13:14; 25:30). From this we not said at what time this was done, but it gather that the short, and from its brevity occurred most probably in the second half of obscure, sentence bears the ּולְּנָגִיד מִֹּמֶ ּנּו .Hezekiah’s reign signification we have given it. “But the 1 Chronicles 5 birthright was Joseph’s;” i.e., the rights of the progenitor were transferred to or remained Ch. 5:1–26.—The Families of Reuben, Gad, and with him, for two tribal domains were assigned the Half Tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan. to his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, 1 Chronicles 5:1–10. The families of the tribe of according to the law of the first-born (Deut. Reuben.—Vv. 1, 2. Reuben is called the first- 21:15–17). born of Israel, because he was the first-born of After this parenthetic explanation, the words Jacob, although, owing to his having defiled his “the sons of Reuben, the first-born of Israel,” v. father’s bed (Gen. 49:4), his birthright, i.e., its 1, are again taken up in v. 3, and the sons are privileges, were transferred to the sons of enumerated. The names of the four sons Joseph, who were not, however, entered in the correspond to those given in Gen. 46:9, Ex. 6:14, family register of the house of Israel according and Num. 26:5–7. to the birthright, i.e., as first-born sons. The inf. 1 Chronicles 5:4–6. From one of these sons expresses “shall” or “must,” cf. Ew. descended Joel, whose family is traced down לְּ with הִתְּ יַחֵ ׂש § 237, e., “he was not to register,” i.e., “he was through seven generations, to the time of the not to be registered.” The subject is Joseph, as Assyrian deportation of the Israelites. But we the Rabbins, e.g., Kimchi, have perceived. The are neither informed here, nor can we ascertain form a parenthesis, from any information elsewhere given in the יכִ הּוא clauses after containing the reason of Reuben’s being called Old Testament, from which of the four sons Joel which is still further established by was descended. For although many of the ,בְּ כור יִׂשְּרָ אֵ ל names in vv. 4–6 frequently occur, yet they are its being shown (in v. 2) how it happened that nowhere met with in connection with the

1 CHRONICLES Page 59 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study family whose members are here registered. The is probably identical with the ruin Myun, three- .a prince of quarters of an hour south-east from Heshbon ,נָׂשִ יא לָרְּ אּובֵ נִי last-named, Beerah, was the Reubenites, not a prince of the tribe of 1 Chronicles 5:9. “Eastward to the coming to Reuben, but a prince of a family of the the desert (i.e., till towards the desert) from the -being used river Euphrates,” i.e., to the great Arabico לְּ Reubenites. This is expressed by Syrian desert, which stretches from the instead of the stat. constr.; cf. Ew. § 292, a. In Euphrates to the eastern frontier of Perea, or reference to the leading away of the trans- from Gilead to the Euphrates. Bela’s family had Jordanic tribes into captivity by Tiglath- spread themselves so far abroad, “for their pilneser, cf. on 2 Kings 15:29. The name of this herds were numerous in the land of Gilead,” i.e., king as it appears in the Chronicles is always Perea, the whole trans-Jordanic domain of the Tiglath-pilneser, but its meaning has not yet Israelites. been certainly ascertained. According to i.e., 1 Chronicles 5:10. “In the days of Saul they ,ֹּתִ גְּלַ ת־פַ לִ א־סְּחַ ר = Oppert’s interpretation, it made war upon the Hagarites, and they fill into “worship of the son of the Zodiac” (i.e., the their hands, and they dwelt in their tents over Assyrian Hercules); vid., Delitzsch on Isaiah, the whole east side of Gilead.” The subject is not Introd. determined, so that the words may be referred 1 Chronicles 5:7–9. “And his brothers, (each) either to the whole tribe of Reuben or to the according to his families in the registration, family of Bela (v. 8). The circumstance that in הּוא ) according to their descent (properly their vv. 8 and 9 Bela is spoken of in the singular on Gen. 2:4), are ֹּתולְּ דות generations; vice for while here the plural is used in ,(יָשַ ב and יושֵ ב (were) the head (the first) Jeiel and Zechariah, reference to the war, is not sufficient to show and Bela, … the son of Joel,” probably the Joel that the words do not refer to Bela’s family, for already mentioned in v. 4. “His (i.e., Beerah’s) the narrative has already fallen into the plural brothers” are the families related to the family in the last clause of v. 9. We therefore think it of Beerah, which were descended from the better to refer v. 10 to the family of Bela, seeing brothers of Joel. That they were not, however, that the wide spread of this family, which is properly “brothers,” is clear from the fact that mentioned in v. 9, as far as the desert to the Bela’s descent is traced back to Joel as the third east of the inhabited land, presupposes the of the preceding members of his family; and the driving out of the Hagarites dwelling on the conclusion would be the same, even if this Joel eastern plain of Gilead. The notice of this war, be another than the one mentioned in v. 4. The moreover, is clearly inserted here for the singular suffix with is to be taken purpose of explaining the wide spread of the לְּמִשְּ פְּ חֹׁתָ יו may be supplied before it Belaites even to the Euphrates desert, and there אִ יש distributively or is nothing which can be adduced against that ,רֹׁאש in thought; cf. Num. 2:34; 11:10. The word in v. 7 does not, as Bertheau אֶחָ יו head,” for the first-born, stands here before the reference. The“ name, as in 12:3; 23:8; elsewhere it stands after thinks probable, denote that Bela was a the name, e.g., v. 12 and 9:17. The dwelling- contemporary of Beerah, even if the places of Bela and his family are then given in circumstance that from Bela to Joel only three vv. 8b and 9. “He dwelt in Aroer,” on the banks generations are enumerated, could be of the brook Arnon (Josh. 13:9; 12:2), now the reconciled with this supposition. The spread of ruin Araayr on the northern bank of the Mojeb Bela’s family over the whole of the Reubenite (vide on Num. 32:34). “Until Nebo and Baal- Gilead, which has just been narrated, proves meon” westward. Nebo, a village on the hill of decisively that they were not contemporaries. If the same name in the mountains of Abarim, Bela lived at the time of the invasion of Gilead opposite Jericho (cf. on Num. 32:38). Baal-meon by Tiglath-pileser, when the prince Beerah was

1 CHRONICLES Page 60 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study carried away into exile, it is certainly possible introduced as brothers of those mentioned (v. that he might have escaped the Assyrians; but 12), according to their fathers’-houses. They are he could neither have had at that time a family therefore heads of fathers’-houses, but the “which inhabited all the east land,” nor could he district in which they dwelt is not given; himself have extended his domain from “Aroer whence Bertheau concludes, but wrongly, that and Nebo towards the wilderness,” as the the place where they dwelt is not given in the v. 8, distinctly state. We text. The statement which is here omitted ,הּוא יושֵ ב words therefore hold that Bela was much older than follows in v. 16 at a fitting place; for in vv. 14 Beerah, for he is introduced as a great- and 15 their genealogy, which rightly goes grandson of Joel, so that his family might have before the mention of their dwelling-place, is v. 14, is not to be referred, as ,אֵ לֶ ה .been as widely distributed as vv. 8, 9 state, and given have undertaken and carried out the war of Bertheau thinks, to the four Gadites mentioned conquest against the Hagarites, referred to in v. in vv. 12 and 13, but only to those mentioned in 10, as early as the time of Saul. Thus, too, we v. 13. Nothing more was known of those four (v. can most easily explain the fact that Bela and 12) but that they dwelt in Bashan, while the his brothers Jeiel and Zechariah are not genealogy of the seven is traced up through cf. on v. 19. eight generations to a certain Buz, of whom ,הַ גְּרִ אִ ים mentioned. As to nothing further is known, as the name בּוֹז Chronicles 5:11–17. The families of the tribe 1 of Gad, and their dwelling-places.—V. 11. In occurs nowhere else, except in Gen. 22:21 as connection with the preceding statement as to that of a son of Nahor. The names of his the dwelling-places of the Reubenites, the ancestors also are not found elsewhere among enumeration of the families of Gad begins with the Gadites. a statement as to their dwelling-places: “Over 1 Chronicles 5:15. The head of their fathers’- against them (the Reubenites) dwelt the houses (i.e., of those mentioned in v. 13) as Ahi Gadites in Bashan unto Salcah.” Bashan is used the son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, who is here in its wider signification of the dominion conjectured to have lived in the time of King of King Og, which embraced the northern half of , or of Jeroboam II of Israel, Gilead, i.e., the part of that district which lay on when, according to v. 17, genealogical registers the north side of the Jabbok, and the whole of the Gadites were made up. district of Bashan; cf. on Deut. 3:10. Salcah 1 Chronicles 5:16. The families descended formed the boundary towards the east, and is from Buz “dwelt in Gilead,” in the part of that now Szalchad, about six hours eastward from district lying to the south of the Jabbok, which Bosra (see on Deut. 3:10). Moses had given to the Gadites and Reubenites 1 Chronicles 5:12. The sons of Gad (Gen. (Deut. 3:12); “In Bashan and her daughters,” 46:16) are not named here, because the that is, in the villages belonging to the cities of enumeration of the families of Gad had been Bashan and Gilead inhabited by them (for the is to be referred distributively בִבְּ נותֶיהָ already introduced by v. 11, and the suffix in genealogical connection of the families to both districts, or the cities in them). “And in enumerated in v. 12ff., with the sons of the (cf. on Num. 35:2 ,מִ גְּרָ ש) all the pasture grounds tribal ancestor, had not been handed down. In ,Sharon ,שָ רון ”.v. 12 four names are mentioned, which are of Sharon unto their outgoings clearly those of heads of families or fathers’- lay not in Perea, but is a great plain on the houses, with the addition “in Bashan,” i.e., shore of the Mediterranean Sea, extending from is to be repeated or supplied Carmel to near Joppa, famed for its great יָשְּ בּו dwelling, for from the preceding verse.—In v. 13 seven other fertility and its rich growth of flowers (Song names occur, the bearers of which are 2:1; Isa. 33:9; 35:2; 55:10). “A Caesarea Palaestinae usque ad oppidum Joppe omnis

1 CHRONICLES Page 61 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study terra, quae cernitur, dicitur Saronas.” Jerome in very well have come for a time under the sway Onom.; cf. v. Raumer, Pal. S. 50, and Robins. of Judah. At such a time Jotham may have Phys. Geog. S. 123. It is this plain which is here carried out an assessment and registration of meant, and the supposition of the older the Gadites, until his contemporary Pekah commentators that there was a second Sharon succeeded, with the help of the Syrian king in the east-Jordan land is without foundation, as , in taking from the king of Judah the Reland, Palestina illustr. p. 370f., has correctly dominion over Gilead, and in humbling the remarked. For it is not said that the Gadites kingdom of Judah in the reign of Ahaz. possessed cities in Sharon, but only pastures of 1 Chronicles 5:18–22. War of the trans- Sharon are spoken of, which the Gadites may Jordanic tribes of Israel with Arabic tribes.—As have sought out for their herds even on the the half-tribe of Manasseh also took part in this coast of the Mediterranean; more especially as war, we should have expected the account of it the domain of the cis-Jordanic half-tribe of after v. 24. Bertheau regards its position here as Manasseh stretched into the plain of Sharon, a result of striving after a symmetrical and it is probable that at all times there was distribution of the historical information. “In intercourse between the cis- and trans-Jordanic the case of Reuben,” he says, “the historical Manassites, in which the Gadites may also have information is in v. 10; in the case of the half- ,are the outgoings of the tribe of Manasseh, in vv. 25 and 26; as to Gad ֹּתוצָ אותָ ם .taken part pastures to the sea, cf. Josh. 17:9. we have our record in vv. 18–22, which, together with the account in vv. 25 and 26, all the ,כֻלָ ם) Chronicles 5:17. “And these 1 refers to all the trans-Jordanic Israelites.” But it families of Gad, not merely those mentioned in is much more likely that the reason of it will be v. 13ff.) were registered in the days of Jotham found in the character of the authorities which king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king the author of the Chronicle made use of, in of Israel.” These two kings did not reign which, probably, the notes regarding this war contemporaneously, for Jotham ascended the were contained in the genealogical register of throne in Judah twenty-five years after the the Gadites. death of Jeroboam of Israel. Here, therefore, belongs to the מִ ן־בְּ נֵי חַ יִל .two different registrations must be referred to, 1 Chronicles 5:18 and that carried on under Jotham is mentioned predicate of the sentence, “They were the sons first, because Judah had the legitimate kingship. of Valour,” i.e., they belonged to the valiant That set on foot by Jeroboam was probably warriors, “men bearing shield and sword undertaken after that king had restored all the (weapons of offence and defence), and those ancient boundaries of the kingdom of Israel, 2 treading (or bending) the bow,” i.e., skilful ;people practised in war , ילְּמּודֵ מִ לְּחָמָ ה .Kings 14:25ff. King Jotham of Judah could bowmen prepare a register of the Gadites only if a part of cf. the portrayal of the warlike valour of Gad the trans-Jordanic tribes had come temporarily and Manasseh, 1 Chronicles 12:8, 21. “The under his dominion. As to any such event, number 44,760 must be founded upon an indeed, we have no accurate information, but accurate reckoning” (Berth.); but in comparison the thing in itself is not unlikely. For as the with the number of men capable of bearing death of Jeroboam II was followed by complete arms in those tribes in the time of Moses, it is anarchy in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and somewhat inconsiderable: for at the first one ruler overthrew the other, until at last numbering under him Reuben alone had 46,500 Pekah succeeded in holding the crown for ten and Gad 45,650, and at the second numbering years, while in Judah until Pekah ascended the Reuben had 43,730 and Gad 40,500 men; see on throne of Israel Uzziah reigned, and raised his Num. 1–4 (1 Chronicles 1:2, S. 192). kingdom to greater power and prosperity, the 1 Chronicles 5:19. “They made was with the southern part of the trans-Jordanic land might Hagarites and Jethur, Nephish and Nodab.” So

1 CHRONICLES Page 62 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study early as the time of Saul the Reubenites had the war was from God,” i.e., conducted to this victoriously made war upon the Hagarites (see result: cf. 2 Chronicles 25:20; 1 Sam. 17:47. v. 10); but the war here mentioned was “And they dwelt in their stead,” i.e., they took certainly at a later time, and has no further possession of the pasture grounds, which up to connection with that in v. 10 except that both that time had belonged to the Arabs, and held arose from similar causes. The time of the them until they were carried away captive by second is not given, and all we know from v. the Assyrians; see v. 26. 22b is that it had broken out before the trans- 1 Chronicles 5:23–26. The families of the half- Jordanic Israelites were led captive by the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan, and the leading in Ps. 83:7 contracted into away of the East-Jordan Israelites into the ,הַ גְּרִ יאִ ים .Assyrians are the γραῖοι, whom Strabo, xvi. p. 767, Assyrian exile.—V. 23. The half-tribe of ,הַ גְּרִ ים הֵֹּמָ ה ) introduces, on the authority of Eratosthenes, as Manasseh in Bashan was very numerous ,.and they dwelt in the land of Bashan (i.e“ ,(רָ בּו -leading a nomadic life in the great Arabico Syrian desert, along with the Nabataeans and the Bashan inhabited by Gad, v. 12) Chaulotaeans. Jetur, from whom the Itureans (northwards) to Baal Hermon,”—i.e., according are descended, and Nephish, are Ishmaelites; cf. to the more accurate designation of the place in on Gen. 25:15. Nodab, mentioned only here, is a Josh. 12:7 and 13:5, in the valley of Lebanon Bedouin tribe of whom nothing more is known. under Mount Hermon, probably the present 1 Chronicles 5:20. The Israelites, with God’s Bânjas, at the foot of Hermon (see on Num. ,ׂשְּ נִיר ”.it was helped to 34:8),—“and Senir and Mount Hermon“ ,יֵעָ ֹזְּ רּו .help, gained the victory them,” i.e., by God “against them”—the which according to Deut. 3:9 was the name of contracted Hermon or Antilibanus in use among the שֶ עִֹּמָהֶ ם .Hagarites and their allies Amorites, is here and in Ezek. 27:5 the name of is not an uncommon form נַעְּ ֹּתור .אֲשֶ רעִֹּמָהֶ ם from a part of those mountains (vide on Deut. 3:9), of the perf. Niph., which would not be suitable just as “mount Hermon” is the name of another in a continuous sentence, but the inf. absol. part of this range. Niph. used instead of the third pers. perf. (cf. 1 Chronicles 5:24. Seven heads of fathers’- Gesen. Heb. Gramm. § 131, 4): “and (God) was houses of the half-tribe of Manasseh are entreated of them, because they trusted in enumerated, and characterized as valiant Him.” From these words we may conclude that heroes and famous men. The enumeration of the war was a very serious one, in which the ;(וְּעֵפֶ ר) ו possession of the land was at stake. As the the names begins strangely with trans-Jordanic tribes lived mainly by cattle- perhaps a name has fallen out before it. Nothing breeding, and the Arabian tribes on the eastern has been handed down as to any of these frontier of their land were also a shepherd names. people, quarrels could easily arise as to the 1 Chronicles 5:25, 26. Vv. 25 and 26 form the possession of the pasture grounds, which might conclusion of the register of the two and a half lead to a war of extermination. trans-Jordanic tribes. The sons of Manasseh are but the Reubenites and ,וַיִמְּעֲ לּו Chronicles 5:21. The conquerors captured a not the subject to 1 great booty in herds, 50,000 camels, 250,000 Manassites, as is clear from v. 26. These fell head of small cattle (sheep and goats), 2000 away faithlessly from the God of their fathers, asses, and 100,000 persons—all round and went a whoring after the gods of the people numbers; cf. the rich booty obtained in the war of the land, whom God had destroyed before against the Midianites, Num. 31:11, 32ff. them, i.e., the Amorites or Canaanites. “And the 1 Chronicles 5:22. This rich booty should not God of Israel stirred up the spirit of the surprise us, “for there fell many slain,” i.e., the Assyrian kings Pul and Tiglath-pilneser, and he enemy had suffered a very bloody defeat. “For (this latter) led them away captives to Halah

1 CHRONICLES Page 63 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Lavater has rightly Jezirah. This Khâbur is the river of Gozan (vide ,וַיָעַר אֶ ת־רּוחַ .and Habor,” etc appears to be הָרָ א rendered, “in mentem illis dedit, movit eos, ut on :6). The word ,mountains ,הָ ר expeditionem facerent contra illos;” cf. 2 the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Chronicles 21:16. Pul is mentioned as being the and the vernacular designation usual in the first Assyrian king who attacked the land of mouths of the people of the mountain , cf. 2 Kings 15:19f. The deportation Media, which is called also in Arabic el Jebâl began, however, only with Tiglath-pileser, who (the mountains). This name can therefore only led the East-Jordan tribes into exile, 2 Kings have been handed down from the exiles who .sing. refers. The suffix is dwelt there וַיַגְּלֵ ם To him .15:29 ,is לְּ ;לָ ראּובֵ נִי וגו׳ ,.defined by the following acc Ch. 5:27–6:66.—The Families of Levi, and Their according to the later usage, nota acc.; cf. Ew. § Cities. ”,to Halah“ ,חֲ לַ ח e. So also before the name ,277 i.e., probably the district Καλαχήνη (in Strabo) 1 Chronicles 5:27–6:66. As to the tribe of Levi, on the east side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to we have several communications: (1.) the the north of Nineveh, on the frontier of Armenia genealogy of the high-priestly family of Aaron, (cf. on 2 Kings 17:6). In the second book of down to Jehozadak, who was led away into exile by Nebuchadnezzar (1 Chronicles 5:27– Kings (2 Kings 15:29) the district to which the two and a half tribes were sent as exiles is not 41); (2.) a short register of the families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, which does not accurately determined, being only called in general Asshur (Assyria). The names in our extend far into later times (1 Chronicles 6:1– verse are there (2 Kings 17:6) the names of the 15); (3.) the genealogies of the musicians districts to which Shalmaneser sent the Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (1 Chronicles 6:16– remainder of the ten tribes after the 32), with remarks on the service of the other destruction of the kingdom of Israel. It is Levites (vv. 33, 34); (4.) a register of the high therefore questionable whether the author of priests from Eleazar to Ahimaaz the son of the Chronicle took his account from an (1 Chronicles 6:35–38), with a register of authority used by him, or if he names these the cities of the Levites (1 Chronicles 6:39–66). districts only according to general recollection, If we look into these genealogies and registers, in which the times of Shalmaneser and of we see, both from a repetition of a part of the Tiglath-pileser are not very accurately genealogy of the high priest (1 Chronicles 6:35– distinguished (Berth.). We consider the first 38), and also from the name of the eldest son of Levi appearing in two different forms—in supposition the more probable, not merely because he inverts the order of the names, but 5:27ff. Gershon; in 6:1, 2, 5, etc., Gershom—that the register in 5:27–41 is drawn from another instead הָרָ א mainly because he gives the name source than the registers in 1 Chronicles 6, of “the cities of Media,” as it is in Kings, and that which, with the exception of the genealogies of name he could only have obtained from his David’s chief musicians, are throughout is not the river Chaboras in fragmentary, and in parts corrupt, and were חָ בור .authorities Mesopotamia, which falls into the Euphrates most probably found by the author of the near Circesium, for that river is called in Ezekiel Chronicle in this defective state. but is a district in northern Assyria, where 1 Chronicles 5:27–41. The family of Aaron, or ,כְּבַ ר Jakut mentions that there is both a mountain the high-priestly line of Aaron, to the time of the Χαβώρας on the frontier of Assyria and Media Babylonian exile.—Vv. 27–29. In order to (Ptolem. vi. 1), and a river Khabur Chasaniae, exhibit the connection of Aharon (or Aaron) which still bears the old name Khâbur, rising in with the patriarch Levi, the enumeration begins the neighbourhood of the upper Zab, near with the three sons of Levi, who are given in v. Amadijeh, and falling into the Tigris below 27 as in Gen. 46:11, Ex. 6:16, and in other

1 CHRONICLES Page 64 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study passages. Of Levi’s grandchildren, only the four Zedekiah, lay a period of 440 + 423 = 863 years. sons of Kohath (v. 28) are noticed; and of these, For this period twenty-two generations appear again, is the only one whose too few, for then the average duration of each descendants—Aaron, Moses, and Miriam—are life would be 39 1/4 years. Such an estimate named (v. 29); and thereafter only Aaron’s sons would certainly appear a very high one, but it are introduced, in order that the enumeration does not pass the bounds of possibility, as cases of his family in the high-priestly line of Eleazar may have occurred in which the son died before might follow. With v. 28 cf. Ex. 1:18, and on v. the father, when consequently the grandson 19 see the commentary on Ex. 6:20. With the would succeed the grandfather in the office of sons of Aaron (29b) compare besides Ex. 6:23, high priest, and the son would be omitted in cannot be הולִ יד also Num. 3:2–4, and 1 Chronicles 24:1, 2. As our register. The ever-recurring were slain when they offered brought forward in opposition to this strange fire before Jahve (Lev. 10:1ff.), Aaron’s in the genealogical הולִ יד supposition, because race was continued only by his sons Eleazar and . After Aaron’s death, his eldest son lists may express mediate procreation, and the Eleazar was chosen by God to be his successor grandson may be introduced as begotten by the in the high priest’s office, and thus the line of grandfather. On the supposition of the existence Eleazar came into possession of the high- of such cases, we should have to regard the priestly dignity. average above mentioned as the average time during which each of the high priests held the 1 Chronicles 5:30–41. In vv. 30–41 the office. But against such an interpretation of this descendants of Eleazar are enumerated in list of the posterity of Eleazar two somewhat he serious difficulties are raised. The less serious“ ,הולִ יד twenty-two generations; the word begat,” being repeated with every name. The of these consists in this, that in the view of the son so begotten was, when he lived after his author of our register, the line of Eleazar father, the heir of the high-priestly dignity. remained an uninterrupted possession of the Thus the son of Eleazar (Ex. 6:25) is high-priestly dignity; but in the historical books found in possession of it in Judg. 20:28. From of the Old Testament another line of high this the older commentators have rightly drawn priests, beginning with , is mentioned, which, the inference that the purpose of the according to 1 Chronicles 24:5, and Joseph. enumeration in vv. 30–40 was to communicate Antt. v. 11. 5, belonged to the family of Ithamar. the succession of high priests from Eleazar, The list is as follows: Eli (1 Sam. 2:20); his son who died shortly after Joshua (Josh. 24:33), to Phinehas, who, however, died before Eli (1 Sam. Jehozadak, whom Nebuchadnezzar caused to be 4:110; his son Ahitub (1 Sam. 14:3); his son carried away into Babylon. From the death of Ahijah, who was also called (1 Sam. Aaron in the fortieth year after Israel came 14:3; 22:9, 11, 20); his son (1 Sam. forth from Egypt, till the building of the temple 22:20), from whom Solomon took away the in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon, 400 high-priesthood (1 Kings 2:26f.), and set Zadok years elapsed (480–40 = 440, 1 Kings 6:1). in his place (1 Kings 2:35). According to From the building of the temple to the , loc. cit., the high-priestly dignity destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple by remained with the line of Eleazar, from Eleazar v. 31f.); it then fell to Eli and his ,עֻ זִ י) the Chaldaeans there was an interval of 423 to Ozi years (36 years under Solomon, and 387 years descendants, until with Zadok it returned to the during which the kingdom of Judah existed; see line of Eleazar. These statements manifestly the chronological table to 1 Kings 12). Between rest upon truthful historical tradition; for the the death of Aaron, therefore, and the time supposition that at the death of Ozi the high- when Jehozadak was led away into captivity, priesthood was transferred from the line of supposing that that event occurred only under Eleazar to the line of Ithamar through Eli, is

1 CHRONICLES Page 65 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study supported by the circumstance that from the discharged the duties of high priest in the beginning of the judgeship of Eli to the tabernacle at Gibeon, while the connection of beginning of the reign of Solomon a period of Eli’s sons with the office came to an end with 139 years elapsed, which is filled up in both the slaughter of Ahijah (Ahimelech) and all the lines by five names,—Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, priesthood at Nob (1 Sam. 22); for Abiathar, the Ahijah, and Abiathar in the passages above only son of Ahimelech, and the single survivor quoted; and Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, of that massacre, fled to David, and Ahitub, and Zadok in vv. 32–34 of our chapter. accompanied him continuously in his flight But the further opinion expressed by Joseph. before Saul (1 Sam. 22:20–23). But, not content Antt. viii. 1. 3, that the descendants of Eleazar, with the slaughter of the priests in Nob, Saul during the time in which Eli and his also smote the city itself with the edge of the descendants were in possession of the sword; whence it is probable, although all priesthood, lived as private persons, plainly definite information to that effect is wanting, rests on a conjecture, the incorrectness of that it was in consequence of this catastrophe which is made manifest by some distinct that the tabernacle was removed to Gibeon and statements of the Old Testament: for, according the high-priesthood entrusted to Zadok’s to 2 Sam. 8:17 and 20:25, Zadok of Eleazar’s father, a man of the line of Eleazar, because the line, and Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, were only son of Ahimelech, and the only high priests in the time of David; cf. 1 representative of Ithamar’s line, had fled to Chronicles 24:5f. The transfer of the high- David. If this view be correct, of the ancestors of priestly dignity, or rather of the official exercise Ahitub, only Amariah, Meraioth, and Zerahiah of the high-priesthood, to Eli, one of Ithamar’s did not hold the office of high priest. But if these line, after Ozi’s death, was, as we have already had neither been supplanted by Eli nor had remarked on 1 Sam. 2:27ff., probably brought rendered themselves unworthy of the office by about by circumstances or relations which are criminal conduct; if the only reason why the not now known to us, but without an extinction possession of the high-priesthood was of the right of Ozi’s descendants to the transferred to Eli was, that Ozi’s son Zerahiah succession in dignity. But when the wave of was not equal to the discharge of the duties of judgment broke over the house of Eli, the ark the office under the difficult circumstances of was taken by the Philistines; and after it had the time; and if Eli’s grandson Ahitub succeeded been sent back into the land of Israel, it was not his grandfather in the office at a time when God again placed beside the tabernacle, but had already announced to Eli by prophets the remained during seventy years in the house of approaching ruin of his house, then Zerahiah, Abinadab (1 Sam. 4:4–7:2). Years afterwards Meraioth, and Amariah, although not de facto in David caused it to be brought to Jerusalem, and possession of the high-priesthood, might still be erected a separate tent for it on Zion, while the looked upon as de jure holders of the dignity, tabernacle had meanwhile been transferred to and so be introduced in the genealogies of Gibeon, where it continued to be the place Eleazar as such. In this way the difficulty is where sacrifices were offered till the building of completely overcome. the temple. But it is somewhat more difficulty to explain Thus there arose two places of worship, and in the other fact, that our register on the one hand connection with them separate spheres of gives too many names for the earlier period and action for the high priests of both lines,—Zadok too few for the later time, and on the other performing the duties of the priestly office at hand is contradicted by some definite Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39; cf. 1 Kings 3:4ff.), statements of the historical books. We find too while Abiathar discharged its functions in few names for the time from the death of Aaron Jerusalem. But without doubt not only Zadok, to the death of Uzzi (Ozi), when Eli became high but also his father Ahitub before him, had priest,—a period of 299 years (vide the

1 CHRONICLES Page 66 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Chronological View of the Period of the Judges, ii. Kings 222:4ff., is mentioned as high 1, S. 217). Five high priests—Eleazar, Phinehas, priest under Josiah, while according to our Abishua, Bukki, and Uzzi—are too few; for in register (v. 39) Hilkiah begat Azariah; whence that case each one of them must have we must conclude either that Hilkiah is not the discharged the office for 60 years, and have high priest of that name under Josiah, or begotten the son who succeeded him in the Azariah is not the person of that name who office only in his 60th year, or the grandson lived in the time of Hezekiah. As regards the must have regularly succeeded the grandfather omission of the names Urijah and Jehoiada in in the office,—all of which suppositions appear our register, Urijah may have been passed over somewhat incredible. Clearly, therefore, as an unimportant man; but Jehoiada had intermediate names must have been omitted in exerted far too important an influence on the our register. To the period from Eli till the fate of the kingdom of Judah to allow of his deposition of Abiathar, in the beginning of being so overlooked. The only possibilities in Solomon’s reign—which, according to the his case are, either that he occurs in our chronological survey, was a period of 139 register under another name, owing to his years—the last five names from Zerahiah to having had, like so many others, two different has fallen out יְּהויָדָ ע Zadok correspond; and as 24 years are thus names, or that the name assigned to each, and Zadok held the office for a through an old error in the transcription of the number of years more under Solomon, we may genealogical list. The latter supposition, viz., reckon an average of 30 years to each that Jehoiada has fallen out before Johanan, is generation. For the following period of about the more probable. Judging from 2 Kings 12:3 417 years from Solomon, or the completion of and 2 Chronicles 24:2, Jehoiada died under the temple, till the destruction of the temple by Joash, at least five or ten years before the king, the Chaldaeans, the twelve names from and consequently from 127 to 132 years after Ahimaaz the son of Zadok to Jehozadak, who Solomon, at the advanced age of 130 years (2 was led away into captivity, give the not Chronicles 24:15). He was therefore born incredible average of from 34 to 35 years for shortly before or after the death of Solomon, each generation, so that in this part of our being a great-grandson of Zadok, who may have register not many breaks need be supposed. died a considerable time before Solomon, as he But if we examine the names enumerated, we had filled the office of high priest at Gibeon find (1) that no mention is made of the high under David for a period of 30 years. priest Jehoiada, who raised the youthful Joash Then, if we turn our attention to the thrice to the throne, and was his adviser during the recurring name Azariah, we see that the first years of his reign (2 Kings 11, and 2 Azariah mentioned in 1 Kings 4:2 cannot be Chronicles 22:10; 24:2), and that under Ahaz, in כֹׁהֵ ן regarded as the high priest; for the word but who ,הַ כֹׁהֵ ן Urijah, who indeed is called only this passage does not denote the high priest, was certainly high priest (:10ff.), is but the viceroy of the kingdom (vide on the omitted; and (2) we find that the name Azariah passage). But besides, this Azariah cannot be occurs three times (vv. 35, 36, and 40), on the same person as the Azariah in v. 35 of our which Berth. remarks: “Azariah is the name of genealogy, because he is called a son of Zadok, the high priest in the time of Solomon (1 Kings while our Azariah is introduced as the son of 4:2), in the time of Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:17), Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, and consequently as and in the time of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles a grandson of Zadok; and the grandson of 31:10).” Besides this, we meet with an Amariah, Zadok who is mentioned as being high priest the fifth after Zadok, whom Lightf., Oehler, and along with Abiathar, 1 Kings 4:4, could not have others consider to be the high priest of that occupied in this grandfather’s time the first name under Jehoshaphat, :11. place among the highest public officials of And finally, (3) in the historical account in 2

1 CHRONICLES Page 67 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Solomon. The Azariah mentioned in 1 Kings 4:2 under Hezekiah, i.e., during a period of from 55 as the son of Zadok must not be considered to to 60 years, four generations must have be a brother of the Ahimaaz of our register, for followed one another, which is quite we very seldom find a nephew and uncle called impossible. In addition to this, between by the same name. As to the Azariah of v. 36, Hezekiah and Josiah came the reigns of the son of Johanan, it is remarked, “This is he Manasseh and Amon, who reigned 55 years and who was priest (or who held the priest’s office; 2 years respectively; and from the passover of cf. Ex. 40:13, Lev. 16:32) in the house Hezekiah to the finding of the book of the law ,כִהֵ ן (temple) which Solomon had built in by the high priest Hilkiah in the eighteenth year Jerusalem.” R. Sal. and Kimchi have connected of Josiah, about 90 years had elapsed, whence it this remark with the events narrated in 2 is clear that on chronological grounds Hilkiah Chronicles 26:17, referring it to the special cannot well have been the successor of Azariah jealousy of King Uzziah’s encroachments on the in the high-priesthood. The Azariah of v. 39f., priest’s office, in arrogating to himself in the therefore, cannot be identified with the Azariah temple the priestly function of offering incense who was high priest under Hezekiah (2 in the holy place. Against this, indeed, J. H. Mich. Chronicles 31:10); and no explanation seems has raised the objection, quod tamen possible, other than the supposition that chronologiae rationes vix admittunt; and it is between Ahitub and Zadok the begetting of true that this encroachment of Uzziah’s Azariah has been dropped out. On this happened 200 years after Solomon’s death, assumption the Hilkiah mentioned in v. 39 may while the Azariah mentioned in our register is be the high priest in the time of Josiah, although the fourth after Zadok. But if the name Jehoiada between him and the time when Jehozadak was has been dropped out before Johanan, and the led away into exile three names, including that Jehoiada held the high priest’s office for a of Jehozadak, are mentioned, while from the considerable time under Joash, the high- eighteenth year of Josiah till the destruction of priesthood of his grandson Azariah would the temple by the Chaldaeans only 30 years coincide with Uzziah’s reign, when of course the elapsed. For Hilkiah may have been in the chronological objection to the above-mentioned eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign very old; and at the destruction of Jerusalem, not Jehozadak, is הּוא אֲשֶ ר כִהֵ ן וגו׳ explanation of the words but his father Seraiah the grandson of Hilkiah, 20 removed. was high priest, and was executed at Riblah by But lastly, the difficulty connected with the fact Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:18, 21), from that in our passage Azariah follows Hilkiah, which we may conclude that Jehozadak was led while in :4ff. and :10, away captive in his early years. The order in 13, Azariah occurs as high priest under King which the names occur in our register, Hezekiah, and Hilkiah in the time of his great- moreover, is confirmed by Ezra 7:1–5, where, in grandson Josiah, cannot be cleared away by the statement as to the family of Ezra, the merely changing the order of the names Hilkiah names from Seraiah onwards to Amariah ben- and Azariah. For, apart altogether from the Azariah occur in the same order. The improbability of such a transposition having correspondence would seem to exclude any taken place in a register formed as this is, alterations of the order, either by transposition “Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat of names or by the insertion of some which had Azariah, and Azariah begat,” the main objection been dropped; but yet it only proves that both to it is the fact that between Azariah, v. 26, who these genealogies have been derived from the lived under Uzziah, and Hilkiah four names are same authority, and does not at all remove the introduced; so that on this supposition, during possibility of this authority itself having had the time which elapsed between Uzziah’s some defects. The probability of such breaks as forcing his way into the temple till the passover we suppose in the case of Jehoiada and Azariah,

1 CHRONICLES Page 68 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study who lived under Hezekiah, is shown, apart service performed by the other Levites and the altogether from the reasons which have been priests are added. already brought forward in support of it, by the 1 Chronicles 6:1–4. The sons of Levi are in v. 1 fact that our register has only eleven again enumerated as in 5:27; then in vv. 2–4a generations from Zadok, the contemporary of the sons of these three sons, i.e., the grandsons Solomon, to Seraiah, who was slain at the of Levi, are introduced, while in 1 Chronicles destruction of Jerusalem; while the royal house 5:28 only the sons of Kohath are mentioned. of David shows seventeen generations, viz., the The only object of this enumeration is to make twenty kings of Judah, omitting Athaliah, and quite clear the descent of the Levitic families Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, the last two as being which follow. The name of the first son of Levi which ,גֵרְּ שֹׁם brothers of Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:10–27). is in vv. 1, 2, 4, etc. of this chapter Even supposing that the king’s sons were, as a was the name of Moses’ son, cf. 23:15f.; rule, earlier married, and begat children earlier whereas in 5:27 and in the Pentateuch we find a than the priests, yet the difference between The names .גֵרְּ שון ,.eleven and seventeen generations for the same different pronunciation, viz period is too great, and is of itself sufficient to of Levi’s grandsons in vv. 2–4a coincide with suggest that in our register of the high priests the statements of the Pentateuch, Ex. 6:17–19, names are wanting, and that the three or four and Num. 3:17–20, cf. 26:57f. Bertheau and high priests known to us from the historical other commentators consider the words in 4b, books who are wanting—Amariah under “and these are the families of Levi according to Jehoshaphat, Jehoiada under Joash, (Urijah their fathers,” to be a “concluding subscription” under Ahaz,) and Azariah under Hezekiah— to the statements of vv. 1–4a, and would as not compatible with ,אֵ לֶ ה before וְּ were either passed over or had fallen out of the remove list made use of by the author of the this supposition. But in this he is wrong: for Chronicle.21 although the similar statement in Ex. 6:20 is a 1 Chronicles 5:41. Jehozadak is the father of subscription, yet it is in Num. 3:20 a Joshua who returned from exile with superscription, and must in our verse also be so Zerubbabel, and was the first high priest in the understood; for otherwise the enumeration of restored community (Ezra 3:2; 5:2; Hagg. 1:1). the descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and is to be Merari, which follows, would be brought in very בַ גולָ ה ”,he went forth“ ,הָ לַ ְך After abruptly, without any connecting particle, and he went into exile” to“ ,בְּהַ גְּ לות וגו׳ supplied from .points to the same conclusion אֵ לֶ ה before וְּ the Babylon; cf. Jer. 49:3. 1 Chronicles 6:5–15. The three lists of the 1 Chronicles 6 descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari are 1 Chronicles 6. The families and cities of the similar to one another in plan, and in all, each ,בְּ נו Levites.—Vv. 1–34. Register of the families of the name is connected with the preceding by Levites.—This is introduced by an enumeration “his son,” but they differ greatly in the number of the sons and grandsons of Levi (vv. 1–4), of the names. which is followed by lists of families in six lines is גֵרְּ שום before לְּ of descent: (a) the descendants of Gershon (vv. 1 Chronicles 6:5, 6. The 5–7), of Kohath (vv. 1–13), and of Merari (vv. introductory: “as to Gershom.” Those of his 14 and 15); and (b) the genealogies of David’s descendants who are here enumerated belong chief musicians (vv. 16 and 17), of Heman the to the family of his oldest son Libni, which is Kohathite (vv. 18–23), of Asaph the Gershonite traced down through seven generations to (vv. 24–28), and of Ethan the Merarite (vv. 29– Jeaterai, a name not elsewhere met with. Of the 32); and in vv. 33, 34, some notes as to the intermediate names, Johath, Zimmah, and Zerah occur also among the descendants of Asaph,

1 CHRONICLES Page 69 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study who is descended from the line of Shimei, vv. genealogy, or fragments of genealogies, of the 24–28. Kohathite line of there can be no doubt, 1 Chronicles 6:7–13. The genealogy of the when we compare them with the genealogy (vv. descendants of Kohath consists of three lists of 18–23) of the musician Heman, a descendant of names, each of which commences afresh with Kohath, which also gives us the means of .vv. 7, 10, and 13; yet we learn nothing from explaining the other obscurities in our register ,בְּ נֵי In vv. 7 and 8 the names of Assir, Elkanah, and it as to the genealogical connection of these Abiasaph, and again Assir, follow that of Korah, three lines. The very beginning, “The sons of with after each. This cannot be taken בְּ נו בְּ נו ,Kohath, Amminidab his son, Korah his son Assir his son,” is somewhat strange. For, otherwise than as denoting that the names according to Ex. 6:18, 21, and 24, Kohath’s designate so many consecutive generations; second son is called Izhar, whose son was and the only peculiarity in the list is, that the is found before Abiasaph and the ו Korah, whose sons were Assir, Elkanah, and conjunction Abiasaph. Amminidab is nowhere met with as a second Assir, while the other names do not son of Kohath; but among the descendants of have it. But if we compare the genealogy in Ex. , a prince of a father’s-house is met with 6 with this enumeration, we find that there, in in the time of David who bore this name. The v. 24, the same three names, Assir, Elkanah, and name Amminidab occurs also in the time of Abiasaph, which are here enumerated as those Moses, in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, 1 of the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Chronicles 2:10, Num. 1:7, Ruth 1:19, as that of Korah, were said to be the names of the sons of the father of the prince Nahshon, and of the Izharite Korah. Further, from Heman’s Elisheba, whom Aaron took to wife, Ex. 6:23. genealogy in v. 22, we learn that the second But since the names Korah and Assir point to Assir of our list is a son of Abiasaph, and, the family of Izhar, the older commentators according to v. 22 and v. 8, had a son Tahath. supposed the Amminidab of our verse to be Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph must only another name for Izhar; while Bertheau, consequently be held to have been brothers, on the contrary, conjectures “that as an and the following Assir a son of the last-named Amminidab occurs in the lists of the Abiasaph, whose family is in v. 9 further traced descendants of Kohath as father-in-law of through four generations (Tahath, Uriel, Uzziah, Aaron, Amminidab has been substituted for and Shaul). Instead of these four, we find in vv. Izhar by an ancient error, which might very 22 and 21 the names Tahath, Zephaniah, easily slip into an abridgment of more detailed Azariah, and Joel. Now although the occurrence lists.” But we have here no trace of an of Uzziah and Azariah as names of the same abridgment of more detailed lists. According to king immediately suggests that in our register Ex. 6:21 and 24, Korah was a son of Izhar, and also Uzziah and Azariah are two names of the Assir a son of Korah; and consequently in our same person, yet the divergence in the other genealogies only the name Izhar is wanting names, on the one hand Zephaniah for Joel, and between Korah and Kohath, while instead of on the other Uriel for Shaul, is strongly opposed him we have Amminidab. An exchange or to this conjecture. The discrepancy can scarcely confusion of the names of Izhar and Amminidab be naturally explained in any other way, than the father-in-law of Aaron, is as improbable as by supposing that after Tahath the two the supposition that Amminidab is another genealogies diverge,—ours introducing his son name for Izhar, since the genealogies of the Uriel and his descendants; the other, in v. 21f., Pentateuch give only the name Izhar. Yet no mentioning a second son of Tohath, Zephaniah, third course is open, and we must decide to of whose race Heman came. accept either one or the other of these 1 Chronicles 6:10. “And the sons of Elkanah, suppositions. For that our verses contain a Amasai and Ahimoth.” As it is clear that with

1 CHRONICLES Page 70 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

The succeeding .צּוף a new list begins, and that the only another form of ּובְּ נֵי אֶ לְּ ק׳ preceding enumeration is that of the names, Jeroham and Elkanah (v. 12), agree with descendants of Abiasaph, it is at once suggested those in v. 19; but between the clauses “Elkanah that this Elkanah was the brother of the his son” (v. 12), and “and the sons of Samuel” cf. v. 18, is , לשְּמּואֵ בְּ נו Abiasaph mentioned in v. 8. If, however, we (v. 13), the connecting link compare the genealogy of Heman, we find there .v) הַבְּ כֹׁר again wanting, as is also, before or after (vv. 21 and 20) a list of the descendants of Joel in an ascending line, thus,—Elkanah, Amasai, 13), the name of the first-born, viz., Joel; cf. v. Mahath, Elkanah, Zuph; from which it would 18 with 1 Sam. 8:2. Now, although the two last- seem to follow that our Elkanah is the son of mentioned omissions can be supplied, they yet Moel mentioned in v. 21, for Ahimoth may be show that the enumeration in vv. 7–13 is not a without difficulty considered to be another continuous list of one Kohathite family, but form of the name Mahath. This conclusion contains only fragments of several Kohathite would be assured if only the beginning of v. 11 genealogies.—In vv. 14 and 15, descendants of were in harmony with it. In this verse, indeed, Merari follow; sons of Mahli in six generations, who are not mentioned elsewhere. Bertheau as we read in the Kethibh, may be ,אֶ לְּקָ הנָ בְּ נו compares this list of names, Mahli, Libni, without difficulty taken to mean that Elkanah Shimei, Uzza, Shimea, Haggiah, and Asaiah, with was the son of Ahimoth, just as in v. 20 Elkanah the list contained in vv. 29–32, Mushi, Mahli, is introduced as son of Mahath. But in this way Shamer, Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, and Amaziah, and which attempts to maintain, notwithstanding the אֶ לְּקָ נָ ה no meaning can be assigned to the and Bertheau accordingly is of great difference in the names, that the two lists ,בני follows were originally identical, in order to find has come into the text אלקנה opinion that this support for the hypothesis “that the three lists by an error. The Masoretes also felt the in vv. 5–15 have not found a place in the difficulty, and have substituted for the Kethibh Chronicle from their own intrinsic value, or, in but then nothing can be made of other words, have not been introduced there in ,בְּ נֵי the Keri בנו in v. 11. Beyond doubt the order to give a register of the ancestors of אלקנה the first traditional text is here corrupt, and from a Jeaterai, the sons of Samuel and Asaiah, but comparison of vv. 20 and 19 the only have been received only because they bring us conclusion we can draw with any certainty is to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, vv. 19, 24, 29, in another fashion than the lists of names in vv. onwards contains the צופַ י that the list from 18–32.” But this hypothesis is shown to be names of descendants of Elkanah the son of false, apart altogether from the other objections Mahath, which is so far favourable to the Keri which might be raised against it, by the single The name Elkanah, on the contrary, fact of the total discrepancy between the names .בְּ נֵי אֶ לְּקָ נָ ה seems to point of the in vv. 14 and 15 and those ,בנו which immediately precedes to a hiatus in the text, and gives room for the found in vv. 29–32. Of all the six names only conjecture that in v. 10 the sons of Elkanah, the Mahli is found in both cases, and he is carefully brother of Abiasaph and Assir, were named, distinguished in both—in the genealogy of and that there followed thereupon an Ethan as the son of Mushi and grandson of enumeration of the sons or descendants of the Merari; in our list as the son of Merari. When Elkanah whom we meet with in v. 21 as son of we remember that Merari had two sons, Mahli and Mushi, after whom the father’s-houses into ,בְּ נו Joel, after which came the names Elkanah which his descendants divided themselves we consider to be were named (Num. 3:20; 26:58), and that the אֱ לִיאָ ב and נַחַ ת .etc ,בְּ נו Zophai is same names very frequently occur in different צופַ י v. 19, and ,אֱ לִיאֵ ל and ֹּתוחַ other forms of families, it would never suggest itself to any

1 CHRONICLES Page 71 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study reader of our register to identify the line of Jahve), which was the tent of the meeting (of was the usual אֹׁהֶ ל מועֵ ד ”.(Mushi with the line of Mahli, seeing that, except God with His people the name of Mahli the son of Mushi, which is the designation of the tabernacle built by Moses, same as that of his uncle, all the other names which was at first set up in , then in the are different. Vv. 14 and 15 contain a register of time of Saul at Nob, and after the destruction of the family of Mahli, while the ancestors of that city by Saul (1 Sam. 22) in Gibeon (1 Ethan, vv. 29–32, belonged to the family of Chronicles 21:29). It denotes here the tent Mushi. Our list then absolutely cannot be which David had erected upon Mount Zion for intended to form a transition to Ethan or the ark of the covenant, because from its Ethan’s ancestors. The same may be said of the containing the ark, and by the institution of a two other lists vv. 5–7 and vv. 8–13, and this settled worship in it (cf. 16:1–4ff.), it transition hypothesis is consequently a mere thenceforth took the place of the Mosaic airspun fancy. The three lists are certainly not tabernacle, although the Mosaic sanctuary at embodied in the Chronicle on account of the Gibeon continued to be a place of worship till persons with whose names they end—Jeaterai, the completion of the temple (1 Kings 3:4; 2 the sons of Samuel, and Asaiah; but the author Chronicles 1:3),—“till Solomon built the house of the Chronicle has thought them worthy of of Jahve in Jerusalem,” into which the ark was being received into his work as registers of removed, and to which the whole of the ancient families of the three sons of Levi which religious services were transferred. In their had been transmitted from ancient times. according to their ,כְּמִשְּ פָטָ ם services they stood 1 Chronicles 6:16–34. The genealogies of the right, i.e., according to the order prescribed for Levite musicians—Heman, Asaph, and Ethan.— them by David; cf. 16:37ff. These registers are introduced by an account of the service of the Levites about the sanctuary 1 Chronicles 6:18–23. “These (following three (vv. 16, 17), and conclude with remarks on the men, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan) are they who service of the remaining Levites (vv. 33, 34). stood (in service) with their sons.” The three were the heads of the three Levitic families, to 1 Chronicles 6:16. “These are they whom whom the execution of the liturgic singing was David set for the leading of the song in the entrusted. The names of their sons, vide 1 house of Jahve, after the resting of the ark,” cf. Chronicles 25:1–6. The object of the following .upon the hands,” “to the hands;” genealogies is to show their descent from Levi“ לעַ יְּדֵ י .17 ,15 that is, both for leading, and, according to “Of the sons of the Kohathite family (is) Heman ὁ ψαλτῳδός LXX. Heman is ,הַמְּ שורֵ ר ”.arrangement. To the hands of the song, i.e., to the singer manage the singing, to carry it on, to conduct it. named first as being the head of the choir of from the resting of the ark,” i.e., singers who stood in the centre, while Asaph“ ,מִֹּמְּ נוחַ הָאָ רון from the time that the ark of the covenant, and his choir stood on his right hand, and on which in the prae-Davidic time had been the left Ethan and his choir, so that when they carried about from one place to another, had sang in concert the conducting of the whole fell received a permanent resting-place on Zion, to Heman. His family is traced back in vv. 18–23 and had become the centre of the worship through twenty members to “Kohath the son of instituted by David, 2 Sam. 6:17. “And they Levi, then son of Israel” (Jacob). served before the dwelling of the tabernacle 1 Chronicles 6:24–28. “His brother Asaph,” before the dwelling,” for who is Heman’s brother only in the more“ ,לִפְּ נֵי מִשְּ כָ ן ”.with song the sacrificial worship, with which the singing general sense of being closely connected with of psalms was connected, was performed in the him, partly by their common descent from Levi, partly by their common calling, was a אֹׁהֶ ל מועֵ ד court before the dwelling. The genitive is to be taken as explanatory: “The dwelling (of descendant of Gershon from his younger son

1 CHRONICLES Page 72 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Shimei. His genealogy contains only fifteen mentioned duties of the priests. Moses is called names to Gershon, five less than that of his the servant of God, as in Deut. 34:5, Josh. 1:1, contemporary Heman, probably because here 13. and there intermediate names are omitted. 1 Chronicles 6:35–38. The remarks as to the 1 Chronicles 6:29–32. “And the sons of Merari service of the priests are followed by a their brethren (i.e., the brethren of the choirs of catalogue of the high priests, which runs from Heman and Asaph) on the left (i.e., forming the Eleazar to Ahimaaz the son of Zadok (cf. 2 Sam. choir which stood on the left hand) were Ethan 15:27), who probably succeeded his father in and his sons.” As in the case of Asaph, so also in the high-priesthood even in the time of v. 18) is omitted, but is to Solomon. This genealogy is similar in form to) ּובְּ נֵיהֶ ם ,that of Ethan be supplied; when the introductory clause “and the genealogies given in vv. 5–15, and has the sons of Merari” is at once explained. Ethan therefore most probably been derived from the is a Merarite of the younger line of Mushi (see same source as this, and has been drawn in here to form a transition to the enumeration of and ,קִ ישִ י above). The name of his father is here the cities of the Levites; for it begins in v. 39 ,which latter is with the dwelling-places of the sons of Aaron ,קּושָ יָהּו in 1 Chronicles 15:17 it is of v. 39 לִבְּ נֵי אַהֲ רֹׁן … וְּאֵ הלֶ מושְּ בותָ ם clearly the original form, which has been and the shortened into Kishi. Instead of the name Ethan of v. 35. The וְּאֵ לֶ הבְּ נֵי אַהֲ רֹׁן corresponds to the as here and in 1 Chronicles 15:19, we find (אֵ יתָ ן) order of the names coincides exactly with that in other passage a mentioned as third of the longer register in 1 Chronicles 5:30–34. chief-musician, along with Heman and Asaph 1 Chronicles 6:39–66. Register of the cities of (cf. 25:1; 2 Chronicles 35:15; Neh. 11:17, cf. 1 the Levites, which agrees on the whole with the Chronicles 6:41); from which we see that register in Josh. 21, if we except different forms Jeduthun was another name for Ethan, of some names of cities, and many corruptions probably a by-name— , “praiseman”— of the text, but differing in many ways from it in יְּדּותּון which he had received from his calling, form; whence we gather that it is not derived although nothing is said in the Old Testament from the , but from some other as to the origin of this name. His genealogy ancient authority. contains only twelve names to Merari, being 1 Chronicles 6:39. V. 39 contains the thus still more abridged than that of Asaph. superscription, “These are their dwelling-places 1 Chronicles 6:33, 34. “And their brethren the according to their districts, in their Levites,” i.e., the other Levites besides the boundaries.” So far the superscription belongs given for to the whole catalogue of cities. The suffixes נְּ תּונִים singers just mentioned, “were to ,טּור from ,טִ ירָ ה .v. 1 ,בְּ נֵי לֵוִ י every service of the dwelling of the house of point back to the God,” i.e., given to Aaron and his sons (the surround in a circle, signifies in the older priests) for the performance of service in the language a “nomad village” (cf. Gen. 25:16; carrying on of the worship; cf. Num. 3:9; 8:16– Num. 31:10); here, on the contrary, it is sued in 19; 18:6. But Aaron and his sons had three a derivative sense for “district,” to denote the duties to perform: (1) they burnt the offerings circle of dwellings which were granted to the on the altar of burnt-offering and on the altar of Levites in the cities of the other tribes. The incense, cf. Num. 18:1–7; (2) they looked after following words, “For the sons of Aaron of the all the service of the holy place; (3) they had to family of Kohath,” etc., are the superscription to atone for Israel by offering the atoning- vv. 42–45, and together with the confirmatory sacrifices, and performing the cleansings clause, “for to him the (first) lot had fallen,” are according to all that Moses commanded. This a repetition of Josh. 21:10, where, however, last clause refers to all the three above-

1 CHRONICLES Page 73 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

.and has perhaps our text cannot be certainly ascertained ,הַ גורָ ל is found after רִ אשֹׁנָ ה been here dropped out. Bertheau thinks “the wish to make mention of the cities of the high-priestly family at the 1 Chronicles 6:40, 41. Vv. 40 and 41 beginning of the enumeration, has induced the correspond almost verbally with Josh. 21:11 author of the Chronicle to communicate the and 12, as vv. 42–45 also do with Josh. 21:13– introductory remarks belonging to the lists of 19. As we have already in our remarks on cities with other statements as to the tribal Joshua commented upon the whole catalogue, it domains, only after the enumeration of the will not be necessary to do more here than to cities of the sons of Aaron.” By that supposition group together the errors and defects of our the position of vv. 46–48 is certainly explained, text. but not that of vv. 49 and 50; for even with the is supposed desire, vv. 49 and 50 should have יעָרֵ הַֹּמִקְּלָ ט Chronicles 6:42. The plural 1 incorrect, for only one of the cities thereafter been placed before vv. 46–48. But besides, this, in v. 39 neither has לִבְּ נֵי אַהֲ רֹׁן וגו׳ named, viz., Hebron, was a city of refuge for the clause homicides, and in Josh. 21:13 it is correctly anything to connect it with the preceding the usual addition superscription nor a verb; and the subject of יַֹּתִ יר After .עִ יר מִקְּלָ ט written v. 40, is also wanting. That which was ,וַיִֹּתְּ נּו is omitted, v. 44f. Before וְּאֶ ת־מִ גְּרָשֶ יהָ Bethshemesh the name Juttah has been lost, missed before v. 39b and in v. 40 is contained in and before Geba (v. 45) the name Gibeon, so vv. 49 and 50; whence it is manifest that vv. 49 that only eleven cities are mentioned, but the and 50 ought to stand before v. 39b, and have sum is rightly given as thirteen. Instead of the by some inexplicable accident fallen out of their v. 43, there is found in Josh. 21:15 proper place, and have come into an unsuitable ,חִ ילֵ ן name ,שֵ מות and יִקְּרְּ אּו position after v. 48. The plurals Josh. 21:16, we ,עַ יִן instead of ;חֹֹׁלן and 15:51 .as in Josh ,שֵ ם and יִקְּרָ א instead of the singulars and ;עָשָ ן have in v. 44 the more correct name 21:9b, bring the words into more manifest correspondence with the circumstances, since .עַלְּ מון v. 45, is in Josh. 21:18 ,עַלֶמֶ ת the name the sons of Israel,” may be“ ,יִקְּרְּ אּו Chronicles 6:46–48. Summary statements of the subject of 1 the number of cities which the remaining easily supplied from v. 48, and many names of , the , and the Merarites instead of אֶתְּהֶ ם .cities are mentioned. The masc received in the domains of the various tribes, .is probably only an oversight אֶתְּהֶ ן .corresponding to vv. 5–7 in Josh. 21. In v. 46 the fem the With v. 51 begins the enumeration of the cities מִֹּמַחֲ צִ ית and הַֹּמַטֶ ה occurs a hiatus; between words “Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan and” of the other Levitic families only summarily have been omitted. In v. 48 the words “of the given in vv. 46–48, which forms a very suitable tribe of Manasseh in Bashan” are quite continuation of v. 48. which is found in 1 Chronicles 6:51–55. The cities of the ,חֲ צִ י intelligible without remaining Kohathites; cf. Josh. 21:20–26. For Joshua. for the ,ּולְּמִשְּ פְּ חות we must read ּומִֹּמִשְּ פְּ חות 1 Chronicles 6:49, 50. Vv. 49 and 50 are not gives no suitable sense: it is מִ ן here in their proper place; for their contents preposition show that they should be in the middle of the never used to introduce a subject. The sense is, thirty-ninth verse, after the general “as regards the families of the sons of Kohath, superscription, and before the words “for the the cities of their dominion in the tribe of sons of Aaron.” They are found also in Josh. Ephraim were (the following). They gave them.” .instead of the sing., as in v עָרֵ יהַֹּמִ קְּלָ ט .as a superscription before the The plur ,9 ,21:8 enumeration by name of the cities assigned to 42. As to the four cities of the tribe of Ephraim, the priests; but how the confusion has arisen in

1 CHRONICLES Page 74 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study vv. 52, 53, see on Josh. 21:21, 22, where instead neighbourhood. Finally, Kirjathaim is .קַרְּ ֹּתָ ן Before v. 54 a contracted in Josh. 21:32 into .קִבְּצַ יִם we find the name יָקְּמְּעָ ם of whole verse has been lost, which was as 1 Chronicles 6:62–66. The cities of the follows: “And of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh and Merarites; cf. Josh. 21:34–37. “To the sons of her pastures, Gibbethon and her pastures;” cf. Merari the remaining,” sc. Levites. In Josh. for the ,הַ לְּוִיִם הַ ּנותָרִ ים Josh. 21:23. Then follows v. 54, which contains 21:34 it is more clearly put the names of the two other cities of the tribe of remaining Merarites are not spoken of. What is Dan. In v. 55 we have the names of the cities of intended to be said is, that the Merarites, alone half Manasseh, Aner and Bileam, i.e., Ibleam of the Levites, are still to be mentioned. In the (Josh. 17:11), correctly given; but the names tribe of Zebulun, in v. 62, only two cities are Taanach and Gath-rimmon in Josh. 21:25 are named, Rimmon and Tabor, instead of the incorrect, and have been inserted through a four—Jokneam, Karthah, Dimnah, and transcriber’s error, arising from the copyist’s Nahalal—in Josh. 21:34. The first two names eye having wandered to the preceding verse. רִ ֹּמונו have been dropped out of our text, while v. 55, is incorrect; and the ,לְּמִשְּ פַ חַ ת The singular of Joshua, but is a more דִמְּ נָ ה corresponds to the .(is to be substituted (as in v. 51 לְּמִשְּ פְּ חות plural occurs in Josh. 19:13 רִ ֹּמון correct reading, since ,are a subscription לְּמִשְּ פְּ חות לִבְּ נֵי וגו׳ The words is not דִמְּ נָ ה among the cities of Zebulun, while .in v. 52 וַיִֹּתְּ נּו לָהֶ ם which corresponds to must consequently ֹּתָ בור mentioned; and 1 Chronicles 6:56–61. The cities of the in Joshua. Nahalal occurs נַהֲ לָ ל Gershonites; cf. Josh. 21:27–33. “To the sons of correspond to the Gershon (they gave) out of the family of the in Josh. 19:15 and in Judg. 1:30, in the form half-tribe of Manasseh, Golan and Ashtaroth;” Nahalol, among the cities of Zebulun, and is a mistake for consequently seems to be the more correct קֶדֶ ש ,see on Josh. 21:27. In v. 57 name, but has not yet been pointed out with ,Josh. 21:28 (see on Josh. 19:20); in v. 58 ,קִשְּ יון certainty, since its identification with Mâlul Josh. 21:29, a (Arabic m{lûl), south-west from , rests ,יַרְּ מות for the more correct רָ אמות Josh. 19:21, or upon very slender foundation. Bertheau’s ,רֶ מֶ ת city which was also called conjecture that the name of the city has been עֵ ין־גַּנִים for עָ נֵ ם had been so called originally; and dropped out, and that of a more exact (Josh.), as the city is called also in Josh. 19:21. It עַל גְּ בּול כִסְּ ֹלת description of its position, perhaps is a ענם cannot be determined whether Josh. 19:12, only the last word has ,ֹּתָ בֹׁר .עֵ ין־גַּנִים transcriber’s error, or another name for remained, is no more probable than that of ,which should perhaps be pointed Movers, that instead of the name of the city) מָשָ ל ,In v. 59 ,Josh. 31:30; only the neighbourhood in which the city lay ,מִשְּאָ ל is a contracted form of (מִשָ ל viz., Mount Tabor, is mentioned. is probably an error חּוקֹׁק ,and in v. 60 ;19:26 1 Chronicles 6:63, 64. Vv. 63 and 64 are for , Josh. 21:31; 19:25, occasioned by its ,wanting in some editions of the book of Joshua חֶ לְּקָ ת in the tribe of but are found in many MSS and in the oldest חֻ קֹׁק being confounded with Naphtali, Josh. 19:34. In v. 61 the fact that printed copies, and have been omitted only by Kadesh was a city of refuge is not mentioned, as an oversight; see on Josh. 21:30f., note 2. As to is a shortened form of the city Bezer, see on Deut. 4:43; and חַ ֹּמון .it is in Josh. 21:32 concerning Jahzah, Kedemoth, Mephaath, vide , Josh. 21:32; for this city is called in .on Josh. 13:18 חַ ֹּמות־דֹׁאר from the warm springs in the 1 Chronicles 6:65f. For Ramoth in Gilead, a ,חַֹּמַ ת Josh. 19:35 city of refuge (Josh. 21:36), and Mahanaim, see

1 CHRONICLES Page 75 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study on Josh. 13:26; and for Heshbon and Jazer, on sons.” From the fact that Izrahiah is introduced Num. 21:28, 32. as grandson of Tola, Bertheau would infer that vv. 3, 4 refer to times later than David. But this 1 Chronicles 7 is an erroneous inference, for Tola’s sons did Families of Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Half not live in David’s time at all, and consequently Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher. it is not necessary that his grandson should be assigned to a later time. The only assertion 1 Chronicles 7:1–5. Sons and families of made is, that the descendants of Tola’s sons had we must increased to the number mentioned in v. 2 in ,וְּלִבְּ נֵי Issachar.—V. 1. Instead of as in v. the time of David. By that time the descendants ,ּובְּ נֵי as in vv. 14, 30, or ,בְּ נֵי certainly read of his grandson Izrahiah might have increased ,to the number given in v. 4. That the number לבני Chronicles 5:11, and elsewhere. The 1 ,20 has come into the text only by the recollection 36,000, of the descendants of the grandson of the copyist having dwelt on the so frequently Izrahiah was greater than the number of those in 6:42, 46, 47, cf. vv. 48, 56, 62, descended from the sons of Tola (22,600), is לבני recurring of explained in the clause, “for they had many לְּ as the לְּ for it is not possible to take wives and sons.” That the two numbers (in vv. introduction, because the names of the sons 2, 4) refer to the same time, i.e., to the days of follow immediately. The names of the four sons David, is manifest from v. 5, “and their brethren are given as in Num. 26:23f., while in Gen. 46:13 of all the families of Issachar, valiant heroes; ”,vide 87,000 their register, as regards everything ;יוב and the third ,פֻּוָ ה the second is written on Gen. loc. cit. i.e., the sum of those registered of all the 1 Chronicles 7:2. The six sons of Tola are not families of Issachar. Whence we gather that in elsewhere met with in the Old Testament. They the 87,000 both the 22,600 (v. 2) and the were “heads of their fathers’-houses of Tola.” 36,000 (v. 4) are included, and their brethren with the suffix) is consequently must have amounted to 28,400) לְּבֵ ית אֲ בותָ ם after לְּ תולָ ע somewhat peculiar; the meaning can only be, (22,600 + 36,000 + 28,400 = 87,000). In the “of their fathers’-houses which are descended time of Moses, Issachar numbered, according to from Tola.” It is also surprising, or rather not Num. 1:29, 54,400; and at a later time, according to Num. 26:25, already numbered should be connected לְּ תולְּ דותָ ם permissible, that 64,300 men. belongs to the following: 1 Chronicles 7:6–11. Sons and families of לְּ תולְּ דותָ ם .גִ בורֵ י חַ יִל with “ (registered) according to their births, they Benjamin.—In v. 6 only three sons of numbered in the days of David 22,600.” The Benjamin—Bela, Becher, and Jediael—are but to the mentioned; and in vv. 7–11 their families are ,רָ אשִ ים do not refer to -ָָ ם suffixes the fathers’-houses, the males in registered. Besides these, there are five sons of ,בֵ ית־אָ בות Benjamin spoken of in 1 Chronicles 8:1, 2, — which amounted to 22,600 souls. As David Bela the first, Ashbel the second, Aharah the caused the people to be numbered by Joab (2 third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth; Sam. 24; 1 Chronicles 21), this statement ,are enumerated בָ נִים probably rests on the results of that census. while in vv. 3–5 five other If we .חּורָ ם and ,שְּ פּופָ ן ,נַעֲמָ ן ,(twice) גֵרָ א ,אַדָ ר ,.Chronicles 7:3. From Uzzi, the first-born of viz 1 Tola, are descended through Izrahiah five men, compare here the statements of the Pentateuch all heads of groups of related households (v. 4); as to the genealogy of Benjamin, we find in Gen. “and to them (i.e., besides these) according to 46:21 the following sons of Benjamin: Bela, and (אֵחִ י) their generations, according to their fathers’- Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi and ;(אַרְּדְּ ) houses, bands of the war host, 36,000 (men), Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard for they (these chiefs) had many wives and

1 CHRONICLES Page 76 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study in Num. 26:38–40 seven families, of which five Benjamin, Jediael, occurs only here, and is are descended from his sons Bela, Ashbel, considered by the older commentators to be .and another name of Ashbel (Gen. 46:21 and Num ;(חּופָ ם) Ahiram, Shephupham, and Hupham two from his grandsons, the sons of Bela, Ard 26:38), which cannot indeed be accepted as a and Naaman. From this we learn, not only that certainty, but is very probable. -’mentioned in Gen. 46:21 at least two 1 Chronicles 7:7. The five heads of fathers בָ נִים of the houses called sons of Bela are not sons in the were grandsons, but also that the names proper sense of the word, but more distant אֵחִ י descendants, who, at the time when this אֲחִ ירָ ם Gen.) are only other forms of) מֻפִ ים and Num.). It is, however, somewhat register was made up, were heads of the five) שְּפּופָ ם and groups of related households of the race of Bela. strange that among the families (in Num.) the ,v. 9 ,גִ בורֵ י חַ יִל is synonymous with גִ בורֵ י חֲ יָלִ ים are wanting. The רֹׁאש and ,גֵרָ א ,בֶכֶ ר names and is a plural, formed as if from a nomen explanation which at once suggests itself, that compositum, which arose after the frequent use their descendants were not numerous enough of the words as they are bound together in the to form separate families, and that they on that status constructus had obscured the account were received into the families of the consciousness of the relation between them. other sons, though it may be accepted in the case of Gera and Rosh, of whom it is nowhere 1 Chronicles 7:8. Becher’s descendants. Of ,עָלֶמֶ ת and עֲ נָ תות ,recorded that they had numerous descendants, these nine names there are two cannot meet the case of Becher, for in vv. 8 and which occur elsewhere as names of cities (cf. ,עֲ נָ תות and for ;6:45 ,עַלֶמֶ ת in the form עָלֶמֶ ת of our chapter mention is made of nine sons for 9 of his, with a posterity of 20,200 men. The Josh. 21:18, Isa. 10:30, Jer. 1:1). We may, supposition that the name of Becher and his without doubt, accept the supposition that in family has been dropped from the genealogical these cases the cities received their names from register of the families in Num. 26, will not the heads of the families which inhabited them. appear in the slightest degree probable, when ,stands in apposition to רָ אשֵ י בֵ ית אֲ בותָ ם ,we consider the accuracy of this register in In v. 9 And their“ :לְּ תולְּ דותָ ם ,other respects. The only remaining explanation and is explanatory of therefore is, that the descendants of Becher register, according to their generations,” viz., were in reality not numerous enough to form a according to the generations, that is, the birth- by themselves, but had afterwards so lists, “of the heads of their fathers’-houses, is מִשְּ פָחָ ה increased that they numbered nine fathers’- (amounts to) in valiant heroes 20,200 men.” houses, with a total of 20,200 valiant warriors. 1 Chronicles 7:10f. Among the descendants of The numbers in our register point Jediael we find Benjamin and Ehud, the first of unquestionably to post-Mosaic times; for at the whom is named after the patriarch; but the second numbering by Moses, all the families of second is not the judge Ehud (Judg. 3:15), who Benjamin together numbered only 45,600 men was indeed a Benjamite, but of the family of (Num. 26:41), while the three families Gera. Chenaanah does not necessarily indicate a mentioned in our verses number together Canaanite family. Tharshish, which is elsewhere 59,434 (22,034 + 20,200 + 17,200). The tribe of a precious stone, is here the name of a person; Benjamin, which moreover was entirely Ahishahar, that is, Brother of the Dawn, destroyed, with the exception of 600 men, in perhaps so named because sub auroram the war which it waged against the other tribes natur.—In v. 11 the expression is contracted, as in the earlier part of the period of the judges often happens in formulae which frequently (Judg. 20:47), could not have increased to such recur; and the meaning is, “All these are sons of an extent before the times of David and Jediael (for as sons of Bilhan the son of Jediael, Solomon. The name of the third son of they are at the same time sons of the latter),

1 CHRONICLES Page 77 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

alius, is not indeed found ,אַחֵ ר registered) according to the heads of their The word) fathers’-houses, valiant heroes 17,200, going elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may ,is notwithstanding be so here; when we might רָ אשֵ י הָאָ בות ”.forth in the host to war ,ו vide on Ex. 6:25; notwithstanding the want of the conjunction ,רָ אשֵ י בֵ ית־אָ בות contracted from which Bertheau from a take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another ,רָ אשֵ י before לְּ and the misinterpretation wishes to remove, depends Benjamite family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Dan would be omitted from our v. 9) to be supplied in) הִתְּ יַחְּׂשָ ם upon the chapter; but we must not allow that to lead us thought. into arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Dan but 1 Chronicles 7:12. V. 12 is unintelligible to us. also Zebulun is omitted.22 The first half, “And Shuppim and Huppim, sons 1 Chronicles 7:13. The sons of Naphtali.—Only the sons of Naphtali are named, the families ו of Ir,” would seem, if we may judge from the cop., to enumerate some other descendants of descended from them being passed over. The names correspond to those in Gen. 46:24 and מֻפִ ים Benjamin. And besides, (1) the names ,יַחְּ צְּאֵ ל occur in Gen. 46:21 among those of the Num. 25:48f., except that there the first is וְּחֻ פִ ים .שַ לּום instead of שִ לֵ ם sons of Benjamin, and in Num. 26:39, among and the last from 1 Chronicles 7:14–19. Families of the half-tribe שּופָמִ י the families of Benjamin, one called are of Manasseh.—The families of Manasseh which ,חּופָ ם from חּופָמִ י and another ,שְּ פּופָ ם dwelt in Gilead and Bashan have already been introduced; we must consequently hold to mentioned in 1 Chronicles 5:23, 14. Our verses מֻפִ ים And (2) the name deal with the families of this tribe which .שּופָ ם or שֻ פִ ם be an error for in v. 7. received their inheritance in Canaan, on this עִ ירִ י is most probably identical with עִ יר side Jordan. These were, according to Num. The peculiar forms of those names, viz., ,and Josh. 17:2, six families, of which ,34 ,26:30 שֻ פִ ם ,seem to have arisen from an improper however, only two are here spoken of—Ashriel ,וְּחֻ פִ ם in v. 15, v. 14, and Shemidah, v. 19; or perhaps three, if לְּחֻ פִ ים ּולְּשֻ פִ ים comparison of them with Abiezer, v. 18, be the same person as Jeezer in which the fact was overlooked that the (Num. 26:30), who is called Abiezer in Josh. Huppim and Shuppim of v. 15 belong to the 17:2. The statements of vv. 14 and 15 are very Manassites. Here, therefore, two other families obscure. At the head of the register of the descended from the Benjamite Ir or Iri would Manassites stands Ashriel, who, according to seem to be mentioned, which may easily be Num. 26:31, belonged to the sons of Gilead the reconciled with the purpose (v. 6) to mention son of Manasseh and the grandson of Joseph (cf. none of the Benjamites but the descendants of Gen. 50:23), and founded one of the six families Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further of the cis-Jordanic Manassites. But the words statement, “Hushim, sons of Aher,” is utterly אֲשֶ ר which follow are obscure; the words are .is found in Gen חֻשִ ים enigmatical. The name ;whom his Aramaic concubine bore“ ,יָלָדָ ה וגו׳ ,as that of Dan’s only son, who, however 46:23 and who founded she bore Machir the father of Gilead.” But since ,שּוחָ ם is called in Num. 26:42 Ashriel, according to this, was the great- the family of the Shuhami. But as the names grandson of Manasseh, while Machir was his and are again met with in 1 son, the relative clause can refer only to חֻשִ ים חּושִ ים Chronicles 8:8, 11 among the Benjamites, there Manasseh, to whom his concubine bore Machir. is no need to imagine any connection between Movers and Berth. would therefore erase as a gloss arising out of a doubling of ,אַׂשְּרִ יאֵ ל .and that family חֻשִ ם our By this expedient the .אשר יל׳ the following

1 CHRONICLES Page 78 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study difficultly as to the connection of the relative 18). By this means we certainly bring some clause is certainly got rid of, but the obscurities meaning into the words; but we cannot venture of the following verse (15) are not thereby to maintain that this conjecture corresponds to removed. The analogy of the other registers in the original text, but rather incline to doubt it. our chapter requires, rather, that immediately For, in the first place, the following words, “And there should stand the name of a the name of the second (is) Zelophehad,” do not בְּ נֵי מְּ נַשֶ ה after descendant,—a fact which speaks strongly in suit the proposed reading. Berth. must here .(the name of his brother) אָחִ יו into הַשֵ נִי It is alter .אַׂשְּרִ יאֵ ל favour of the authenticity of therefore a much more probable suggestion, But even after this alteration, the mention of the brother of Machir is not suitable to the some additional ,אׂשריאל that after the name context; and moreover Zelophehad was not a has been dropped, or true brother, but only a nephew of Machir, the ,בֶן־מְּ נַשֶ ה clause, such as regarded as superfluous by a copyist, and so son of his brother Hepher; cf. Num. 26:33; 27:1. the And besides this, according to the concluding ,בן מנשה omitted. To such an omitted relative sentence, which gives more details as formula, “These are the sons of Gilead, the son to the descent of Ashriel, would be attacked in a of Machir, the son of Manasseh” (v. 17), we simple and natural manner, since it was known should expect to find in vv. 15, 16, not merely from Num. 26:30f. that Ashriel was descended sons or descendants of Machir, but rather from Manasseh through Gilead. descendants of Gilead. We therefore hold the statement of v. 15b, “And the name of the 1 Chronicles 7:15. V. 15 is literally, “And second if Zelophehad, and Zelophehad had Machir took a wife to Huppim and Shuppim, (only) daughters,” to be correct and beyond and the name of his sister was Maachah, and criticism, and the first part of v. 15 to be the name of the second Zelophehad.” According corrupt and defective; and conjecture that a son to v. 16, on the contrary, Maachah is the wife of of Gilead’s was mentioned in it, to whose name Machir, and we should consequently expect to the words, “And the name of the second,” etc., find in v. 15 only the simple statement, “And belonged. This son who was mentioned in the Machir took a wife whose name was Maachah.” text, which has been handed down to us only in no a defective state, was probably the Ashriel לחפים ולשפים אחתו מעכה From the words meaning which harmonizes with the context mentioned in v. 14, a son of Gilead, whose signifies “to descent from Machir was given more in detail לָקַח האִשָ לְּ can be obtained. Since take a wife for one” (cf. Judg. 14:2), we can only in the corrupt and consequently meaningless suppose that by the names Huppim and first half of v. 15. In vv. 15, 17, other Shuppim Machir’s sons are meant, to whom he, descendants of Machir by his wife Maachah are as their father, gave wives. But we cannot enumerated, which favours the probable suppose that the sons of Machir are referred to, conjecture that the wife whom Machir took, for the birth of the sons is first mentioned in v. according to v. 15, was different from Maachah, that Machir had two wives, and that in v. 15 שפם and חפם But we have found the names .16 originally the sons of the first were spoken of as descendants of Benjamin; and enumerated, and in vv. 16, 17, the sons of the Bertheau consequently conjectures that these second. Peresh and Shelesh are mentioned only names have been brought thence into our verse here. , “his sons” (that is, the sons of the last- בָ נָיו by some gloss, and that the beginning of our named, Shelesh), were Ulam and Rakem, names ומכיר לקח אשה ושמה :verse originally stood thus which are also met with only here. The name And Machir took a wife“ ,מעכה ושם אחֹׁתו המלכת ,is found in our Masoretic text, 1 Sam. 12:11 בְּדָ ן whose name is Maachah, and the name of his as the name of a judge, but probably should בָרָ ק .sister if Hammoleketh” (the last according to v be read instead.

1 CHRONICLES Page 79 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

refers to both these names: “The וַהֲרָ גּום Chronicles 7:18. A third branch of the suffix in 1 descendants of Gilead were descended from men of Gath, that were born in the land, smote Machir’s sister Hammoleketh, a name which the Ezer and Elead.” These “men born in the land” Vulgate has taken in an appellative sense. Of Ewald and Bertheau take to be the Avvites, the her sons, Ishod, i.e., “man of splendour,” is not aboriginal inhabitants of that district of elsewhere mentioned. The name Abiezer country, who had been extirpated by the occurs, Josh. 17:2, as that of the head of one of Philistines emigrating from Caphtor (Deut. the families of Manasseh. In Num. 26:30, 2:23). But there is no sufficient ground for this however, he is called Jeezer, which is probably supposition; for no proof can be brought the original reading, and consequently our forward that the Avvaeans (Avvites) had ever Abiezer is different from that in Josh. 17:2. spread so far as Gath; and the Philistines had Another circumstance which speaks strongly taken possession of the south-west part of against the identification of the two men is, that Canaan as early as the time of Abraham, and the family descended from Jeezer holds the first consequently long before Ephraim’s birth. “The place among the families of Manasseh, which is men of Gath who were born in the land” are not at all consonant with the position of the son rather the Canaanite or Philistine inhabitants of of Machir’s sister here mentioned. Of the family Gath, as distinguished from the Israelites, who of Abiezer came the judge Gideon, Judg. 11:15. had settled in Canaan only under Joshua. “For A daughter of Zelophehad is called Mahlah in they (Ezer and Elead) had come down to take Num. 26:33; 27:1, but she is not the person away their cattle” (to plunder). The older here mentioned. commentators assign this event to the time that 1 Chronicles 7:19. The sons of Shemida, the Israel dwelt in Egypt (Ewald, Gesch. i. S. 490), or founder of the fourth family of the Manassites, even to the pre-Egyptian time. But Bertheau Num. 26:32. His four sons are nowhere else has, in opposition to this, justly remarked that the founder of a family of the narratives of Genesis know nothing of a stay ,שֶ כֶ ם referred to, for the Manassites (Num. 26:31 and Josh. 17:2), is of the progenitors of the tribe of Ephraim in the to be distinguished from the Shechem of our land of Palestine before the migration of Israel verse; nor is there any greater reason to into Egypt, for Ephraim was born in Egypt (Gen. identify Likhi with Helek, Num. 26:30 (Berth.), 46:20). It would be more feasible to refer it to the the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in ,נֹׁעָ ם with אֲ נִיעָ ם than there is for connecting Egypt, as it is not impossible that the Israelites daughter of Zelophehad, Num. 26:33, Josh. 17:3. may have undertaken predatory expeditions 1 Chronicles 7:20–29. The families of against Canaan from Goshen; but even this Ephraim.—V. 20f. Among the Ephraimites, the supposition is not at all probable. Certainly, if in descendants of Shuthelah, the founder of one of vv. 23–27 it were said, as Ewald thinks, that the chief families of this tribe, Num. 26:35, are Ephraim, after the mourning over the sons thus traced down through six generations to a later slain, became by his wife the father of three which follow other sons, from the last named of whom וְּעֶ ֹזֶ רוְּאֶ לְּעָ ד Shuthelah. The names And his son Shuthelah,” after which Joshua was descended in the seventh“ ,שּותֶ חלַ בְּ נו generation, we should be compelled to refer the is wanting, are not to be considered expedition to the pre-Egyptian period. But the בְּ נו descendants of the second Shuthelah, but are opinion that Rephah and Resheph, v. 25, were heads of a family co-ordinate with that of begotten only after that misfortune has no Shuthelah, or of two fathers’-houses intimately foundation. Moreover, the statement that connected with each other. These names are to Ephraim, after he was comforted for the loss of be taken as a continuation of the list of the sons his slain sons, went in unto his wife and begat a The son, to whom he gave the name Beriah, because .שּותֶ לַ ח of Ephraim, which commenced with he was born in misfortune in his house, does

1 CHRONICLES Page 80 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study not at all presuppose that the patriarch that the sons of Ephraim who are named in our Ephraim was still alive when Ezer and Elead verse attempted to drive away the cattle of the were slain. Were that the case, the necessary Gathites, and were by them slain in the attempt. result would of course be, that this event could But how can the statement that Ephraim after only be referred to the time when the Israelites this unfortunate event begat another son, dwelt in Egypt. In opposition to this, Bertheau’s Beriah, be reconciled with such a supposition, remark that the event in that case would be per since the patriarch Ephraim was dead long se enigmatical, as we would rightly have great before the Israelites came forth out of Egypt. hesitation in accepting the supposition of a war, Bertheau understands the begetting or rather a plundering expedition to seize upon figuratively, of the whole of the tribe of cattle carried out by the Ephraimites whilst Ephraim, or of a small Ephraimite family, which they dwelt in Egypt, against the inhabitants of at first was not numbered with the others, into the Philistine city of Gath, is certainly not all the number of the famous families of this tribe. decisive, for we know far too little about those But this straining of the words by an allegorical times to be able to judge of the possibility or interpretation is not worthy of serious probability of such an expedition. refutation, since it is manifestly only a The decision to which we must come as to this makeshift to get rid of the difficulty. The words, obscure matter depends, in the first place, on “And Ephraim went in unto his wife, and she are to be understood; conceived and bare a son,” are not to be כִ ייָרְּ דּו וגו׳ how the words interpreted allegorically, but must be taken in whether we are to translate “for they had gone,” their proper sense; and the solution of the or “when they had gone down to fetch their enigma will be found in the name Ephraim. If ,par this be taken to denote the actual son of Joseph כִ י cattle,” i.e., to plunder. If we take the partic. ration., for, because, we can only take the then the event is incomprehensible; but just as sons of Ephraim, Ezer and Elead, for the subject a descendant of Shuthelah in the sixth and we must understand the words to generation was also called Shuthelah, so also ,יָרְּ דּו of mean that they had gone down to carry off the might a descendant of the patriarch Ephraim, cattle of the Gathites. In that case, the event living at a much later time, have received the would fall in the time when the Ephraimites name of the progenitor of the tribe; and if we dwelt in Canaan, and went down from Mount accept this supposition, the event, with all its Ephraim into the low-lying Gath, for a march issues, is easily explained. If Ezer and Elead out of Egypt into Canaan is irreconcilable with went down from Mount Ephraim to Gath, they were not actual sons of Ephraim, but merely כִ י If, on the contrary, we translate .יָרַ ד the verb later descendants; and their father, who when they had gone down,” we might then mourned for their death, was not Ephraim the“ יָרְּ דּו gather from the words that men of Gath went son of Joseph, who was born in Egypt, but an down to Goshen, there to drive away the cattle Ephraimite who lived after the Israelites had of the Ephraimites, in which case the Gathites taken possession of the land of Canaan, and may have slain the sons of Ephraim when they who bore Ephraim’s name. He may have were feeding their cattle and defending them mourned for the death of his sons, and after he against the robbers. Many of the old had been comforted for their loss, may have commentators have so understood the words; gone in unto his wife, and have begotten a son but we cannot hold this to be the correct with her, to whom he gave the name Beriah, interpretation, for it deprives the words “those “because it was in misfortune in his house,” i.e., born in the land,” which stand in apposition to because this son was born when misfortune .of all meaning, since there can be was in his house ,אַ נְּשֵ י גַ ת absolutely no thought of men of Gath born in 1 Chronicles 7:24. “And his daughter Sherah,” Egypt. We therefore take the words to mean, the daughter of the above-mentioned Ephraim,

1 CHRONICLES Page 81 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

“built Beth-horon the nether and the upper,” position, see on Josh. 7:2. Her daughters are the the present Beit-Ur-Fok and Tachta (see on smaller villages which belonged to . Josh. 10:10), “and Uzzen-sherah,” a place not Naaran, without doubt the same place which is loc.), is the ה with) נַעֲרָתָ ה elsewhere referred to, which she probably called in Josh. 16:17 founded, and which was called after her. The eastern frontier city lying to the north-east of building of the two Beth-horons is merely an Jericho; see on Josh. 16:7. “And westward enlarging and fortifying of these towns. Sherah ,” according to Josh. 16:13, lying between was probably an heiress, who had received Beth-horon and the sea (see on Josh. 10:33), is these places as her inheritance, and caused the frontier city on the south-west; and them to be enlarged by her family. In vv. 25–27 ,with their daughters ,(עַּוָ ה) Shechem and Avvah the ancestors of Joshua the son of Nun, who brought Israel into the land of Canaan, are are places which mark the boundary on the Shechem, the present ,שְּ כֶ ם is wanting after north-west. As to בְּ נו enumerated. As the word most ,עַּוָ ה we must hold Rephah and Resheph to be Nabulus, see on Josh. 17:7. Instead of ,רֶשֶ ף brothers, but we are not informed from which of the editions of the Bible agree with LXX and but not the ,עַ זָ ה of the four Ephraimite stocks enumerated in Vulg. and Chald. in having Num. 26:35f. they were descended. “Telah his Philistine Gaza: it is only an error of the son,” Bertheau holds to be a son of Rephah. The transcribers and printers, as all the more name Tahan occurs in Num. 26:35 as that of the accurate MSS and the better printed copies see De Rossi, Variae Lectt. ad h. l. The ;עוה founder of one of the families of Ephraim; but have he can hardly be identical with our Tahan, who is certainly met with nowhere עַ יָה or עַּוָ ה locality was probably a son of that Tahan from whom an Ephraimite family descended. If this else, but, if we may judge by Josh. 16:6 and conjecture be correct, Joshua would be of the 17:17, is to be sought not far from Shechem in a family of Tahan. north-western direction, perhaps on the site of the there mentioned Michmethah, the position 1 Chronicles 7:26. Elishama the son of of which has, however, not yet been Ammihud was a contemporary of Moses, Num. ascertained. 1:10, and prince of the tribe of Ephraim, Num. 1 Chronicles 7:29. According to Josh. 17:11, Non) is so pronounced only in) נון .10:22 ;7:48 the Manassites had received the four cities here this place; in the Pentateuch and in the book of named, lying within the territory of Issachar ,עַל־ ייְּדֵ בְּ נֵי ם׳ Nun). and Asher. This is attested also by) נּון Joshua it is 1 Chronicles 7:28, 29. In vv. 28 and 29 the to the hands, i.e., in possession of the sons of possessions and dwelling-places of the tribe of Manasseh. As to its position, see Josh. 17:11. Ephraim (and as we learn from the These cities formed the boundaries on the superscription, v. 29), also those of West Jordan extreme north, of the dwellings “of the sons of Manasseh, are given, but in a very general way; Joseph,” i.e., of the two tribes of Ephraim and only the chief places on the four sides being Manasseh. mentioned. Bethel, now Beitin, on the frontier 1 Chronicles 7:30–40. The sons and several of the tribal domains of Benjamin and Ephraim families of Asher.—V. 30. The names of the four (Josh. 16:2; 18:13), and assigned to the tribe of sons of Asher and that of their sister coincide Benjamin (Josh. 18:22), is here mentioned as an with the statement of Gen. 46:17; but in Num. Ephraimite city on the southern frontier of the 26:44–47, on the contrary, the name Ishuai Ephraimite territory, as it belonged to the does not occur among the families of Asher. kingdom of the ten tribes; whence we gather 1 Chronicles 7:31. The sons of Beriah, Heber that this register was prepared after that and Malchiel, are also to be found in Gen. 46:17 kingdom had come into existence. As to its and Num. 26:45 as the heads of two families;

1 CHRONICLES Page 82 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study but the further statement, “he (i.e., Malchiel) 1 Chronicles 7:40. V. 40 contains a the father of Birzavith,” is found only here. How comprehensive concluding statement as to the the Kethibh, is to be pronounced, cannot descendants of Asher: “All these (those just ,ברֹזות be with certainty determined. Gesen. in Thes. p. mentioned by name) were heads of fathers’- ,(as in v. 5 ,חֲ יָלִ ים) and considers the word to houses, chosen valiant heroes ,בִרְּ ֹזות makes it 239 be the name of a woman; Bertheau, on the chief of the princes,” Vulg. duces ducum, i.e., probably leaders of the larger divisions of the בר contrary conjectures that it is a compound of And“ .נְּׂשִיאִ ים army, under whom were other well of the olive-tree,” and so the“ ,ֹזַיִת and בְּאֵ ר = their genealogical register is for service of the name of a place. In vv. 32–34 the descendants host in war,” i.e., was prepared with reference of Heber are enumerated in three generations, to the men capable of bearing arms, and had which are mentioned nowhere else. In v. 32 we not, like other registers, reference to the have four sons and one daughter. The name number of inhabitants of the various localities; Josh. cf. 9:22. It amounted to 26,000 men. According ,יַ פְּלֵטִ י is not to be connected with יַפְּלֵ ט 16:3, “because a family of Asher is not to be to Num. 1:41, Asher numbered 41,500, and sought for in the neighbourhood there referred according to Num. 26:47, 53,000 men. But we to” (Berth.). In v. 33 we have four sons of must observe that the number given in our Japhlet, and in v. 34 the sons of his brother verse is only that of the men capable of bearing v. arms belonging to one of the greater families of ,שומֵ ר Shemer. It is somewhat remarkable that Asher, the family of Heber, of which alone a ,is not an appellative אֲחִ י .שֶמֶ ר is called here ,32 register had been preserved till the time of the .before the following chronicler ו but a proper name, as the Chronicles 8 1 יְּחֻבָ ה name shows; cf. another Ahi in 5:15. For .וְּחֻבָ ה we should read Families of Benjamin, and Genealogy of the 1 Chronicles 7:35–39. Descendants of House of Saul. Helem—in v. 35 sons, in vv. 36–38 grandsons. his brother” (i.e., the 1 Chronicles 8. The families of Benjamin“ ,אָחִ יו As Helem is called enumerated in this chapter were probably הֵ לֶ ם ,(brother of the Shemer mentioned in v. 34 separated from those in 1 Chronicles 7:6–11, would seem to be the third son of Heber, who is merely on the ground that all the registers If so, one of the two names which are grouped together in 1 Chronicles 7 .חותָ ם called in v. 32 must have resulted from an error in were taken from another genealogical transcription; but it is now impossible to document than that from which the registers in determine which is the original and correct our chapter, which form a supplement to the form of the name. Eleven names are introduced short fragments in 1 Chronicles 7:6–11, have as those of the sons of Zophah (vv. 36, 37); and been derived. in v. 38 we have, besides, three sons of Jether 1 Chronicles 8:1–5. The sons of Benjamin and In v. 39 there Bela.—The manner in which the five sons .יִתְּרָ ן who is called in v. 38 ,(יֶתֶ ר) follow three names, those of the sons of Ulla; on begotten by Benjamin are enumerated is which Bertheau rightly remarks, the whole remarkable, “Bela his first-born, Ashbel the character of our enumeration would lead us to second,” etc., since, according to Gen. 46:21, had already occurred after the first-born Bela, Becher follows as the עֻלָ א conjecture that second son, and Ashbel is the third; while among the preceding names, although we find Aharah, Nohah, and Rapha are not met with neither this name nor any similar one, with there, quite other names occupying their place. which it might be identified, in the preceding of אֲחִ ירָ ם we can easily recognise the אַחְּרַ ח list. In

1 CHRONICLES Page 83 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Num. 26:38, whence the enumeration in v. 1f. Shephupham, and Hupham. Abihud and harmonizes with the order in Num. 26:38. It is Abishua are met with as descendants of may be אֲ חוחַ therefore clear, that in our genealogy only those Benjamin only here, and sons are mentioned who founded the families .v. 7 ,אֲחִ יָה connected with are רָ פָ א and נוחָ ה of Benjamin. The names 1 Chronicles 8:6, 7. Sons of Ehud.—The nowhere else met with among the sons of descent of Ehud from the sons, grandsons, and Benjamin; but we may conclude, partly from descendants of Benjamin, enumerated in vv. 1– the agreement of the first three names with the 5, is not given. The names of Ehud’s sons follow heads of the families of Benjamin enumerated only at the end of the 7th verse, “And he begat in Num. 26:38, and partly from the agreement Uzza and Ahihud,” while the intermediate as to the number, which is five in both passages, clauses contain historical remarks. These sons that and are intended to correspond to were “heads of fathers’-houses of the רָ פָ א נוחָ ה of Num. 26:39. The only inhabitants of Geba,” i.e., Geba of Benjamin (1 חּופָ ם and שְּ פּופָ ם the question which then remains is, whether the Sam. 13:16), the Levite city, 6:45, which still variation in the names arises from these two remains as the half-ruinous village Jeba, about sons of Benjamin having had different names, three leagues to the north of Jerusalem; see on or from the families which issued from Josh. 18:24. “And they led them captive to Shephupham and Hupham having afterwards Manahath, viz., Naaman and Ahiah and Gera, וַיַגְּ לּום perhaps received new names from famous this man led them captive.” The subject to chiefs, instead of the original designations, so are the men mentioned in the following verse, which follows shows that, of the הּוא that Nohah and Rapha would be later while the descendants of Shephupham and Hupham. three above mentioned, the last, Gera, was the Even this second supposition seems possible, author of their captivity. The place Manahath is since in such genealogical registers may not known, but is conjectured to be connected הולִ יד denote mediate procreation. If, e.g., Nohah were with Hazi-Hammanahti and Hazi- a grandson or great-grandson of Shephupham Hammenuhoth, 2:54 and 52; but we cannot the son of Benjamin, he might well be ascertain with certainty whether the name introduced in the genealogical lists of the denotes a city or a district, and the situation of families as begotten by Benjamin. it has not yet been discovered. Of the hostile 1 Chronicles 8:3–5. The sons of Bela. Of the six collision of these Benjamite families also, no .is twice met more detailed accounts have come down to us גֵרָ א ,names borne by these sons is found in Gen. 46:21 as the son, and 1 Chronicles 8:8–12. The descendants of נַעֲמָ ן ;with Shaharaim.—The descent of Shaharaim from in Num. 26:40 as grandson of Benjamin; is the sons and grandsons named in vv. 1–3 is שְּ פּופָ ן obscure, and the conjecture which connects חּורָ ם Num. 26:39; and ,שְּ פּופָ ם another form of Num. him with Ahishahar of 1 Chronicles 7:10 is ,חּופָ ם may be a transcriber’s error for unsupported. He was the father of a 26:39, just as probably stands for , Gen. -’considerable number of heads of fathers אַרְּדְּ אַדָ ר 46:21. The occurrence of the name Gera would houses, whom his two or three wives bore to denoted sons him. According to v. 8, he begat “in the country בָ נִים be incomprehensible only if of Moab after he had sent them, Hushim and בָ נִים in the narrower sense of the word; but if Baara his wives, away; (v. 9) there begat he are sons in the wider sense, i.e., descendants with Hodesh his wife, Jobab,” etc. When and who founded fathers’-houses (groups of related households), two cousins might have the same how Shaharaim, a Benjamite, came into the country of Moab, is not known; all that can be name. In that case, Addar, Shephuphan, and gathered from our verse is that he must have Huram also may be different persons from Ard,

1 CHRONICLES Page 84 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

is infin. 1 Chronicles 8:13–28. Heads of fathers’-houses שִ לְּ חו .lived there for a considerable time Pi., the “i” being retained, and the Daghesh forte of the tribe of Benjamin, who dwelt partly in omitted with Sheva (cf. as to this formation, Ew. Aijalon (v. 13) and partly in Jerusalem.—Their connection with the heads of fathers’-houses accus. of the pronoun, which, as ,אֹׁתָ ם .(.d ,238 § already mentioned is not clear. The names it precedes its noun, is in gen. masc., although might be taken fore a fuller בְּרִ יעָ ה וָשֶמַ ע the names of women follow (cf. for this use of enumeration of the sons of Elpaal (v. 12), were are בַעֲ רָ ה and חּושִ ים .(.the pronoun, Ew. § 309, c it not that the names enumerated from v. 14 or By 15 onwards, are at the end of v. 16 said to be .נָשָ יו women, as we learn from the following this parenthesis, the beginning of the main those of sons of Beriah; whence we must v. 13, a new list of ,ּובְּרִ יעָ ה is conclude that with הולִ יד sentence has been lost sight of, and the cf. the heads of Benjamite fathers’-houses begins. This ,מִ ן with הולִ יד As to .וַ יולֶ ד taken up again in view is supported by the fact that the names is the third wife, which he חֹׁדֶ ש .remark on 2:8 from v. 14 or 15 to v. 27 are divided into five took instead of those he had sent away. The groups of families: the sons of Beriah (v. 16), of seven names in vv. 9, 10 are grouped together Elpaal (v. 18), of Shimhi (v. 21), of Shashak (v. as sons or descendants of the last-named wife, 25), and of Jeroham (v. 27). But as two of these, by the concluding remark, “These his sons are Beriah and Shashak, occur in vv. 13, 14, and heads of fathers’-houses.” Then, further, in vv. Bertheau ,שֶמַ ע is probably another form of שִמְּעִ י 11, 12, the sons and grandsons of the first (divorced) wives, one of whom built the cities conjectures that the last two names, Shashak יְּרֵ מות and אַחְּ יו Ono and Lydda, are enumerated; but we have and Jeroham, are represented by may be explained by the יְּרֵ מות and יְּרֹׁחַ ם .(v. 14) הּוא בָ נָ ה no means of determining whether the refers to Shemer, the last mentioned, or to supposition of a transcriber’s error, or by one is אַחְּ יו Elpaal the father of the three sons, Eber, and person having two names; but the word Misham, and Shemer. It would, however, rendered by the LXX by ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ (= naturally suggest itself, that the words referred is a nom. prop. is אחיו and the view that ;(אָחִ יו Lod) is without doubt the city) ֹלד .to the first cop. is ו opposed, as in v. 31, by the fact that the Lydda, where Peter healed the paralytic (Acts ,for here ,שָשָ ק 9:32ff.). It belonged in the Syrian age to not found before the following , but it was added to Judea by the King throughout, the names are all connected with cop. Bertheau therefore ו Demetrius Soter, and given to for a each other by the possession (1 Macc. 11:34, cf. with 10:30, 38). conjectures that the text originally ran thus, In the Jewish was it was destroyed by the and that the name Elpaal was ,וְּאֶ לְּפַעַל אָחִ יו וְּשָשָ ק Roman general Cestius (Joseph. de Bell. Jud. ii. 19. 1), but was rebuilt at a later time, and dropped out; and that in consequence of that, had been punctuated as a nom. prop. These אחיו became the site of a toparchy of Judea. In still later times it was called Diospolis, but is now a conjectures seem satisfactory, especially as it has אָחִ יו considerable Mohammedan village, lying may be adduced in their favour that between Jafa and Jerusalem to the north of been added to the name Elpaal to connect the Ramleh, which bears the old name Ludd, by the names in v. 15 with the enumeration (v. 13) Arabs pronounced also Lidd. See v. Raumer, Pal. interrupted by the parenthetical remarks. No S. 10; Robins. Pal. sub voce; and Tobler, Dritte certainty, however, can be attained in a matter Wanderung, S. 69f. Ono is mentioned elsewhere so obscure. If a new series of groups of families only in Ezra 2:33, Neh. 7:37 and 11:35, along begins with v. 13, we should expect an with Lod, and must have been a place in the introductory formula, as in v. 6. Beriah and neighbourhood of Lydda. Shema are called heads of the fathers’-houses of

1 CHRONICLES Page 85 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study the inhabitants of Aijalon, i.e., heads of the fathers’-houses,” refers, without doubt, to all groups of related households inhabiting Aijalon, the names from v. 15 or 14 to v. 27. “According the present Jalo to the west of Gibeon (see on to their generations—heads” is in apposition to Josh. 19:42). It is quite consistent with this that the preceding, as in 9:24, but the meaning of the can רָ אשִ ים their sons or descendants dwelt in Jerusalem. apposition is doubtful. The word Next a heroic deed of theirs is related, viz., that hardly be repeated merely for emphasis, as the they (in some war or other) turned to flight the old commentators understood it, in harmony inhabitants of Gath (without doubt Philistines). with the Vulgate principes inquam, for why This remark reminds us of the statement in 1 should this word be so emphasized? Bertheau Chronicles 7:21, that sons of Ephraim were thinks that “according to their births—heads” is slain by those born in Gath, because they had to be taken to mean that those who are gone down to drive away the herds of the enumerated by name are not the heads living at inhabitants. But Bertheau draws an erroneous the time of the preparation of this register, but conclusion from this fact, when he says that the individual families, with the name of their because in both passages the name Beriah progenitor after whom they were named in the occurs, both refer to the same event, and genealogical lists. But how this meaning can be thereafter attempts by various hypotheses to found in the words in question, I at least cannot make the Benjamites mentioned in our verse understand. Can the individual families be into Ephraimites. For the name Beriah is not at ?”heads of fathers’-houses“ ,רָ אשֵי אָ בות called all so rare as to allow of our inferring from that alone that the various persons so called are The families are the fathers’-houses themselves, identical, for Jacob’s son Asher also named one i.e., they are made up of the groups of related of his sons Beriah; cf. 7:30 with Gen. 46:17. The households comprehended under the name notion that the Benjamites Beriah and Shema fathers’-houses. These groups of related defeated those inhabitants of Gath who had households have, it is true, each of them either slain the sons of Ephraim (1 Chronicles 7:21) is head, but cannot possibly be themselves called quite unsupported, as the Philistines lived at heads. The meaning seems rather to be that the war and in feud with the Israelites for hundreds persons named in the family registers, or of years. registers of births, are introduced as heads (of fathers’-houses); and the reason why this is 1 Chronicles 8:15, 16. Several of the names of remarked would seem to be, to prevent those these six sons of Beriah who are mentioned in who are enumerated as the sons of this or that our verse occur elsewhere, but nowhere else man from being regarded simply as members of are they met with as sons of Beriah. fathers’-houses. The further remark, “these 1 Chronicles 8:17, 18. Bertheau would identify dwelt in Jerusalem,” is manifestly not to be three of the sons of Elpaal—Meshullam, Heber, taken to mean that the heads alone dwelt there, and Ishmerai—with Misham, Eber, and Shemer, while the households that were subordinated to v. 12, but without any sufficient reason; for it is them lived elsewhere; for it signifies that they questionable if even the Elpaal whose sons are dwelt in Jerusalem with the households which named in our verses be the same person as the composed their respective fathers’-houses. Elpaal mentioned in v. 12. Of these descendants That the households dwelt there also is not of Elpaal, also, nothing further is known, and stated, merely because the register contains the same may be said of the nine sons of only the names of the heads. Shimhi, vv. 19–21; of the eleven sons of 1 Chronicles 8:29–40. The genealogy of Saul.— Shashak, vv. 22–25; and of the six sons of Vv. 29–38 recur in 9:35–44 (see on that Jeroham, vv. 26, 27, although some of these passage). names are met with elsewhere singly. The concluding remark, v. 28, “These are heads of 1 Chronicles 8:29–32. The ancestors of Saul. They dwelt mainly in Gibeon, but a branch of

1 CHRONICLES Page 86 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study them were settled in Jerusalem, v. 32.f. In others besides, are passed over, and Ner the Gibeon, now El Jib, two hours north-west from son of Abi-Gibeon is named only because he Jerusalem (see on Josh. 9:3), dwelt the father of was the progenitor of the line by which Saul is King (שָ אּול) Gibeon, with his wife and his sons. The plural was descended from him. Saul ,is used because there dwelt there, besides Saul. Only three of his four sons, 1 Sam. 14:49 יָשְּ בּו the father of Gibeon, also his wife and his sons. are mentioned,—those, namely, who fell with The father, i.e., the lord and possessor of him in the battle against the Philistines, 1 Sam. Gibeon, was called, according to 9:35, Jehiel 31:2. The second is called, in 1 Sam. 14:49, ,and his wife Maachah, a not Ishui, but in 31:2 Abinadab, as in our register ,(יעואל .Keth ,יְּעִיאֵ ל) uncommon female name (see on 2:48). The whence we gather that Ishui is another name descent of Jehiel from Benjamin is not given. In for Abinadab. The fourth, Eshbaal, is the same v. 30 eight names are given as those of his sons, who is called in 2 Sam. 2:8, and elsewhere, while in 9:36f. ten are mentioned, the latter Ishbosheth, who was set up as king in statement being correct; for a comparison of opposition to David by Abner (see on 2 Sam. the two passages shows that in our verse two 2:8). names have been dropped out,—Ner between 1 Chronicles 8:34. Jonathan’s sons and Baal and Nadab, and Mikloth at the end, which grandsons. His son is called here and in 9:40 must have originally stood in our register Meribbaal, while in 2 Sam. 4:4; 9:6; 16:1ff., also,—for in vv. 32, 33 their descendants are 19:25, he is called , because the These name “striver with Baal” has been changed into .ֹזְּכַרְּ יָה is called in 9:37 ֹזֶכֶ ר .mentioned ,exterminans idolum. This Meribbaal ,מְּפִ יבֹׁשֶ ת names are evidently those of actual sons of Jehiel who were progenitors of fathers’-houses who was lame in his feet (cf. 2 Sam. 4:4), had a of ,(מִ יכָ א in 2 Sam. 9:12 written ,מִ יכָ ה) groups of related households), but in the case son Micha) of only two is the race descended from these whom came a numerous race. He had four sons further noticed. In v. 32 we have that of the (v. 35), and the family of the last-named of youngest Mikloth, who begat Shimeah, called in these (Ahaz) is traced down, in vv. 36–40, 9:38 Shimeam. These also (viz., Shimeah and through ten generations to the great-grandson before of Eshek. First it is traced from Ahaz to Alemeth“ ,נֶגֶד אֲחֵיהֶ ם his family) dwelt in Jerusalem v. 36); then through Zimri, brother of this) עִ ם their brethren,” i.e., over against them, and בְּ נו then further by ;הולִ יד latter, to Binea, by with their brethren.” The brethren are“ ,אֲחֵיהֶ ם (hisson) to Azel, of whom in v. 38 six sons are the other Benjamites in the first clause, those enumerated; and finally, in v. 39, the sons of his dwelling outside of Jerusalem and inhabiting brother Eshek are named, and the sons and the neighbouring country as far as Gibeon (v. grandsons of the first-born of this latter are 30); in the second, those dwelling in Jerusalem then enumerated. The last two verses are (v. 28). From this it is clear that of the wanting after 9:44. The names in the two descendants of Abi-Gibeon only that branch registers correspond, except at one point, which was descended from Mikloth went to where we cannot get rid of the discrepancy that Jerusalem. both יַעֲרָ ה v. 36) there stands in 9:42) יְּהועַדָ ה for 1 Chronicles 8:33. The family of Ner. Ner begat Kish, and Kish Saul. According to 1 Sam. 9:1 and times, probably through an error of 14:51, Kish was a son of Abiel. this statement, transcription, by which out of the shortened being ר and ד ,יערה there arose יְּעַדָ ה on account of which Bertheau proposes to form ֹּתַאְּרֵעַ make alterations in the text, may be reconciled interchanged. Besides this, instead of the with that in our verses, by the simple of v. 35, we have in 9:41, according to the supposition that in our verse intermediate ;ֹּתַחְּרֵעַ ,harder pronunciation of the gutturals names mentioned in 1 Sam. 9:1, and probably

1 CHRONICLES Page 87 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

v. 37, we have in 9:41 the longer of the northern kingdom, because Israel is ,רָ פָ ה and for contrasted with Judah, and kings of Israel are Now since Ahaz, whose .רְּ פָ יָה original form spoken of, for both reasons are quite worthless. posterity is traced down to the tenth “The book of the kings of Israel” is cited in 2 generation, was descended from Jonathan in Chronicles 20:34 (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:18), and is the third generation, and his grandfather declared by Bertheau himself to be identical Mephibosheth was a boy of five years of age at with the historical work cited as the “book of the death of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 4:4), the the kings of Israel and Judah” (2 Chronicles grandsons of Ulam, mentioned in v. 40, will be 27:7; 35:27; 36:8), or as the “book of the kings the thirteenth generation of Jonathan’s of Judah and Israel” (2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26, descendants. Now Jonathan fell along with Saul and elsewhere). How then can it be inferred in the year 1055 B.C. (see the chronological from the shortened title, “book of the kings of table of the period of the judges, p. 217), and Israel,” that kings of the northern kingdom are consequently this thirteenth generation of spoken of? Then, as to the contrast between Jonathan’s descendants lived probably about Israel and Judah, it might, when looked at by 700 B.C., i.e., about 100 years before the itself, be adduced in favour of taking the name Babylonian exile; for, according to the analogy in its narrower sense; but when we consider of the royal race of David, we cannot reckon the grouping together in v. 10 of “Israel, the more than twenty-five years on an average for priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim,” we see 23 each generation. clearly that Israel in v. 2 incontrovertibly 1 Chronicles 8:40. The sons of Ulam are called denotes the whole Israel of the twelve tribes. In valiant heroes and archers, and must have v. 1, Israel is used in the same sense as in v. 2; shown the same capability for war by which the and the contrast between Israel and Judah, tribe of Benjamin had been distinguished at an therefore, is analogous to the contrast “Judah cf. and Jerusalem,” i.e., Israel is a designation of the ,דֹׁרְּ כֵ י קֶשֶ ת earlier time; cf. Judg. 20:16, and for whole covenant people, Judah that of one כָל־אֵ לֶ ה ם׳ Chronicles 5:16. The subscription 1 section of it. The position of our verse also at refers back to the superscription in v. 1, and the end of the genealogies of all the tribes of binds all the names in our chapter together. Israel, and not merely of the ten tribes of the 1 Chronicles 9 northern kingdom, requires that the name Israel should be understood to denote the The Former Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the whole covenant people. That v. 1 forms the Family of Saul. transition from the genealogies to the 1 Chronicles 9:1–3. Vv. 1–3 form the transition enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, from the genealogies to the enumeration of the and so is properly the conclusion of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem in vv. 4–34. genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2–8, is so manifest that Bertheau cannot adduce a single tenable 1 Chronicles 9:1. “And all the Israelites were ground for his assertion to the contrary, that registered; and, behold, they were written in “the verse forms clearly quite a new beginning.” the book of the kings of Israel, and Judah was For the assertion, “We recognise in it a short led away to Babylon for her transgressions.” introduction to the historical statements The LXX and Vulg. have erroneously connected regarding the tribe of Judah or the Israelites with the preceding words, and render, “in after the exile,” cannot be adduced in support of וִיהּודָ ה the book of the kings of Israel and Judah,” and his view, since it not only contradicts his former assertion that Israel here denotes the northern הָ גְּ לּו then have translated the following words kingdom, but is also irreconcilable with the arbitrarily. Not less incorrect is Bertheau’s וגו׳ words of the verse.24 opinion, that Israel here denotes only the tribes

1 CHRONICLES Page 88 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

The statement, “Judah was led captive to forgets that the governors were changed within Babylon for her transgressions,” corresponds to short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily the statement 1 Chronicles 5:25f., 41. But when, call his predecessors in the office “former after this statement, our writer continues, “And governors;” while the inhabitants of the cities of the former inhabitants which (lived) in their Judah, on the contrary, had not changed during possessions in their cities were Israel, the the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim; and in allow of earlier and later inhabitants being Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., distinguished. From the fact that the the “former inhabitants” can only be those who inhabitants “of their cities” are not contrasted dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem captive into Babylon. This could hardly be as the later, but that both are placed together in misunderstood by any commentator, if the right such a way as to exclude such a contrast, it is interpretation of our passage were not manifest that the conclusion drawn by Movers obscured by the similarity of the register of the and Bertheau from Neh. 11:1, that the “former inhabitants of Jerusalem which follows to that inhabitants in their possessions in their cities” contained in Neh. 11, —a similarity which has are those who dwelt in Jerusalem before it was led some to believe that both registers treat of peopled by the inhabitants of the surrounding the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. district, is not tenable. In Neh. 11, on the Bertheau, e.g., comes to the following decision contrary, the register is introduced by the as to the relation of our register, vv. 2–34, to remark, v. 3, “These are the heads of the that in Neh. 11:3–24: “As the result of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem; and they comparison, we have found that both registers dwelt in the cities of Judah, each in his correspond exactly in their plan, and agree as to possession in their cities, Israel, the priests,” all the main points in their contents.” The first etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a point in this result has some foundation; for if register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of we turn our attention only to the enumeration the other cities of Judah, at that time, i.e., at the of chiefs dwelling in Jerusalem, then the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. To this registers in vv. 4–17 of our chapter and in Neh. corresponds the manner in which the register 11:3–19 are identical in plan. But if we consider has been made out, as in vv. 3–24 the the whole of the registers, as found in 1 inhabitants of Jerusalem are enumerated, and Chronicles 9:2–34 and Neh. 11:3–24, we see in vv. 25–36 the inhabitants of the other cities. that they do differ in plan; for in ours, the The register in our chapter, on the contrary, enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is deals only with the inhabitants of Jerusalem introduced by the remark, v. 2, “The former (vv. 3–19a), while in vv. 19b34 there follow inhabitants in their possessions in their cities, remarks as to the duties devolving upon the were Israel, the priests,” etc., according to Levites. No mention is made in the register of which the following words, v. 3, “And in the inhabitants of other cities, or of Israelites, Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., priests, and Levites, who dwelt in their cities can only be understood of the pre-exilic outside of Jerusalem (v. 2), because all that was inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in necessary had been already communicated in opposition to this, to Neh. 5:15, where the time the preceding genealogies (1 Chronicles 2–8). between Zerubbabel and Ezra is called the time 1 Chronicles 9:3. V. 3, too, is not, as Bertheau with and others think, “the superscription of the ,(הַפַ חות הָרִ אשֹׁנִים) of the former governors whom Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later register of those dwelling in Jerusalem;” for governor, to prove that according to that the were it that, mention must have been made in it former inhabitants in our passage may very of the priests and Levites, the enumeration of well denote the inhabitants of the land in the whom fills up the greater part of the following first century of the restored community, he register, vv. 10–33. V. 3 corresponds rather to v.

1 CHRONICLES Page 89 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

35, and serves to introduce the contents of the of the matter, the difference is seen to be whole chapter, and with it commences the almost as great as the agreement; but in reality, enumeration itself. In Neh. 11, consequently, we as a more exact comparison of the catalogues have a register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shows, the true state of the case is very and the cities of Judah, while our chapter different. According to v. 3, there dwelt in contains only a register of the former Jerusalem also sons of Ephraim and Manasseh; inhabitants of Jerusalem. Only in so far as it but the catalogue from v. 4 onwards contains treats of the inhabitants of Jerusalem does only sons of Judah and Benjamin, and not a Nehemiah’s register resemble ours in plan; that single Ephraimite or Manassite. The reason of is, to this extent, that the sons of Judah, the sons that is probably this, that only single families of Benjamin, priests and Levites, are and individuals from among the latter dwelt enumerated seriatim as dwelling in Jerusalem, there, while the register only makes mention of that is, that heads of the fathers’-houses of the heads of the larger family groups in the these inhabitants, as is stated by Nehemiah in population of Jerusalem. the superscription 11:3, and in our chapter, at 1 Chronicles 9:4–6. In the same place there the end of the respective paragraphs, vv. 9, 13, dwelt, of the sons of Judah, three chiefs of the and in the subscription, vv. 33 and 34. three most important families of Judah, that of But if we examine the contents of the two Pharez, that of Shelah, and that of Zerah; cf. 2:3, catalogues more minutely, their agreement is 4. Of the family of Pharez was Uthai, whose shown by the identity of several of the names of descent is traced back in v. 4 to Bani, of the is בֶ ן־בנימן־בְּ נֵי these heads. On this point Bertheau thus children of Pharez. The Kethibh speaks: “Of the three heads of Judah, Uthai, בֶ ן־בָ נִי clearly to be read according to the Keri Asaiah, and Jeuel, vv. 4–6, we recognise the first The name Bani occurs, 6:31, among the .מִ ן־בְּ נֵי two in Athaiah and Maaseiah, Neh. 11:4, 5; only the third name, Jeuel, is omitted. Of the five Merarites; while in the genealogies of Judah, 1 heads of Benjamin, vv. 5–7, it is true, we meet Chronicles 2–4, neither Bani nor Uthai, nor any with only two, Sallu and Hodaviah, in Neh. one of his ancestors who are here named, is 11:7–9; but it is manifest that there was no mentioned. In Neh. 11:4, on the contrary, there ,עֲתָ יָה) intention to communicate in that place a is named of the sons of Pharez, Athaiah complete enumeration of the hereditary chiefs with quite ,(עּותַ י perhaps only another form of of Benjamin. The names of the six heads of the divisions of the priests, and , other ancestors; while not a single one of the Jachin, Azariah (Seriah occupies his place in the five names of the persons through whom his ), Adaiah and Maasiai race is traced back to Mahalaleel, of the sons of (represented in Nehemiah by Amashai), are Pharez, coincides with the ancestors of Uthai. enumerated in both places in the same order. 1 Chronicles 9:5. Of the family of Shelah, ,בָ נָיו .Among the Levites there occur the names of Asaiah the first-born, and his other) sons can only be understood of the other ,הַבְּ כור Shemaiah and Mattaniah as representatives of after the great Levitic divisions of Merari and sons or descendants. But the epithet give to Gershon-Asaph, and we easily recognise our is surprising, for it is a formation ,הַשִ יֹלנִי ,Asaiah of the book of Nehemiah. Only עַבְּדָ א in the עֹׁבַדְּ יָה and appears to denote a ,שִ יֹלן or שִ יֹלה the two first of the four chiefs of the from doorkeepers, Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, and native of Shiloh, a well-known city of Ephraim. Ahiman, are named in the abridged This derivation, however, is not suitable, since enumeration of the book of Nehemiah, while here the sons (descendants) of Judah are the two others are only referred to in the added enumerated; and no connection between the Now, even according to this statement inhabitants of Judah and the Ephraimite city ”.ואחיהם

1 CHRONICLES Page 90 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Shiloh can either be proved or is at all likely. first and fourth of these, three generations of The older commentators, therefore, have ancestors are mentioned, of the second only the .as in Num. 26:20, father, of the third the father and grandfather ,הַשֵ לָנִי suggested the reading where the family of Shelah, the third sons of “And their brethren according to their Judah, is so called. This suggestion is doubtless generations, 956;” cf. on v. 6. “All these men” are not the brethren whose number is given, הַשִ יֹלנִי correct, and the erroneous punctuation but the heads who have been mentioned by has probably arisen only from the scriptio plena name. Now, if we compare this with Neh. 11, we This meet in vv. 7–9 with only one of the four heads .שֵ לָ ה instead of שֵ ילָ ה of the word supposition is confirmed by the fact that the of Benjamin, Sallu, and that too, as in the is found in Neh. 11:5, although it Chronicle, as a son of Meshullam, while the הַשֵ לָנִי form ancestors of both are different. Instead of the In Neh. loc. cit., instead of .הַשִ ֹלנִי also is pointed and in ;928 ,גַבַי סַ לָ י three others in v. 8, we have in בֶ ן־הַשִ ֹלנִי Asaiah, Maaseiah is introduced as v. 9, as overseer (prefect), and Jehudah as ruler the seventh generation, while no ancestors over the city. whatever of our Asaiah are mentioned. The 1 Chronicles 9:10–13. The priests.—The three name , moreover, is not unfrequent, and (names Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin (v. 10 עֲׂשָ יָה occurs in 4:36 among the Simeonites; in 6:15; denote three classes of priests (cf. 24:7, 17), 15:6, 11, among the Levites; in 2 Kings 22:12, who accordingly dwelt in Jerusalem. There also ,of the King dwelt there (v. 11) Azariah the son of Hilkiah עֶבֶ ד and :20, as 14 is the name of many persons, e.g., etc., the prince of the house of God; cf. 2 מַעֲשֵ יָה .Josiah Chronicles 31:13. This is the Azariah mentioned in 15:18, 20, and likewise in 2 Chronicles 23:1, in 1 Chronicles 5:40, the son of Hilkiah, etc., the Jer. 21:1; 29:21; 35:4; and elsewhere it is used grandfather of the Jehozadak who was led of men of other tribes: so that even should captive into Babylon. then in v. 12 we have two Maaseiah have been written instead of Asaiah other heads of the priestly fathers’-houses, with merely by an error of transcription, we are not an enumeration of their ancestors, through warranted in identifying our Asaiah with the whom they are traced back to the classes of Maaseiah of Nehemiah. priests to which they belonged respectively, 1 Chronicles 9:6. “Of the sons of Zerah, Jeuel;” viz., Adaiah to the class (1 Chronicles also the name of various persons; cf. 5:7, 2 24:9), and Maasiai to the class Immer (1 Chronicles 26:11: the register in Neh. 11 Chronicles 24:14). According to this, therefore, notices no descendants of Zerah. “And their there dwelt at Jerusalem, of the priesthood, the ,three classes Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin אֲחֵיהֶ ם brethren, 690 (men).” The plural suffix in cannot be referred, as Bertheau thinks, to Jeuel, Azariah the prince of the temple, and of the for that name, as being that of the head of a classes Malchijah and Immer, the fathers’- father’s-house, cannot be a collective. The suffix houses Adaiah and Maasiai. In v. 13 the whole most consequently refer to the three heads number is estimated at 1760. A difficulty is mentioned in vv. 4–6, Uthai, Asaiah, and Jeuel, raised by the first words of this verse, “And whose brethren are the other heads of fathers’- their brethren, heads of their fathers’-houses, houses of the three families descended from 1760,” which can hardly be taken in any other sense than as denoting that the number of the אַחִ ים Judah; cf. v. 9, where the number of the mentioned refers to all the heads who had heads of the fathers’-houses amounted to 1760. formerly been spoken of. This, however, is not conceivable, as “fathers’- houses” are not single households, but larger 1 Chronicles 9:7–9. Of the sons of Benjamin, groups of related families. Moreover, , אֲחֵיהֶ ם ,i.e., of the Benjamites, four heads are named Sallu, Ibneiah, Elah, and Meshullam; and of the which is co-ordinate with the heads of the

1 CHRONICLES Page 91 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study fathers’-houses, can only denote, as in vv. 6, 9, the villages of the Netophathite, i.e., of the lord the heads of the families which belonged to or or possessor of Netopha, a locality in the constituted the fathers’-houses. To arrive at this neighbourhood of Bethlehem; cf. Neh. 7:26. meaning, however, we must transpose the This remark does not refer to Shemaiah, who connecting cannot have dwelt at the same time in ,רָ אשִ ים לְּבֵ ית־אֲ בותָ ם and וַאֲחֵיהֶ ם words Jerusalem and in the village of the with the אחיהם with v. 12, and ר׳ לבית־אבותם Netophathite, but to his grandfather or ancestor number, thus: heads of fathers’-houses, etc., Elkanah, who is thereby to be distinguished were those mentioned in v. 12, and their from the other men who bore this name, which brethren 1760 (men), valiant heroes in the often occurs in the family of Kohath. All these work of the service of the house of God. Before men are, according to the analogy of the other as in 1 names in our register, and according to the ,עֹׁׂשֵ י one would expect the word מְּ לֶ אכֶ ת Chronicles 23:24 and Neh. 11:12, but its express statement of the superscription, v. 34, presence is not so absolutely necessary as to to be regarded as heads of Levitic fathers’- warrant us in supposing that it has been houses, and were probably leaders of the music, may be since those mentioned in vv. 15, 16 were מְּ לֶ אכֶ ת .dropped out, and in inserting it also taken as an accusative of relation, “valiant descendants of Asaph and Jeduthun, and may therefore with certainty be assumed to have לְּ heroes in reference to the work;” or at most a belonged to the Levitic musicians. A as it might confirmation of this supposition is found in the ,מלאכת may be supplied before easily have been omitted by a clerical error superscription, v. 33, inasmuch as the mention On of the singers in the first line goes to show that .חַ יִל after the immediately preceding comparing our passage with Neh. 11:10–14, we the enumeration of the Levites began with the singers. If we compare Neh. 11:15–18 with our in v. 10 be altered into בֶ ן־יויָרִ יב find there, if passage, we find that these two, Shemaiah and the same three classes of priests; but Mattaniah, are mentioned, and on the whole ,יְּהויָרִ יב instead of Azariah, Seraiah is prince of the their forefathers have the same names, vv. 15 house of God, v. 11: thereafter we have 822 and 17; but between the two we find brethren, performing the work of the house (of Shabbethai and Jozabad of the chief of the God). Then follows Adaiah of the class Levites set over the external service of the Malchijah (as in the Chronicles), but with the house of God. After Mattaniah, who is chief of addition, “his brethren 242;” and then Amashai the Asaphites there also, mention is made of of the class Immer, but with other ancestors Bakbukiah as the second among his brethren, than those of the Maasiai of the Chronicles, and and Abda the son of Shammua, a descendant of with the addition, “and their brethren, valiant Jeduthun (v. 17); according to which, even if we heroes, 128;” and finally, Zabdiel Ben Hagdolim identify Bakbakkar with Bakbukiah, and Abda as overseer (president over them). The sum of with Obadiah, the Heresh, Galal, and Berechiah the three numbers is 1192, as contrasted with of the Chronicles are wanting in Nehemiah, and the 1760 of the Chronicle. instead of these three, only Jozabad is 1 Chronicles 9:14–17. The Levites.—Of these mentioned. there dwelt in Jerusalem, Shemaiah the son of 1 Chronicles 9:17. “The doorkeepers, Shallum, Hasshub, the son of, etc., a Merarite; and (v. 15) Akkub, Talmon, Ahiman, and their brethren: Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal; and Mattaniah Shallum the chief.” The service was so divided the son of Micah, a descendant of Asaph, and among the four just named, that each along consequently a Gershonite (v. 16); and Obadiah with his brethren performed the duty of the son of Shemaiah, as descendant of Jeduthun, watching by one of the four sides and chief consequently also a Merarite; and Berechiah entrances of the temple (cf. vv. 24 and 26), and the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah, who dwelt in these four were consequently heads of those

1 CHRONICLES Page 92 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study divisions of the Levites to whom was some of the names prove in the slightest degree committed the duty of the watch. In Neh. 11:20, the identity of the two catalogues, because the on the contrary, the doorkeepers mentioned names denote, partly classes of inhabitants, and are Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren, 172 partly heads of fathers’-houses, i.e., of groups of (men); but the other two chiefs named in the related households, which did not change with Chronicle are there omitted, while in the each generation, but sometimes continued to Chronicle no number is given. Here the exist for centuries; and because, à priori, we agreement between the two registers ceases. In should expect that those who returned from the Chronicle there follows first of all, in vv. 18– exile would, as far as it was possible, seek out 26a, some remarks on the service of the again the dwelling-places of their pre-exilic doorkeepers; and then in 26b32 the duties of ancestors; and that consequently after the exile, the Levites in general are spoken of; and finally, on the whole, the same families who had dwelt in vv. 32 and 34 we have subscriptions. In at Jerusalem before it would again take up their Nehemiah, on the other hand, we find in v. 20 abode there. In this way the identity of the the statement that the remaining Israelites, names Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin in the two priests, and Levites dwelt in their cities; and catalogues may be accounted for, as these after some statements as to the service of the names do not denote persons, but classes of Levites, the enumeration of these cities is priests, which existed both before and after the introduced. exile. A similar explanation would also apply to In glancing back over the two catalogues, it is the names of the doorkeepers Akkub and seen that the differences are at least as great as Talmon (v. 17; Neh. v. 19), as not merely the the coincidences. But what conclusions are we priests, but also the other Levites, were divided to deduce from that fact? Bertheau thinks “from for the service according to their fathers’- this it is certain that both catalogues cannot houses into classes which had permanent have been drawn up independently of each names (cf. 1 Chronicles 25 and 26). Of the other other,” and “that both have been derived from names in our register only the following are one and the same source, which must have identical: of the Benjamites, Sallu the son of been much more complete, and much richer in Meshullam (v. 7; Neh. v. 7); of the priests, names, than our present catalogues; cf. Movers, Adaiah (v. 12; Neh. v. 12), with almost the same S. 234.” We, however, judge otherwise. The ancestors; and of the Levites, Shemaiah and discrepancies are much too great to allow us to Mattaniah (v. 10f.; Neh. vv. 15, 17). All the other refer them to free handling by epitomizers of names are different; and even if among the some hypothetical more detailed catalogue, or priests Maasiai (v. 12) should be identical with to the negligence of copyists. The coincidence, Amashai (Neh. v. 13), and among the Levites in so far as it actually exists, does not justify us Bakbakkar and Obadiah (vv. 16 and 15) with in accepting such far-fetched suppositions, but Bakbukiah and Abda (Neh. v. 17), we cannot may be satisfactorily explained in another way. identify the sons of Judah, Uthai and Azaiah (v. It consists indeed only in this, that in both 4f.), with Athaiah and Maaseiah (Neh. v. 4f.), for registers, 91) sons of Judah and Benjamin, their ancestors are quite different. The priests and Levites, are enumerated; (2) that in similarity or even the identity of names, were it each of these four classes of the inhabitants of in two or three generations, cannot of itself Jerusalem some names are identical. The first of prove the identity of the persons, as we have these coincidences clearly does not in the least already seen, in the genealogy of the line of prove that the two catalogues are derived from Aaron 5:29ff.), that, e.g., the series Amariah, the same source, and treat of the same time; for Ahitub, and Zadok recurs at various times; cf. v. the four classes enumerated constituted, both 33f. and v. 37f. Everywhere in the genealogical before and after the exile, the population of lines the same names very often recur, as it was Jerusalem. But neither does the identity of the custom to give the children the names of

1 CHRONICLES Page 93 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study their ancestors; cf. Tob. 1:9, :59. Win. Meshelemiah or Shelemiah, to whose lot it fell bibl. R. W. ii. S. 133; Hävern. Einl. ii. 1, S. 179f. in the time of David to be doorkeeper to the But if, on the one hand, the identity of these eastward (1 Chronicles 26:1, 14); for in doing names in the two catalogues is not at all a valid so, we would overlook the fact that in v. 21 of proof of the identity of the catalogues, and by our chapter also he bears the name no means justifies us in identifying similarly- Meshelemiah. The circumstance that both sounding names by supposing errors of Shallum and Meshelemiah are called Ben-Kore, transcription, on the other hand we must hold of the sons of Abiasaph, by no means justifies that the register refers to the pre-exilic the identification of these two quite different population of Jerusalem, both because of the names; for it is neither necessary nor probable should here be taken in its narrower בֵ ן wide discrepancies in all points, and in that accordance with the introductory statements in sense, and Kore regarded as the immediate v. 2f. This interpretation is also demanded by is repeated in the קֹׁרֵ א father of both. The name the succeeding remarks in reference to the service of the Levites, since they throughout family of the east doorkeepers, as we learn refer to the pre-exilic time. from 2 Chronicles 31:14, where it is stated that this office was held by a Kore ben Jimna. “These 1 Chronicles 9:18–34. The duties of the (who are named in v. 17) are the doorkeepers Levites.—V. 18. The first half of this verse, “And for the camp of the sons of Levi” (of the until now (is he) in the king’s gate eastward,” Levites),—an antiquated expression, bringing must be referred to Shallum (Berth.). To to remembrance the time of Moses, when the imagine a reference to all the doorkeepers, Levites, on the journey through the wilderness, “until now are they,” does not suit vv. 24–26, were encamped about the tabernacle (Num. according to which the doorkeepers kept guard 3:21ff.). upon all the four sides. The eastern gate of the temple was called the king’s gate, because by 1 Chronicles 9:19. V. 19 gives more exact this gate the king went in and out to the temple; information as to Shallum’s person and his cf. Ezek. 46:1, 2; 41:3. The remark, “until now is official position. He, the descendant of Kore, the Shallum watcher,” etc., presupposes the son (descendant) of Abiasaph, a Korahite, and existence of the temple at the time of the his brethren according to his father’s-house preparation of this register, and points to the (i.e., called brethren because they, like him, pre-exilic time. Against this Bertheau has raised belonged to the father’s-house of Korah), were the objection that the name king’s gate may over the work of the service, viz., keepers of the have been retained even in the post-exilic times thresholds of the tent, i.e., of the house of God, for the eastern gate. This must of course be in of the temple, which, according to the ancient general admitted, but could only be accepted if custom, was called tent, because God’s house it were proved that Shallum lived after the was formerly a tent—the tabernacle. “And his exile. This proof Bertheau obtains by taking the fathers (the ancestors of Shallum) were by the words, “until now is Shallum in the king’s gate,” encampment of Jahve, guardians of the to mean, “that, according to the ancient entrance.” With these words the author of this arrangement, Shallum, the chief of all the register goes back into the ancient time; and we doorkeepers, had still to guard the eastern learn that Shallum’s ancestors, of the father’s- entrance; according to which Shallum would be house of the Korahite Abiasaph, had held the the collective designation of the whole series of office of guardian of the entrance to the house the chiefs of the doorkeepers who lived from of God from the time of the conquest of Canaan David’s time till after the exile;” but the words and the setting up of the tabernacle in Shiloh. cannot be thus interpreted. Such an The remark in v. 20, that Phinehas the son of interpretation cannot be made plausible by Eleazar was prince over them in time past, identifying the name Shallum with points to the same period. In the book of Joshua

1 CHRONICLES Page 94 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study and the older books there is no record of the covenant,” is not inconsistent. But what matter; but since the Korahites were descended purpose does this general statement serve? through Ishhar from Kohath, and the With what design is Zechariah, and he alone, Kohathites held, according to Num. 4:4ff., the mentioned? We have no means of giving a first place among the servants of the holy place, definite answer to this question; but he may and were responsible for the holiest vessels, we perhaps be named as being the person who, cannot doubt that the statement here rests before David’s division of the Levites into upon accurate historical tradition. The classes was carried out, had charge of the “encampment of Jahve” is the holy place of the porters’ service in the tabernacle. But even if tabernacle, the dwelling of Jahve in the midst of this conjecture be accepted as well grounded, His people. This designation also is derived the abrupt way in which it is mentioned still from the circumstances of the Israelites in their remains enigmatical. wandering in the Arabian desert, and is 1 Chronicles 9:22. With v. 22 the narrative likewise employed in 2 Chronicles 31:2 in seems to return to the enumeration begun in reference to Solomon’s temple; but in our verse vv. 17–19a, so that the reflections on the earlier the tabernacle is intended. It had only one times, vv. 19b21, are to be regarded as a the guarding of which was parenthesis. V. 22 runs: “They all who were ,מָ בוא ,entrance entrusted to the above-mentioned Korahites. chosen for doorkeepers for the thresholds, 212 1 Chronicles 9:20. Phinehas was prince over (men): they, in their villages were they them, not as high priest, but during the high- registered; they were ordained by David and priesthood of his father Eleazar, i.e., in the time Samuel the seer on their fidelity.” The infinitive is used substantively, “in reference to הִתְּ יַחֵ ׂש -of Joshua, just as Eleazar, under the high priesthood of Aaron in the time of Moses, had them, in their villages as their genealogical the oversight of the keepers of the holy place, as registration accomplished.” If v. 22 be the prince of the princes of Levi (Num. 3:32). The continuation of vv. 17–21a, then the number do not contain a historical given (212) will refer to the doorkeepers in יהוה עִ ֹּמו words remark, “Jahve was with him,” for then the active service at the time of the preparation of the register. With this hypothesis, however, the ;would stand before it, as in 11:9 ו conjunction last clause of the verse, which states that David they are a blessing—“Jahve be with him”—in and Samuel had appointed them, does not seem reference, probably, to the covenant of peace to harmonize. But if we consider that the four entered into with him and his descendants by men mentioned in v. 17 are heads of fathers’- Jahve (Num. 25:11–13). houses, and that their fathers’-houses were not 1 Chronicles 9:21. V. 21 is quite unconnected extinguished at the death of their temporary heads, and performed the same service from ו with the preceding context, the conjunction being omitted, and its contents also present generation to generation, it might well be said considerable difficulties. Zechariah, the son of of the generation performing the service at the Meshelemiah, can only be the Zechariah who is time of the preparation of our register, that mentioned in 26:2 as the first-born of David had appointed them to their office. The Meshelemiah, and who lived in the time of case would of course be similar, if, as we have David; for at the time when David divided the above supposed, the four names in v. 17 are porters into classes, there fell to him the lot designations of the classes of doorkeepers, for towards midnight, i.e., the duty of waiting at the these classes also performed the same service door on the north side of the holy place (1 continually. The statements of our 22nd verse Chronicles 26:14). With this, indeed, the cannot be referred to the time of David, for in 1 general statement of our verse, “he was porter Chronicles 26:8–10 the number of the of the door (or the entrance) of the tent of the doorkeepers appointed by David amounted

1 CHRONICLES Page 95 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study only to eighty, viz., sixty-two of the sons of which had fallen into desuetude under Eli and Obed-Edom, and eighteen of the sons of his profligate sons. To do this in any measure, Meshelemiah, which, with the addition of he must have, without doubt, ordained thirteen Merarites (1 Chronicles 26:10, 11), trustworthy men to the individual offices, and gives a total of ninety-three, while in our verse thus have prepared the way for King David. ,is found in vv. 26, 31 without the suffix בֶאֱ מּונָתָ ם the number is 212. According to Ezra 2:42, the number of doorkeepers who returned with with the meaning “in good faith” (cf. 2 Kings Zerubbabel was 139 men; and in the register, 12:16; 22:7, 2 Chronicles 31:12), and Neh. 11:19, the number is stated to be 172. accordingly is here upon their fidelity, i.e., From the remark that they were registered in because they had been recognised to be faithful. their villages ( , as in 6:41, Josh. 13:23, Chronicles 9:23f. They (those ordained by 1 חַ צְּרֵ יהֶ ם and elsewhere), we learn that the doorkeepers David) and their sons (descendants) were at dwelt in villages near Jerusalem, whence they the doors of the house of Jahve—of the tent- in order ,בֵ ית־יהוה is added to בֵ ית הָ אֹׁהֶ ל) came to the city so often as their service house required, as the singers also did in the post- that the latter might not be confined to ,to found, set ,יִסַ ד .exilic time, Neh. 12:29f of מִשְּמָ רות) Solomon’s temple); for the watch ordain, and so appoint to an office. “David and persons, as in Neh. 12:9; 4:3, 16), according to Samuel the seer:” , the ancient designation the four winds (quarters) were they, i.e., the הָ רֹׁאֶ ה doorkeepers stood so, in accordance with the נָבִ יא of the prophets, for which at a later time was the more usual word; cf. 1 Sam. 9:9. arrangement made by David; cf. 26:14ff. Nowhere else do we find any record of Samuel’s 1 Chronicles 9:25. “And their brethren in their having taken any part in David’s arrangement villages (cf. v. 22) were bound to come the of the service of the Levites in the holy place. seventh day, from time to time, with these.” The .expresses duty, as in 5:1 לְּ with בוא Samuel, moreover, was no longer living when infinitive David began to arrange the worship at the time The seventh day is the Sabbath of the week, on when the ark was brought to Jerusalem, for he which each class in order had to take charge of died before Saul, and consequently before the are the chiefs mentioned in עִם אֵ לֶ ה .beginning of David’s reign; cf. 1 Sam. 25:1 with the services 28:3. Bertheau is consequently of opinion that v. 17 who dwelt in Jerusalem, and of whom it is this statement of our historian rests merely said in v. 26, “for they are on their fidelity, the upon the general recollection, according to four mighty of the doorkeepers.” In explanation Bertheau very fittingly compares ,גִ בֹׁרֵ י which the worship was organized afresh, and of the הֵ ם established in its newer form, in the time of σταρτηγοῖ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, Luke 22:52. The words David and Samuel. This is of course possible, which may be translated, “they are the ,הַ לְּוִיִם but there is no cogent reason against accepting the much less remote supposition that the Levites,” or “they (viz., the Levites),” are chronicler took this remark from his authority. somewhat surprising. The Masoretic The mention of Samuel after David has not a punctuation demands the latter translation, chronological signification, but David is named when the words would be an emphatic Were they a .הֵֹּמָ ה first on account of his connection with the elucidation of the preceding instead of אֵ לֶ ה matter in hand; for the thorough re- subscription, we should expect organization of the worship, and the while, on the other hand, the circumstance ;הֵ ם classification of the persons engaged in carrying it on, originated with David. For these noticed by Bertheau, that in the following arrangements of David, however, Samuel had verses the duties not merely of the prepared the way in his struggle for the doorkeepers, but of the Levites in general, are restoration of the theocracy, and of the worship enumerated, would seem to favour that sense.

1 CHRONICLES Page 96 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Even in the second half of the 22nd verse it is the holy vessels which were used for the daily ,סֹׁלֶ ת) not the doorkeepers who are spoken of, but the sacrificial service, and over the fine flour Levites in general. May we not suppose that the vide on Lev. 2:1), wine, oil, and incense which cf. v. 14) was required therein for the meat and drink) ּומִ ן הַ לְּוִיִם הָ יּו text originally stood spicery, for the holy ,בְּׂשָמִ ים and that the reading of offerings, and the , םוְּהֵ הַ לְּוִיִםוְּהָ יּו instead of our present text, having originated in a perfumes (frankincense, cf. Ex. 25:6). transcriber’s error, found acceptance from the 1 Chronicles 9:30. And of the priests’ sons circumstance that v. 27 apparently still treats were preparers of the ointments for the spices. of, or returns to, the service of the It is the preparation from various spices of the doorkeepers? So much is certain, that from v. holy anointing oil, Ex. 30:23–25, which is 26b onward the duties of the Levites in general, meant, and which consequently was part of the no longer those of the doorkeepers, are spoken priest’s duty. of, and that consequently we must regard the 1 Chronicles 9:31. Mattithiah, the first-born of and not the before-mentioned the Korahite Shallum (vide v. 19), was on good ,(הַ לְּוִיִם) Levites -and the faith over the panbakings (pastry) for the meat“ :וְּהָ יּו four doorkeepers, as the subject of Levites were over the cells of the storehouses of offerings, over the preparation of which he was is מִ ן־הַ לְּוִיִם the house of God.” The cells in the outbuildings to watch. To the name Mattithiah .in v. 30 מִ ן־בְּ נֵי הַ כֹׁהֲ נִים of the temple served as treasure-chambers and added, in contrast to the הָ אוצְּ רות .storehouses for the temple furniture pastry, panbaking) occurs) הַחֲבִֹּתִ ים The word with the article in the stat. constr. (Ew. § 290, .pan of sheet iron, Ex. 4:3 ,מַחֲבַ ת .d.), because of the looser connection, since the here only; cf Chronicles 9:32. Finally, to some of the 1 .הַ לְּשָ כות also belongs to בֵ ית־הא׳ genitive Kohathites was committed the preparation of 1 Chronicles 9:27. V. 27 refers again to the the shew-bread, which required to be laid on doorkeepers. They passed the night around the the table fresh every Sabbath; cf. Lev. 24:5–8. house of God, because the care of or watch over refers back to the Levites of אֲחֵיהֶ ם it was committed to them, and “they were over The suffix the key, and that every morning,” i.e., they had the father’s-house of Korah in v. 32. occurs 1 Chronicles 9:33, 34. Vv. 33, 34 contain מַפְֹּּתֵחַ .to open the door every morning again in Judg. 3:25 and Isa. 22:22, in the subscriptions to the section 14–32. Since the signification key, which is suitable here also. enumeration of the Levites dwelling in Jerusalem in vv. 14–16 began with the Levitic 1 Chronicles 9:28. And of them (the Levites), singer families, so here we find that the singers some were over the vessels of the service, by are mentioned in the first subscription, “these which we are probably to understand the costly are the singers, heads of fathers’-houses of the vessels, e.g., the golden cups for the libations, Levites,” with an additional remark as to their etc., which were brought from the treasure- service: “In the cells free, for day and night it is chamber only for a short time for use in the incumbent upon them to be in service,” which is service. They were brought, according to the in later ,פָטַ ר from ,פְּ טּורִ ים .number, into the place where the service took somewhat obscure place, and after being again numbered, were Hebrew, let loose, set free. and Kimchi again carried forth; and according to v. 29, have already translated it, immunes ab aliis .nempe ministeriis, or ab omni alio officio כְּלֵ י and over הַכֵלִ ים other Levites were set over Adopting this linguistically assured translation, .הַ קֹׁדֶ ש dwelling or ,בַלְּשָ כֹׁת we must supply with 1 Chronicles 9:29. And of them, others were waiting in the cells of the courts of the temple, set over the vessels (in general), and over all freed from every other business in order that

1 CHRONICLES Page 97 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study they may apply themselves wholly to their have a consecutive narrative of the most service, for they are wholly busied therewith important events of David’s life, and his day and night. Day and night is not to be attempts to settle the kingship of Israel on a pressed, but signifies perpetually, continually. firmer basis, from the time of his being they were anointed king over all Israel to the numbering“ ,עֲלֵיהֶ ם בַֹּמְּ לָ אכָ ה Bertheau translates over them in the service,” i.e., had to take the of the people in the latter years of his reign. The oversight of the singers subordinate to them. second, 1 Chronicles 22–29, contains an but this can hardly be correct; and the passage account of the preparations made towards the quoted to justify this translation, 2 Chronicles end of his reign for the building of the temple, of the arrangement of the service of the Levites is מֻפְּקָ ד proves nothing, because there ,34:12 and the army, and the last commands of the used along with it. We therefore prefer to take grey-haired king as to the succession of his son in the signification “it is incumbent upon Solomon to the kingdom, and matters עֲלֵיהֶ ם connected with it. The first section runs parallel הַֹּמְּ לָ אכָ ה them,” although we should then expect to the account of the reign of David in 2 Samuel; can in בַֹּמְּ לָ אכָ ה cf. v. 27. Yet ;בַֹּמְּ לָ אכָ ה instead of the second is peculiar to the Chronicle, and has this connection quite well be used elliptically or no parallel in the earlier historical books, concisely for “to be in service,” i.e., to carry on Samuel and Kings. Now, if we compare the first their musical duties. The second subscription section with the parallel narrative in 2 Samuel, (v. 34) refers to all the Levites, and is similar in it is manifest that, apart from that omission of contents and form to that in 1 Chronicles 8:28. David’s seven years’ reign over the tribe of 1 Chronicles 9:35–44. The family of King Judah in Hebron, and of all the events having Saul.—This register has already occurred in 1 reference to and connection with his family Chronicles 8:29–38, along with those of other relationships, of which we have already spoken families of the tribe of Benjamin, and is in p. 377, in the Chronicle the same incidents repeated here only to connect the following are recounted as in the second book of Samuel, history of the kingship with the preceding and with few exceptions the order is the same. genealogical lists. It forms here the introduction The main alterations in the order of the to the narrative of Saul’s death in 1 Chronicles narrative are: (a) that the catalogues of David’s 10, which in turn forms the transition to the heroes who helped him to establish his kingship of David. The deviations of this kingdom (1 Chronicles 11:10–47), and of the register from that in 1 Chronicles 8:29–38, valiant men of all the tribes, who even in Saul’s show that it has been derived from another lifetime had joined themselves to David (1 document in more complete preservation than Chronicles 12), follow immediately upon the that in 1 Chronicles 8, which had been handed account of the choosing of Jerusalem to be the down in connection with other genealogies of capital of the kingdom, after the conquest of the the Benjamite families, and had suffered fortress Jebus (1 Chronicles 11:1–9), while in 2 considerably in its text. See the commentary on Samuel the former of these catalogues is found 8:29–38. in 2 Sam. 23:8–39, in connection with the 1 Chronicles 10 history of his reign, and the latter is entirely omitted; and (b) the account of his palace- The History of David’s Kingship.—Ch. 10–29. building, his wives and children, and of some battles with the Philistines, which in 2 Sam. 1 Chronicles 10–29. The account of the ruin of 5:11–25 follows immediately after the account Saul and his house in 1 Chronicles 10, cf. 1 Sam. of the conquest of the citadel of Zion, is inserted 31, forms the introduction to the history of the in the fourteenth chapter of Chronicles, in the kingship of David, which is narrated in two account of the bringing of the ark of the sections. In the first, 1 Chronicles 11–21, we covenant from Kirjath-jearim (1 Chronicles 13),

1 CHRONICLES Page 98 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study and its transfer to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 15f.). submission to the will of the Lord, such an Both these transpositions and the before- issue, that the place where the Lord should be mentioned omissions are connected with the thereafter worshipped in Israel was peculiar plan of the Chronicle. In the second determined by the appearance of the angel and book of Samuel the reign of David is so by the word of the prophet Gad (1 Chronicles described as to bring out, in the first place, the 21). And so the grey-haired king was able to splendidly victorious development of his spend the latter part of his reign in making kingship, and then its humiliation through great preparations for the building of the temple, and transgression on David’s part; the author of the in establishing permanent ordinances for the Chronicle, on the other hand, designed to public worship, and the protection of the portray to his contemporaries the glories of the kingdom: gave over to his son Solomon, his Davidic kingship, so that the divine election of divinely chosen successor on the throne, a David to be ruler over the people of Israel kingdom externally and internally well ordered might be manifest. In accordance with this and firmly established, and closed his life at a purpose he shows, firstly, how after the death good old age, after a reign of forty years (1 of Saul Jahve bestowed the kingship upon Chronicles 22–29). David, all Israel coming to Hebron and anointing him king, with the confession, “Jahve Ch. 10—The Ruin of Saul and of His House. (Cf. 1 thy God hath said to thee, Thou shalt be ruler Sam. Ch. 31) over my people Israel;” how the heroes of the 1 Chronicles 10. The account of Saul’s struggle whole nation helped him in the establishing of with the Philistines, in which he fell together his kingdom (1 Chronicles 11); and how, even with his sons, vv. 1–7, exactly coincides with before the death of Saul, the most valiant men the narrative in 1 Sam. 31:1–7; and the of all the tribes had gone over to him, and had statements as to the fate of the fallen king, vv. helped him in the struggle (1 Chronicles 12). In 8–12, differ from 1 Sam. 31:8–13 only to this the second place, he narrates how David extent, that both narratives make mention only immediately determined to bring the ark into of the main points, and mutually supplement the capital of his kingdom (1 Chronicles 15); each other. In vv. 13 and 14 there follow how, notwithstanding the misfortunes caused reflections on the ruin of the unfortunate king, by a transgression of the law (1 Chronicles which show that the account of the death of 13:7, 9ff.), so soon as he had learned that the Saul is only intended to form an introduction to ark would bring a blessing (1 Chronicles 13, the history of David. 14), and that God would bless him in his reign 1 Chronicles 10:1–7. In 1 Sam. 31 this (1 Chronicles 14), he carried out his purpose, narrative forms the conclusion of Saul’s last and not only brought the ark to Jerusalem, but war with the Philistines. The battle was fought organized the public worship around this on the plain of Jezreel; and when the Israelites sanctuary (1 Chronicles 15 and 16); and how he were compelled to retire, they fell back upon formed a resolution to build a temple to the Mount Gilboa, but were hard pressed by the Lord, receiving from God, because of this, a Philistines, so that many fell upon the promise that his kingdom should endure for mountain. The Philistines pressed furiously ever (1 Chronicles 17). Then, in the third place, after Saul and his sons, and slew the latter (as we have an account of how he, so favoured by to Saul’s sons, see on 8:33); and when the the Lord, extended the power of his kingdom by archers came upon Saul he trembled before victorious wars over all the enemies of Israel (1 -and ordered his armour ,(חּול from יָחֶ ל) Chronicles 18–20); and how even the ungodly them הַ ֹּמורִ ים enterprise of the numbering of the people, to bearer to thrust him through. Between is introduced אֲ נָשִ ים the superfluous בַקֶשֶ ת which Satan had tempted him, David, had by and the grace of God, and through his penitent

1 CHRONICLES Page 99 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

,.is omitted; but only all those who were about the king, i.e מְּ אֹׁד in Samuel, and in the last clause the whole of the king’s attendants who had we have the unusual מֵהַ ֹּמורִ ים and instead of is only another כָ ל־בֵ יתו .followed him to the war cf. 2 Chronicles 35:23). In Saul’s) מִ ן־הַ יורִ ים form is נֹׁׂשֵ א כֵלָ יו in which the ,כָל־אֲ נָשָ יו expression for request to his armour-bearer that he would included. The author of the Chronicle has 1) ּודְּקָרֻ נִי ,thrust him through with the sword merely abridged the account, confining himself Sam. v. 4) is omitted in the phrase which gives to a statement of the main points, and has the reason for his request; and Bertheau thinks ,in v. 7 אַ נְּשֵ ייִׂשְּרָ אֵ ל consequently both omitted it did not originally stand in the text, and has been repeated merely by an oversight, since the because he had already spoken of the flight of only motive for the command, “Draw thy the warriors of Israel in v. 1, and it was here sword, and thrust me through therewith,” was sufficient to mention only the flight and death that the Philistines might not insult Saul when of Saul and of his sons, and has also shortened alive, and consequently the words, “that they the more exact statement as to the inhabitants may not thrust me through,” cannot express the of that district, “those on the other side of the reason. But that is scarcely a conclusive reason valley and on the other side of Jordan” In this abridgement .אַשֶ ר בָעֵמֶ ק for this belief; for although the Philistines might (Samuel), into seek out Saul after he had been slain by his also Thenius scents a “defective text.” As the armour-bearer, and dishonour his dead body, inhabitants of the district around Gilboa yet the anxiety lest they should seek out his abandoned their cities, they were taken corpse to wreak their vengeance upon it could possession of by the Philistines. not press so heavily upon him as the fear that 1 Chronicles 10:8–13. On the following day they would take vengeance upon him if he fell the Philistines, in their search among the fallen, alive into their hands. It is therefore a more found and plundered the bodies of Saul and of probable supposition that the author of the his sons, and sent the head and the armour of only as Saul round about the land of the Philistines, to ּודְּקָרֻ נִי Chronicle has omitted the word not being necessary to the sense of the passage, proclaim the news of their victory to their is omitted at the end of v. 5. In v. 6 people and their gods. That for this purpose עִ ֹּמו just as they cut off Saul’s head from the trunk, is, as we have instead of the being a matter of course, not specially וְּ נֹׁׂשֵ א כֵלָ יו גַ ם וְּכָ ל־בֵ יתו is mentioned. In regard to the other discrepancies אַ נְּשֵ ייִׂשְּרָ אֵ ל of Samuel, and in v. 7 כָל־אֲ נָשָ יו Samuel). From between the two texts, both in vv. 8–10 and in) יכִ נָסּו omitted after the words the account of the burial of Saul and of his sons this Bertheau concludes that the author of the by valiant men of Jabesh, vv. 11, 12, cf. the Chronicle has designedly avoided speaking of commentary on 1 Sam. 31:8–13. In the the men of Saul’s army or of the Israelites who reflection on Saul’s death, vv. 13 and 14, a took part in the battle, because it was not his double transgression against the Lord on Saul’s purpose to describe the whole course of the on the) מַעַ ל conflict, but only to narrate the death of Saul part is mentioned: first, the and of his sons, in order to point out how the meaning of this word, vide on Lev. 5:15) of not supreme power came to David. Thenius, on the observing the word of Jahve, which refers to the contrary, deduces the variation between the transgression of the divine command made sixth verse of the Chronicles and the known to him by the prophet Samuel, 1 Sam. corresponding verse in Samuel from “a text 13:8ff. (cf. with 10:8), and 15:2, 3, 11, cf. 28:18; the ,אוב which had become illegible.” Both are incorrect; and second, his inquiring of the ,(are not all the men of war who went summoner of the dead (vide on Lev. 19:31 כָל־אֲ נָשָ יו for with him into the battle (Then.), or all the Israelites who took part in the battle (Berth.),

1 CHRONICLES Page 100 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

i.e., to receive an oracle (cf. in reference Gibeon, he was defeated by Joab, David’s ,לִדְּ רוש to both word and thing, 1 Sam. 28:7). captain, so that he was obliged again to withdraw beyond Jordan (2 Sam. 2:12–32); and 1 Chronicles 10:14. And because he inquired although the struggle between the house of Saul not of the Lord, therefore He slew him. and the house of David still continued, yet the According to 1 Sam. 28:6, Saul did indeed house of Saul waxed ever weaker, while David’s inquire of Jahve, but received no answer, power increased. At length, when Ishbosheth because Jahve had departed from him (1 reproached the powerful Abner because of a Chronicles 28:15); but instead of seeking with concubine of his father’s, he threatened that he all earnestness for the grace of Jahve, that he would transfer the crown of Israel to David, and might receive an answer, Saul turned to the carried his threat into execution without delay. sorceress of Endor, and received his death- He imparted his design to the elders of Israel sentence through her from the mouth of and Benjamin; and when they had given their Samuel, 1 Sam. 28:19. consent, he made his way to Hebron, and 1 Chronicles 11 announced to David the submission of all Israel to his sway (2 Sam. 3:1–21). Abner, indeed, did The Anointing of David to Be King in Hebron, and not fully carry out the undertaking; for on his the Conquest of Jerusalem. A List of David’s return journey he was assassinated by Joab, Heroes. without David’s knowledge, and against his will. Immediately afterwards, Ishbosheth, who had 1 Chronicles 11. In the second book of Samuel become powerless and spiritless through terror there are passages parallel to both sections of at Abner’s death, was murdered in his own this chapter; vv. 1–9 corresponding to the house by two of the leaders of his army. There narrative in 2 Sam. 5:1–10, and vv. 10–47 to the now remained of Saul’s family only Jonathan’s register in 2 Sam. 23:8–39. son Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 4), then not more 1 Chronicles 11:1–3. The anointing of David to than twelve years old, and lame in both his feet, be king over the whole of Israel in Hebron; cf. 2 and all the tribes of Israel determined to anoint Sam. 5:1–3.—After Saul’s death, in obedience to David to be their king. The carrying out of this a divine intimation, David left Ziklag, whither resolution is narrated in vv. 1–3, in complete he had withdrawn himself before the decisive agreement as to the facts with 2 Sam. 5:1–3, battle between the Philistines and the Israelites, where the matter has been already commented and betook himself with his wives and his upon. In 1 Chronicles 12:23–40 there follows a warriors to Hebron, and was there anointed by more detailed account of the assembly of the the men of Judah to be king over their tribe (2 tribes of Israel in Hebron. The last words in v. 3, Sam. 2:1–4). But Abner, the captain of Saul’s are a didactic addition of the ,כִדְּבַ ר יהוה וגו׳ host, led Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, with the remainder of the defeated army of the author of the Chronicle, which has been derived Israelites, to Mahanaim in Gilead, and there from 1 Sam. 16:13 and 1 Sam. 15:28. In 2 Sam. made him king over Gilead, and gradually also, 5:4, 5, in accordance with the custom of the as he reconquered it from the Philistines, over author of the books of Samuel and Kings to the land of Israel, over Jezreel, Ephraim, state the age and duration of the reign of each Benjamin, and all (the remainder of) Israel, of the kings immediately after the with the exception of the tribal domain of announcement of their entry upon their office, Judah. Ishbosheth’s kingship did not last longer there follows after the preceding a statement of than two years, while David reigned over Judah the duration of David’s reign; cf. 1 Sam. 13:1, 2 in Hebron for seven years and a half (2 Sam. Sam. 2:10f., 1 Kings 14:21; 15:2, etc. This 2:10 and 11). When Abner advanced with remark is to be found in the Chronicle only at Ishbosheth’s army from Mahanaim against the close of David’s reign; see 29:29, which shows that Thenius’ opinion that this verse has

1 CHRONICLES Page 101 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study been omitted from the Chronicle by a mistake is from 1 Chronicles 12, the great number of not tenable. valiant men of all the tribes, who, even during 1 Chronicles 11:4–9. The capture of the citadel his persecution by Saul, crowded round him, of Zion, and Jerusalem chosen to be the royal and immediately after Saul’s death came to him residence under the name of the city of David; cf. in Hebron to hail him king. The enumeration in of ,רָ אשִ ים ,Sam. 5:6–10, and the commentary on this our passage contains only the chiefs 2 v. 8, to make alive, those valiant men, i.e., those who held the first ,יְּחַ יֶה—.section at that place is used here, as in Neh. 3:34, of the rebuilding of rank among them, and who were in great part ruins. The general remark, v. 9, “and David leaders in the army of David, or became so. is not to be confined to the mere לְּהַמְּ לִ יכו increased continually in might,” etc., opens the way for the transition to the history of David’s appointment to the kingship, but includes also reign which follows. As a proof of his increasing his establishment in it; for there follows an greatness, there follows in account of the heroic deeds which the men 1 Chronicles 11:10–47. A register of the heroes enumerated by name performed in the wars who stood by him in the establishment of his which David waged against his enemies in kingdom. The greater part of this register is order to maintain and increase his kingly concerning Israel is the word of דְּבַ ר יהוה .found in 2 Sam. 23:8–39 also, though there are power many divergences in the names, which for the the Lord, the import of which is recorded in v. most part have found their way into one or 3, that David should feed His people Israel, and other of the texts by errors of transcription. The be ruler over them. The ipsissima verba are not conclusion (vv. 41–47 of the Chronicle) is not found in the earlier history of David, but the found in 2 Sam. 23, either because the author of substance of them has been deduced from 1 the Chronicle followed another and older Sam. 16:13 and 15:28; cf. herewith the remarks register than that used by the author of the on 2 Sam. 3:18. The enumeration of these book of Samuel, or because the latter has not heroes is introduced in v. 11 by a short communicated all the names contained in his supplementary superscription, “these the should be מִסְּפָ ר authority. The former of these is the more number of the heroes.” That probable supposition. In the Chronicle the of Samuel is שֵ מות superscription of the register is enlarged by the used instead of the insertion in v. 10, before the simple surprising, but is explained by the fact that superscription in v. 11a, cf. 2 Sam. 23:8a, of a these heroes at first constituted a corps whose further superscription informing us of the designation was derived from their number. design which the chronicler had in introducing They originally amounted to thirty, whence ,cf. v. 12 ;הַשְֹּלשִ ים ,the register at this place. “These are the chiefs they are still called the thirty of David’s heroes who stood by him strongly and the discussion on 2 Sam. 23:8ff. In both .as Dan. 10:21) in his kingdom, with narratives three classes are distinguished ,הִתְּחַ זֵק עִ ם) the whole of Israel to make him king, according Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah hold the to the word of Jahve, over Israel.” The first place, and specially bold and heroic deeds ,is accounted for by the performed by them are recorded, vv. 11–14 רָ יאשֵ הַ גִ בֹׁרִ ים collocation is a designation of a valiant or and 2 Sam. 23:8–12. For details as to הַ גִ בור fact that themselves and their deeds, see on the last heroic man in general, without reference to his cited passage. There we have already remarked, position, whether co-ordinate with or that in v. 13 of the text of the Chronicle, the three lines which in Samuel come between גִ בֹׁרִ ים subordinate to others. Among David’s ,וַיֵאָסְּ פּו פְּלִשְֹּּתִ ים Sam. v. 9) and) בַפְּלִשְֹּּתִ ים נֶאֶסְּפּו שָ ם who helped to establish his kingdom, are not merely those who are mentioned by name in v. 11, have been, through wandering of the the following register, but also, as we learn

1 CHRONICLES Page 102 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study copyist’s eye, omitted; and with them the name the before-mentioned Jashobeam, Eleazar, and has also been dropped, Shammah are intended, is plain from the ,שַֹּמָ ה ,of the third hero for if these ;שְּ לושָ ה so that the heroic deed done by him, vv. 13b, 14, omission of the article with ,הַשְּ לושָ ה appears, according to our present text, to have three were spoken of, we would have been performed by Eleazar. In place of the as in v. 18. For further remarks on this exploit, words, “And the Philistines had gathered which was probably performed in the war themselves together there to battle, and there treated of in 1 Chronicles 14:8ff., and in 2 Sam. was a parcel of ground full of barley,” v. 13, the הֲדַ ם 5:17ff., see on 2 Sam. 23:13–17. The words text, according to the narrative in 2 Sam. 23:11, v. 19, are to be translated, “The ,הָאֲ נָשִ ים וגו׳ must have stood originally thus: “The Philistines had gathered themselves together blood of these men shall I drink in their souls? there to battle, and the men of Israel went up for for their souls (i.e., for the price of their (sc., retreating from the Philistines up the souls, at the risk of their life) have they brought mountain); he, however, stood firm, and smote it.” The expression “blood in their souls” is to be the Philistines till his hand was wearied, and understood according to Gen. 9:4 and Lev. his blood is in the soul,” is“ ,דָ מובְּ נַפְּ שו הּוא) cleaved unto the sword (i.e., clung crampedly to 17:14 his sword through fatigue): there wrought that which constitutes his soul). As there blood Jahve a great deliverance on that day, and the and soul are used synonymously (the blood as people returned (from their flight) behind him seat of and container of the soul, and the soul as only to spoil. And after him was Shammah the floating in the blood), so here David, according son of Aga the Hararite, and the Philistines had to our account of his words, compares the gathered themselves together to battle,” etc. In water, which those heroes had brought for the are price of their souls, to the souls of the men, and ,וַיַכּו ,וַיַצִילּוהָ ,יִתְּ יַצְּ בּו v. 14 the plural forms incorrect, and should be changed into singulars, the drinking of the water to the drinking of as in Sam. vv. 12 and 70, since only the deed of their souls, and finally the souls to the blood, in the hero Shammah is here spoken of. The order to express his abhorrence of such a plurals were probably introduced into the text draught. The meaning therefore may be thus after the missing lines had been dropped out by expressed: “Shall I drink in this water the souls, and so the blood, of these men; for they have הּוא a reader or copyist, who, on account of the brought the water even for the price of their v. 13), understood the three clauses) הָ יָה עִם דָ וִ יד souls?” of v. 14 to refer to Eleazar and David. , on Chronicles 11:20–25. In vv. 20–25 the 1 וַ יושַ ע the contrary, is here perfectly appropriate, and second class of heroes, to which Abshai .of Samuel, v. (Abishai) and Benaiah belonged, cf. 2 Sam וַיַעַ ׂש is not to be altered to suit the 14, for the κα ἐπο ησε of the LXX is not of itself 23:18–23, is spoken of. They were not equal to a sufficient reason for doing so. the preceding three in heroic deeds, but yet 1 Chronicles 11:15–19. In vv. 15–19 (cf. 2 stood higher than the list of heroes which as 2:16 and ,אַ בְּשַ י .Sam. 23:13–17) there follows an exploit of follows in v. 26 and onwards three others of the thirty, whose names have 2 Sam. 10:10, while in 2 Sam. 23:18 and was one of the ,אֲבִ ישַ י the thirty elsewhere he is called ,הַשְּ לושִ ים רֹׁאש .not been handed down chiefs (not, as Thenius wrongly interprets the three sons of Zeruiah (1 Chronicles 2:16). It is he was the“ ,רֹׁאש הַשְּ לושָ ה words, these three knights the chief parts, i.e., difficult to explain these three chief knights), are David’s heroes chief of the three,” instead of which we find in hereafter mentioned, the thirty-two heroes of -chief of the body“ ,הַשְּ לִשִ י ,.i.e ,השלשי Sam. v. 18 the third class named in vv. 26–40 (or vv. 24– 39 of Samuel). That three others, different from guard” (knights). But owing to the succeeding

1 CHRONICLES Page 103 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

where Samuel also has the three most valiant, who held the first rank ,וְּ לֹׁא בַשְּ לושָ ה (וְּ לו) שֵ ם among David’s heroes. Bertheau’s opinion, that on two הַשְּ לושָ ה and to the recurrence of ,בַשְֹּלשָ ה in vv. 20–25 one triad of heroes is distinguished occasions in v. 21 (cf. Sam. v. 19), it does not from another, cannot be regarded as well- seem possible to alter the text with Thenius. founded, for the three of whom Abishai was Bertheau proposes to get rid of the difficulty by chief are not distinguished, and are not in two different different from the three to whom, according to שְּ לושָ ה taking the word significations,—on the one hand as denoting v. 21, he did not attain. Nor is there greater the numeral three, and on the other as being an reason to believe that the triad of vv. 20 and 21 abstract substantive, “the totality of the thirty.” is different from that in vv. 24 and 25, among He justifies the latter signification by whom Benaiah made himself a name, and to comparison of v. 21 with v. 25, and of 2 Sam. whom he did not attain. The fact of being chief 23:19 with v. 23, from which he deduces that or prince over the three is not irreconcilably denote a larger company, in contradictory to the statement that he did not שְּ לושִ ים and שְּ לושָ ה which both Abishai and Benaiah held a attain to them, i.e., did not come up to them in prominent place. But this signification cannot heroic strength, as is shown by the two classes be made good from these passages. In both being connected in v. 21b. As to the rank which the triad held in the regular forces of David, we and הַשְֹּלשִ ים (.clauses of v. 25 (and v. 23 in Sam know nothing further than that Jashobeam was, are contrasted, which would rather go according to 1 Chronicles 27:2, leader of that הַשְֹּלשָ ה to prove the contrary of Bertheau’s proposition, part of the army which was on duty during the the three, cannot at the same first month. Eleazar the son of Dodo, and the ,הַשְֹּלשָ ה viz., that Hararite Shammah the son of Aga, are not .הַשְֹּלשִ ים ,time denote the whole of the thirty mentioned anywhere but in our list. Abishai, on The truth of the matter may be gathered from a the contrary, who had already distinguished is himself by his audacious courage in David’s הַשְֹּלשָ ה comparison of v. 18 with v. 15. In v. 18 v. 15; i.e., struggle with Saul (1 Sam. 26:6ff.), conducted ,הַשְּ לושָה ןמִ הַשְּ לושִ ים synonymous with the three in v. 18 are the same men who in v. together with Joab the war against Abner (2 15, where they are first met with, are called Sam. 2:24–3:30). Afterwards, in David’s war with the Ammonites, he was under Joab in ,הַשְֹּלשָ ה three of the thirty; and consequently command of the second half of the host (2 Sam. the three (triad), vv. 21 and 25, can only denote 10:10ff.); in the war against Absalom he the triad of heroes previously named. This is commanded a third part of the host (1 placed beyond doubt by a comparison of v. 24 Chronicles 18:2ff.); and in the struggle with the the triad of rebel Sheba he commanded the vanguard of the ,שְּ הלושָ הַ גִ בֹׁרִ ים with v. 25, since the royal troops sent against the rebel (1 הַשְֹּלשָ ה heroes, v. 24, corresponds to the simple of v. 25. The only remaining question is, Chronicles 20:6ff.); and in general held, along whether by this triad of heroes we are to with Joab the commander-in-chief, the first understand those spoken of in vv. 11–14, — place among David’s captains. In this position Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah,—or the he was chief of the three heroes before and among ,(ׂשָ ר) three whose names are not given, but whose mentioned, and their leader v. 20, is an ,וְּ לֹׁא .exploit is narrated in vv. 15–19. But the them had made himself a name circumstance that the names of the three latter as in fifteen other ,וְּ לו orthographical error for are not mentioned goes decidedly to show that passages, according to the Masora. See on Ex. in vv. 20–25 does not denote that הַשְֹּלשָ ה 21:10 and Isa. 63:9. nameless triad, whose exploit is manifestly 1 Chronicles 11:21a. V. 21a should be adduced incidentally only as a similar case, but translated: honoured before the three as two;

1 CHRONICLES Page 104 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study i.e., doubly honoured—he became to them Samuel with , so well known which, as from 2 Sam. 11:3ff. (Chronicles v. 41a), with ,בַשְּ נַיִם prince, leader. With regard to meaningless, Bertheau would alter so as to whose wife David committed adultery. But to the continuation of the register which is found .Sam.), cf. Ew) הֲכִ י make it correspond with in vv. 41b47 of our text, there is no parallel in Lehrb. § 269, b. For Benaiah and his exploits, vv. the other writings of the Old Testament by 22–25, see the commentary on 2 Sam. 23:20– which we might form an idea as to the 23. correctness of the names. The individual names No special deeds of the heroes enumerated in are indeed to be met with, for the most part, in vv. 26–47 are related, so that we may regard other parts of the Old Testament, but denote them as a third class, who are not equal to the other men of an earlier or later time. The names v. 46f., are found also in ,אֱ לִיאֵ ל v. 45, and ,יְּדִ יעֲאֵ ל first triad, and to the second pair, Abishai and Benaiah, and consequently occupied a 1 Chronicles 12:20, 11, among those of the subordinate place in the collective body of the valiant men who before Saul’s death went over royal body-guards. In 2 Sam. 23 thirty-two to David, but we cannot with any certainty names are mentioned, which, with the above- ascertain whether the persons meant were the mentioned three and two of the first and same. The expression (v. 42) is also וְּעָלָ יו שְֹּלשִ ים second classes, amount in all to thirty-seven men, as is expressly remarked in 2 Sam. 23:39 obscure,—“and to him in addition,” i.e., at the conclusion. In the text of the Chronicle no together with him, thirty,—since the thought number is mentioned, and the register is that with Adina the chief of the Reubenites, or increased by sixteen names (vv. 41–47), which besides him, there were thirty (men), has no have been added in the course of time to the meaning in this register. The LXX and the while the Syriac, on the ,עָלָ יו v. 26, Vulgate read ,וְּגִ בורֵ י הַחֲ יָלִ ים earlier number. The words are to be regarded as a superscription: And contrary, makes use of the periphrasis, “And valiant heroes were, etc.; equivalent to, But even he was a ruler over thirty heroes;” and besides there, there remain still the following Bertheau accordingly recommends the and thence concludes ,עַ להַשְֹּלשִ ים are not emendation גִ בורֵ י הַחֲ יָלִ ים valiant heroes. The words leaders of the that the tribe of Reuben had thirty leaders in its ,ׂשָרֵ י הַחֲ יָלִ ים synonymous with army,—a conjecture as bold as it is improbable. host, 1 Kings 15:20, Jer. 40:7, (Berth.), but Were to be read, we could not but עַ להַשְֹּלשִ ים signify heroes in warlike strength, i.e., heroic Chronicles 7:5, 7, 11, refer the words to the thirty heroes of v. 11, and 1) גִ בורֵ י חֲ יָלִ ים warriors, like hold Adina to be their leader, which could not .has here the article, while it is be easily reconciled with v. 11. See on 12:4 חֲ יָלִ ים That .(40 not found in the passages quoted from the is perhaps the בֶ ן־מַעֲכָ ה .Chronicles 11:43 1 seventh chapter, does not make any difference .Sam. 23:34 2 ,הַֹּמַעֲכָתִ י in the meaning of the words. The article is used, same as he of the city ,הָעַשְֹּּתְּרָתִ י .vv. 10, 11, because the 1 Chronicles 11:44 ,הַ גִ בורִ ים here, as with -is Ashtaroth (1 Chronicles 6:56), in the trans ראֲשֶ לְּדָ וִ יד heroes of David are spoken of, and he of ,הָעֲ רֹׁעֵרִ י .to be mentally supplied from v. 10f. As to the Jordanic domain of Manasseh names in vv. 26–41, which are also found in the Aroer, or Reuben or Gad (Josh. 13:16, 25). register in the book of Samuel, see the 1 Chronicles 11:46. Bertheau conjectures that commentary to 2 Sam. 23:24–39. This list, , LXX ὁ Μαω) הַֹּמַחֲ וִ ים which is common to both books, begins with the somewhat strange he of ,הַֹּמַחֲ נָיְּמִ י Asahel, a brother of Joab, who was slain by Vulg. Mahumites) denotes Abner in the war which he waged against David Mahanaim, in the East-Jordan land; see Josh. (2 Sam. 2:19–23), and concludes in the book of 13:26.

1 CHRONICLES Page 105 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

which, so far as back before Saul,” a concise expression for ,הַֹּמְּ צֹׁבָ יָה .Chronicles 11:47 1 the form is concerned, is not a nomen gentil., “while he was still held back before Saul.” This Reland (Palaest. ill. p. 899) holds for a last expression, however, does not signify, “hindered from coming before Saul” (Berth.), Migdal Zebujah,—a ,מגדל צבעויא contraction of but inter Israelitas publice versari prohibitus (J. place which, according to the rabbins, is said to H. Mich.), or rather, “before Saul, imprisoned as have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of it were, without being able to appear in a Hebron. Bertheau’s opinion is, that the article manner corresponding to his divine election to has come into the text by mistake; and when it and they were ,וְּהֵֹּמָ ה בגב׳ ”.be ruler over Israel has been struck out, the remaining consonants, among the heroes, i.e., belonged to the heroes, .(?) of 2 Sam. 23:36 מִ צֹׁבָ ה recall the ,מצביה the helpers of the war, i.e., to those who helped 1 Chronicles 12 him in his former wars; cf. vv. 17f., 21f. those preparing“ ,נֹׁשְּקֵ י קֶשֶ ת .Chronicles 12:2 1 Registers of the Valiant Men Who Helped David bows,” i.e., those armed with bows, to the Kingdom. ;(Chronicles 8:40 1) דֹׁרְּ כֵ י קֶשֶ ת synonymous with 1 Chronicles 12. This chapter contains two cf. 2 Chronicles 17:17, Ps. 78:9. “With the right somewhat long registers, viz.: (1) a register of and left hand practised upon stones,” i.e., to the valiant men who before Saul’s death went hurl stones, cf. Judg. 20:16; “and in arrows on over to David, vv. 1–22; and (2) a register of the of ,מֵאֲחֵי שָ אּול .the bow,” i.e., to shoot therewith fighting men who anointed him king in Hebron. The first is divided into three smaller registers: Saul’s brethren, i.e., of the men of the tribe, not (a) that of the valiant Benjamites who came to “of his nearer relatives,” and consequently of David during his stay in Ziklag (vv. 1–7); (b) Benjamin, has been added as an explanation; cf. are אֲחֵ י שָ אּול and בְּ נֵי בִ נְּיָמִ ן that of the Gadites and the men of Judah and v. 29, where Benjamin who went over to him while he synonyms.—In vv. 3ff. we have the names. the head, i.e., the leader of this host of ,הָ רֹׁאש (remained in the mountain fastnesses; and (c that of the Manassites who, on his return to ,הַ גִבְּעָתִ י .warriors; compare 1 Chronicles 5:7, 12 Ziklag before Saul’s last battle with the Philistines, joined themselves to him (vv. 19– cf. Gibeah of Saul or Benjamin, cf. 11:31; and for from ,הָעַ נְּ תֹׁ תִ י .its situation, see on Josh. 18:28 .(22 1 Chronicles 12:1–7. The Benjamites who came the priests’ city Anathoth, now Anata; see on to David to Ziklag.—V. 1. Ziklag was originally Josh. 18:24. In v. 4 the Gibeonite Ismaiah is allotted to the Simeonites by Joshua (Josh. 19:5; called “hero among the thirty, and over the 1 Chronicles 4:30), but at a later time came into thirty,”—words which can hardly have any possession of the Philistines, and was assigned other sense than that Ismaiah belonged also to and presented by king Achish to David, who David’s corps of thirty heroes (1 Chronicles 11), had fled for refuge to him, as a dwelling-place and was (temporarily) their leader, although for himself and his followers; see 1 Sam. 27:1– his name does not occur in 1 Chronicles 11. It is 7. As to its situation, which has not yet been probable that the reason of the omission was, with certainty ascertained, see the discussion that at the time when the list was prepared he of Gedera, a city of ,הַ גְּדֵרָתִ י .on Josh. 15:31. In it David dwelt for a year and was no longer alive four months, until he went to Hebron on the the tribe of Judah in the Shephelah, which, death of Saul. During this time it was that the according to Van de Velde (Reise, ii. S. 166), was warriors of the tribe of Benjamin mentioned in probably identical with the village Ghedera, the succeeding register went over to him, as we which lies to the left of the road Tel-es-Safieh to .he was still held Akir, about an hour to the south-west of Jabne“ ,עוד עָ צּור learn from the words In any case, it corresponds well with the

1 CHRONICLES Page 106 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study statements of the Onom. As to Gedrus, or mention of them among the Benjamites, may be Gaedur, see on Josh. 15:36. Immediately found in the fact that the Levites received no afterwards in v. 7 Gedor is mentioned, a city in tribal domain of their own, and possessed only the mountains of Judah, to the westward of the cities for dwelling in in the domains of the other road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem tribes, with whom they were consequently (see on Josh. 15:58); and from that fact civilly incorporated, so that those who dwelt in Bertheau imagines we must conclude that the the cities of Benjamin were properly reckoned men of Judah are enumerated as well as the among the Benjamites. At the partition of the Benjamites. But this conclusion is not valid; for land under Joshua, it is true, only the priests from the very beginning, when the domains and received their cities in Judah, Simeon, and cities were assigned to the individual tribes Benjamin; while, on the contrary, the under Joshua, they were not the exclusive Kohathites, who were not priests, among whom possession of the individual tribes, and at a the Korahites were, received their cities in the later period they were still less so. In course of tribal domain of Ephraim, Dan, and half- time the respective tribal domains underwent Manasseh (Josh. 21:9–26). But when the (in consequence of wars and other events) tabernacle was transferred from Shiloh to Nob, many alterations, not only in extent, but also in and afterwards to Gibeon, the Korahite regard to their inhabitants, so that in Saul’s doorkeepers must, without doubt, have time single Benjamite families may quite well migrated to one of the Levitic cities of have had their home in the cities of Judah. Benjamin, probably for the most part to Gibeon, .is a and who were reckoned among the Benjamites (הַחֲרִ יפִ י Keri) הַחֲ רּופִ י .Chronicles 12:5 1 As to , vide v. 4. If this be so, there מִ ן הַ גְּדור patronymic, which denotes either one remains no cogent reason for supposing that in בְּ נֵי descended from Haruph, or belonging to the our register, besides the Benjamites, men out of mentioned in Neh. 7:34 along with the other tribes are also introduced. With that חָרִ יף Korahites, in v. 6 are, there falls away at once Bertheau’s further ,קָרְּ חִ ים Gibeonites. The without doubt (cf. Delitzsch, Ps. S. 300), conclusion, that the author of the Chronicle has descendants of the Levite Korah, one division of considerably abridged the register, and that whom David made guardian of the thresholds from v. 4b onwards men of Judah also are of the tent erected for the ark of the covenant named, the list of whom must certainly (?) have on Zion, because their fathers had been been originally introduced by special watchers of the entrance of the camp of Jahve, superscription similar to those in vv. 8, 16, 19. i.e., had in that earlier time held the office of His further reason for his conjecture—namely, watchers by the tabernacle; see on 9:18f. The that our register makes use of the qualificative names Elkanah and Azareel are thoroughly epithets, “the Gibeathite,” “the Anathothite,” Levitic names, and their service in the porter’s etc., only in a few special cases—is of no force office in the holy place may have roused in whatever; for we are not justified in assuming them the desire to fight for David, the chosen of that we may expect to find here, as in the the Lord. But there is no reason why we should, register in 1 Chronicles 11:26–47, such with Bertheau, interpret the words as denoting qualificatives after every individual name. The descendants of the almost unknown Korah of character of our register cannot be arrived at the tribe of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:43), or, with by a comparison with the list of David’s heroes the older commentators, refer it to some other in 1 Chronicles 11; it should rather be sought unmentioned Benjamite who bore this name. for by comparing it with the succeeding list, The explanation of the connection existing whose contents are of a similar kind with its between these Levitic Korahites and the own. David’s chosen corps of thirty heroes was Benjamites, which is presupposed by the much more important for the history of his reign, than the lists of the men who joined

1 CHRONICLES Page 107 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

they separated themselves ,נִבְּדְּ לּו .themselves to him and fought on his behalf our verses before he ascended the throne. For that reason from the other Gadites who were on Saul’s side, the thirty heroes are not only mentioned by ,גִ בורֵ י חַ יִל .strong heroes,” as in Josh. 8:3; cf“ name, but their descent also is told us, while men for ,אַ ינְּשֵ אצָבָ לַֹּמִ לְּחָמָ ה .that more detailed information is not given 5:24; 7:2, 9, etc with regard to the others just mentioned. Only service in the host for the war, i.e., combatants preparing shield ,עֹׁרְּ כֵי צִ הּנָ וָ רֹׁמַ ח .the names of the Gadites and Manassites are practised in war mentioned; of the Benjamites and men of Judah, and spear, i.e., wielding shield and spear, who came to him in the mountain fastness (vv. practised in their use: the preparing of these 16–18), the name of only one, Amasai, is given; weapons includes the handling of them. Instead while of the Benjamites who came to Ziklag, vv. Veneta and many of the older copies ,וָ רֹׁמַ ח of 3–7, such qualificative statements are made in but it is not supported by MS ;ּומָ גֵ ן reference to only a few individuals, and in these have cases the object probably was to distinguish authority, and moreover is not congruous with them from other well-known persons of the the passage. Lions’ faces their faces, i.e., lion- same name. like in appearance, thoroughly warlike figures; 1 Chronicles 12:8–18. The Gadites, Benjamites, cf. 2 Sam. 1:23. “As roes running swiftly on the and men of Judah who joined themselves to mountains;” cf. 2 Sam. 2:18. This description of David during his sojourn in the mountain the strength and swiftness of these warriors fastness.—V. 8. David’s sojourn in the mountain recalls, as Bertheau remarks, the similar hold falls in the first years of his flight from expressions used in the historical books pointed with Pathach concerning heroes of David’s time. It has ,מְּצַ ד .Saul, 1 Sam. 22ff manifestly been drawn from the original .cf. v. 16), on documents, not added by the chronicler. In vv ,מְּצָ ד) instead of with Kamets .the names are enumerated individually 13–9 ,מִדְּבָרָ ה account of its intimate connection with at the end of a series of ordinal ,עַשְֹּּתֵי עָׂשָ ר .(.Sam. 24:23, etc 1) מְּצּודָ ה is synonymous with .towards the wilderness,” numbers, denotes the eleventh; cf. 24:12“ ,מִדְּבָרָ ה The addition heads of the ,רָ אשֵ י הַצָבָ א .denotes a mountain-top or 1 Chronicles 12:14 מְּצָ ד shows that mountain-fortress in the wilderness of Judah. If war-host, i.e., chief warriors, not leaders of the one for a hundred, (viz.) the“ , דאֶחָ לְּמֵאָ ה וגו׳ .we compare the account in 1 Sam. 22–24, we host learn that David at that time did not hide small and the greater for a thousand,” i.e., the himself in one single definite mountain- smaller (weaker) could cope with a hundred, fortress, but sought and found resting-places, the stronger with a thousand men; cf. Lev. 26:8. now here, now there, in the wilderness, on the This, which is the only correct interpretation, is Sam. that received by Bertheau and the older Jewish 1 , רבַֹּמִדְּבָ בַֹּמְּצָ דות .summits of the hills (cf commentators. The Vulgate, on the contrary, here is to be מְּצָ ד so that ;(24:1 ;23:14 translates, novissimus centum militibus praeerat Sam. 24:3, also is, et maximus mille, which is inadmissible, for in 1 ,הַֹּמְּצּודָ ה understood, as .ל must have been used instead of עַ ל generally of the fastnesses in the mountains of that case Judah. At that time there gathered round David belongs to both the clauses which it אחד The a great company of discontented and oppressed and is placed ,הַ גָ דול and to הַקָטָ ן men, to the number of about 400,—men precedes, to to emphasize the לְּמֵאָ ה dissatisfied with Saul’s rule, whose leader he immediately before became, and who soon amounted to 600 men (1 contrast between one and a hundred. In v. 15 Sam. 22:2 and 23:13). To these belong the we have a proof of their valour, in an account of Gadites, and the men out of Benjamin and a bold exploit performed by them. In the first Judah, whose adhesion to David is noticed in

1 CHRONICLES Page 108 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study month of the year, that is, in spring, when the purpose they came to him. “If for peace,” to Jordan overflows all its banks, they crossed the stand by him, “then shall there be to me river and put to flight all the dwellers in the towards you a heart for union,” i.e., I will be is בלֵבָ לְּ יַחַ ד .valleys towards the east and towards the west. with you of one heart, be true to you This happened, probably, when they separated to ,לְּרַ ֹּמותַ נִי v. 38. “But if ,לֵב אֶחָ ד plainer than themselves from their brethren and went over to David, when they must have had to cut their practise deceit against me (to be guilty of a for mine enemies (to deliver me to (מִרְּ מָ ה way through the adherents of Saul (Berth.). The denotes to make full, to make them), although there be no wrong in my עַ ל with מִ לֵ א Piel to run over, in the signification to overflow. The hands, the God of our fathers look thereon and punish;” cf. 2 Chronicles 24:22. The God of our elsewhere only גִדְּ יָה comes from גִדְּ יֹׁתָ יו Kethibh fathers, i.e., of the patriarchs (cf. Ezra 7:27, 2 so also here in the Keri. In the Chronicles 20:6, and Ex. 3:13f.), who rules in ,גְּדֹׁתָ יו the plural dry summer season the Jordan may be crossed and over Israel, who shields the innocent and by wading at various points (fords); while in punishes the guilty. spring, on the contrary, when it is so swollen by 1 Chronicles 12:18. Then came the Spirit upon the melting snows of Lebanon, that in some Amasai, so that he proclaimed himself רּוחַ parts it overflows its banks, it is very dangerous enthusiastic for David and his cause. With ,הָעֲמָקִ ים .to attempt to cross. See on Josh. 3:15 is אֱ ֹלהִ ים or יהוה cf. Judg. 6:34. Usually לָבְּשָ ה “the valleys,” for the inhabitants of the valleys. found with this expression (2 Chronicles 1 Chronicles 12:16–18. There came to David 24:20), and here also the Spirit of God is meant; in the mountain-fastness also men of Benjamin is omitted only because all that was אלהים and and Judah (cf. v. 8). Their names are not in the lists, possibly because they were not handed of importance here was to show that the down in the historical works made use of by the resolution announced by Amasai was an effect to thee, David ,לְּ ָך .chronicler. At their head, as we learn from v. 18, of higher spiritual influence ”,with thee“ ,עִֹּמְּ ָך .stood Amasai, chief of the thirty, i.e., of the (do we belong), thine are we corps formed of the thirty heroes (see 11:11), sc. will we remain and fight. “Peace be to thee, although his name does not occur in the and peace be to thy helpers; for thy God helpeth catalogue, 1 Chronicles 11. According to this, He has helped thee in the fortunate עֲ ,ֹזָרְּ ָך ”.thee Amasai must have occupied a very important combats in which you have heretofore been עֲמָׂשַ י position under David; but since the name engaged (1 Sam. 18:12ff.), and He will help still is not elsewhere mentioned in the history of further. David thereupon received them and David, the older commentators have the ,הַ גְּדּוד .made them captains of his band may have been the same עֲמָׂשַ י conjectured that warrior-band, which had gathered round David, .son of Abigail (1 Chronicles and were still gathering round him, 1 Sam ,עמׂשא person as 2:17), whom Absalom made captain in Joab’s 22:2; 27:8, cf. also v. 21; 1 Sam. 30:8, 15, 23, etc. place, and whom David, after the victory over 1 Chronicles 12:19–22. The Manassites who the rebels, wished to make commander-in-chief went over to David before the last battle of the to fall to one, is ,נָפַל עַ ל—.in the room of Joab, and whom for that reason Philistines against Saul Joab afterwards murdered (2 Sam. 17:25; used specially of deserters in war who desert 19:14; 20:4, 8ff.); or identical with the son their lord and go over to the enemy: cf. 2 Kings אַבְּשַ י in the last clause of ,יִפול אֶ ל .of Zeruiah, 2:16 and 11:20. Of these conjectures 25:11; 1 Sam. 29:3 the first is much more probable than the the verse, is a synonymous expression. The second. To meet these men, David went forth Manassites went over “when David went with from his fastness, and asked them with what

1 CHRONICLES Page 109 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study the Philistines against Israel to the war, and whence the word can only refer to the march of (yet) helped them not; for upon advisement David against the Amalekites, of which we have cf. Prov. 20:18), the lords of the an account in 1 Sam. 30:9ff., and not to the ,בְּעֵצָ ה) Philistines had sent him away, saying, ‘For our combats which he had with Saul. “For they captains ,ׂשָרִ ים heads, he will fall away to his master Saul.’ ” 1 were all valiant heroes, and were Sam. 29:2–11 contains the historical in the army,” sc. which gathered round David. לְּעֵ ת יום ) ”commentary on this event. When the lords of 1 Chronicles 12:22. “For every day the Philistines collected their forces to march at the time of each day) “came (people) to ,בְּ יום against Saul, David, who had found refuge with King Achish, was compelled to join the host of David to help him, until to a great host, like a that prince with his band. But when the other host of God,” i.e., until his band grew to a camp a host which ,מַחֲ הנֵ אֱ ֹלהִ ים .Philistine princes saw the Hebrews, they like to a host of God demanded that they should be sent out of the God has formed, and in which the power of God army, as they feared that David might turn shows itself; cf. hills and cedars of God, Ps. 36:7; upon them during the battle, and so win favour 80:11. In these concluding remarks to the by his treachery with Saul his lord. See the enumeration by name of the valiant men who for our during Saul’s lifetime went over to David, there ,בְּרָ אשֵ ינּו .commentary on 1 Sam. 29 heads, i.e., for the price of them, giving them as is no exaggeration which would betray an a price to obtain a friendly reception from Saul idealizing historian (Movers, S. 270). The (cf. 1 Sam. 29:4). In consequence of this greatness of a host of God is to be estimated remonstrance, Achish requested David to according to the power and the spirit, not return with his warriors to Ziklag. On this according to the number, of the warriors, so return march (“as he went to Ziklag,” cf. with that we need not take the words to mean a host of 1 Sam. 29:11), and of thousands and tens of thousands. David had לָלֶכֶ ת the בְּלֶכְּ ֹּתו at first 400, afterwards 600, valiant warriors, consequently before the battle in which Saul against whom Saul with his thousands could lost his life (Berth.), and not after Saul’s great accomplish nothing. The increase in their misfortune, as Ewald thinks, the Manassites number from 400 to 600 shows that the host whose names follow went over to David. The increased from day to day, especially when we seven named in v. 20 were “heads of the keep in mind the fact that after Saul’s defeat thousands of Manasseh,” i.e., of the great considerable bands of fugitives must certainly families into which the tribe of Manasseh was have gone over to David before he was anointed divided, and as such were leaders of the in Hebron to be king over Judah. The Manassite forces in war: cf. Num. 31:14 with Ex. expression is only rhetorical, not idealizing or 18:25, and the commentary on the latter exaggerating. passage. 1 Chronicles 12:23–40. List of the warriors 1 Chronicles 12:21. These25 helped David who made David king in Hebron.—The עַ ל against the detachment of Amalekites, superscription (v. 23) runs: “These are the ,הַ גְּדּוד who during David’s absence had surprised and numbers of the bands of the men equipped for ,is a collective noun הֶחָ לּוץ .burnt Ziklag, and led captive the women and war, who came,” etc signifies רָ אשֵ י .children (1 Sam. 30:1–10). This interpretation, denoting the equipped manhood which Rashi also has (contra turmam here, not principes exercitus, as the Vulgate Amalekitarum), and which the Vulgate hints at renders it, heads, i.e., leaders of the army in its adversus latrunculos, rests upon the fact (Berth.), but literally denotes sums, i.e., that in 1 Sam. 30:8, 15, the word , which in ,companies, bands of soldiers, as in Judg. 7:16 הַ גְּדּוד general only denotes single detachments or 20; 9:34, 37, 44, 1 Sam. 11:1; or it may perhaps predatory bands, is used of the Amalekite band;

1 CHRONICLES Page 110 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

in Judg. the whole nation, who wished to make David רֹׁאש also be heads for individuals, as 5:30. Both these meanings are linguistically their king. We must, if we are to estimate these certain; so that we cannot say, with Bertheau, statements, endeavour to go back in imagination to the circumstances of that time denotes, according to the הֶחָ לּוץ before רָ אשֵ י that when Israel, although settled in the land, had well-ascertained use of language, leaders of the not quite laid aside the character of a nation of would have been used had warriors, in which every man capable of גלגלת army, and that it been wished to express the number by heads, bearing arms marched to battle with, and for, e.g., 23:3–24. That use of the word is indeed his king. Now if the total number of fighting also found, but it cannot be proved to be the men in Israel was 600,000 in the time of Moses, here to denote and if, when the people were numbered in the רָ אשֵ י only proper one. If we take leaders, we bring the superscription into last year of David’s reign, there were in Israel irreconcilable contradiction with the contents 800,000, and in Judah 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9)— of the following catalogue, which gives the the Levites being excluded in both cases—the names of the heads and the number of the 340,000 men of all the tribes, except Issachar, warriors (v. 27f.) only in the case of the families in reference to which no number is given, or of Aaron, and in that of Issachar the number of after subtracting Judah and Levi, the 324,500 the princes; while in the case of the other tribes men out of the remaining tribes, is not much we have only the numbers of the bands or more than a half of the men capable of bearing detachments. This contradiction cannot be got arms in Moses’ time, and about a fourth part of rid of, as Bertheau imagines, by the hypothesis the fighting population towards the end of that the superscription referred originally to a David’s reign. But the relation of the numbers in catalogue which was throughout similar in plan the respective tribes, on the contrary, is to that which we find in vv. 26–28, and that the somewhat surprising, and calls forth from author of the Chronicle has very considerably Bertheau the following remarks: “To Judah, abridged the more detailed statements of the David’s tribe, which from the earliest time had original documents which he used. This been famous for its numbers and its powers, hypothesis is a mere makeshift, in which we 6800 are assigned; to Zebulun, on the contrary, have the less need “to take refuge,” as the 50,000; to Naphtali, 1000 princes at the head of catalogue has neither the appearance of having 37,000 warriors; to the two and a half East- been abridged or revised by the author of our Jordanic tribes, 120,000 men, etc. How does it Chronicle. It is shown to be a faithful copy of a happen that Zebulun and Naphtali, for example, more ancient authority, both by the two tribes that play no great part in Israel’s characteristic remarks which it contains on the history, are so strongly represented, while individual tribes, and by the inequality in the Judah sends only a relatively small number of numbers. Bertheau, indeed, derives support for warriors?” To this question we answer, that his hypothesis “from the inequality of the Judah’s being represented by a number of statements of number, and their relation to warriors relatively so small, is accounted for each other,” and upon that ground throws simply by the fact that David had already been doubt upon the accuracy and correctness of the king over Judah for seven years, and numbers, but in both cases without sufficient consequently that tribe did not need to make warrant. him king by coming with the whole of its warriors, or the majority of them, when the The total is not objected to by Bertheau, and its other tribes were doing homage to David, but correctness is placed beyond a doubt by the sent only a small number of its male population recollection that we have here to do not with to this solemn act, who were witnesses in the the representation of the various estates of the name of the whole tribe to the homage kingdom, but with a declaration of the will of proffered by the others. The same remark

1 CHRONICLES Page 111 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study applies to the tribe of Simeon, whose domain other 37,000 men to David, as the tribes was enclosed by that of Judah, and which had dwelling in the north had been least affected by consequently recognised David as king at the the wars which Israel carried on in the second same time as the larger tribe. In regard to the half of the period of the judges and under Saul. numbers of the other tribes, Levi had in the last Both of these tribes, too, are praised in the song year of David’s reign 38,000 men from thirty of Deborah as a people ready to risk their lives years old and upwards (1 Chronicles 23:3); and for their fatherland (Judg. 5:18), and may have when here only 4600 Levites, besides the very much increased in the succeeding time. priestly families, are spoken of, the question And besides all this, the tribes Asher, Reuben, arises, whether this number is to be understood Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh are indeed to refer to the Levites in all the tribes, or only to more feebly represented than Zebulun, but those dwelling outside of Judah and Simeon, in more strongly than Naphtali. There therefore the cities assigned to them by Moses and remains no reason for doubting the historical Joshua. The smallness of the number (3000) accuracy of the numbers given; but it is of from the tribe of Benjamin is explained by the course to be understood that the numbers, remark that the majority of this tribe still held which are stated only in hundreds, are not the to the house of Saul (v. 29). The only thing result of an enumeration of the individual which is at all remarkable about the other persons, but only of an estimate of the various numbers is, that the Ephraimites are so few detachments according to the military partition (20,800 men) in contrast to the 180,000 men of the tribes. ,כְּפִ י יהוה cf. 10:14; and as to ,לְּהָסֵ ב ם׳ brought into the field by the half-tribe of In regard to Manasseh. But if we consider that Ephraim, .10 ,11:3 ,כִדְּבַ ר יהוה which at the first census under Moses at Sinai see the remark on ,cf. v. 8 ,נֹׁׂשְּאֵי צִ ּנָ ה וָ רֹׁמַ ח had 40,500 men, had decreased to 32,500 at the 1 Chronicles 12:24f. For second census in the wilderness of Moab, it is valiant men for the war ,גִ בורֵ י חַ יִל לַצָבָ א .not improbable that at the time now treated of 5:18 that tribe may not have been very strong in service. fighting men. For in Saul’s last war with the 1 Chronicles 12:26. Jehoiada is thought by Philistines, when they had pressed forward so Rashi, Kimchi, and others, to be the father of ,.for Aaron, i.e נָגִיד far as Mount Gilboa, and also in Abner’s Benaiah, 11:22. He was struggle on behalf of King Ishbosheth for the re- prince of the house of Aaron, head of the family conquest of the territory occupied by them, it of the Aaronites, not princeps sacerdotum, probably suffered more, and was more which was a title appertaining to the high- weakened, than any of the other tribes. Perhaps priesthood, an office held at that time by also we may add that Ephraim, owing to its Abiathar (1 Sam. 23:9). jealousy of Judah, which dates from the time of the judges, was not very much disposed to 1 Chronicles 12:28. Zadok, a youth, i.e., then make David king over all Israel. That Zebulun still a youth, may be the same who was made and Naphtali are here so numerously high priest in place of Abiathar (1 Kings 2:26, represented, although they do not otherwise but see on 5:34). “And his father’s-house, play an important part, is no reason for twenty-two princes.” The father’s-house of suspecting that the numbers given are Zadok is the Aaronite family descended from incorrect. Since Zebulun under Moses Eleazar, which was at that time so numerous family ,ׂשָרִ ים numbered 57,400 men, and at a later time that it could muster twenty-two 60,500, and Naphtali 53,400 and 45,400 men chiefs, who went with Zadok to Hebron. capable of bearing arms respectively on the 1 Chronicles 12:29. From the tribe of see ,אֲחֵי שָ אּול) same occasions (see t. i. 2, S. 192); the first Benjamin, to which Saul belonged named tribe may easily have sent 50,000, the

1 CHRONICLES Page 112 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study on v. 2), only 3000 men came, for until that time in his statement is the varia lectione, since a cf. 9:18) the greater number of them sound and correct judgment in political matters , דוְּעַ הֵ ּנָ ה) were keeping the guard of the house of Saul, i.e., does not necessarily presuppose scientific were devoted to the interests of the fallen training and a wide acquaintance with books. The statement in question, therefore, affirms see on Gen. 26:5 and , רשָמַ מִשְּמֶרֶ ת house. For nothing more than that the (in Lev. 8:35. From this we learn that the deciding to raise David to the throne) followed attachment of the Benjamites to Saul continued the judgment of its princes, who rightly even after the death of his son Ishbosheth, and estimated the circumstances of the time. For all that it was with difficulty that they could bring their brethren, i.e., all the men of this tribe, themselves to recognise David as king. ,עַ ל־פִיהֶ ם .went with the two hundred chiefs 1 Chronicles 12:30. Of Ephraim 20,800 famous according to their mouth, i.e., followed their .in judgment; cf. Num. 4:27, Deut. 21:5“ ,לְּבֵ ית־אב׳ ;(see on Gen. 6:4 ,אַ נְּשֵי שֵ מות) men their fathers’-houses.” preparing war ,עֹׁרְּ יכֵ מִ לְּחָמָ ה .Chronicles 12:33 1 1 Chronicles 12:31. Of half Manasseh, this side with all manner of warlike weapons, i.e., Jordan (cf. v. 37), 18,000, who were appointed practice in the use of all kinds of weapons for by name, i.e., chosen as famous men to go is substantially a לַעֲ דֹׁר war; cf. v. 8. The infinitive as in ,נִקְּ בּו בְּשֵ מות .thither and make David king continuation of the preceding participles, but Num. 1:17, vide on Lev. 24:16. The tribe of grammatically is dependent on understood בָ אּו Manasseh had consequently held a general consultation on the matter, and determined (cf. vv. 23, 38). Cf. as to this free use of the Ew. § 351, c. The signification ,לְּ upon sending their representatives. infinitive with ,which occurs only here (vv. 33 ,עָדַ ר Chronicles 12:32. From Issachar came “men of the verb 1 of understanding in reference to the times, to 38), is doubtful. According to the LXX and the know (i.e., who knew) what Israel should do.” Vulg. (βοηθῆσαι, venerunt in auxilium), and nine we would be inclined to ,לעֹזר knowing in insight (cf. 2 Chronicles MSS, which read ,יודֵעַ בִ ינָ ה for the Aramaic form of the Hebrew עָדַ ר i.e., experienced in a thing, having take ,(2:12 understanding of it. From this remark some of cf. Arabic ’dr), to help; but that meaning) עָ ֹזַ ר the older commentators (Chald., various v. 38. Its connection ,עָדַר מַעֲרָ כָ ה Rabbins, and Cleric.) concluded that the tribe of does not suit should signify “to close עָדַ ר Issachar had distinguished itself beyond the there demands that other tribes by astronomical and physical up together,” to set in order the battle array; knowledge, by which it was qualified to and so here, closing up together with not ascertain and make choice of proper times for double heart, i.e., with whole or stedfast heart political action. But the words do not suggest v. 38), animo integro et firmo atque ,בְּלֵבָב שָ לֵ ם) astronomical or astrological knowledge, but merely state, as Salomo ben-Melech in the concordi; cf. Ps. 12:3 (Mich.).—In v. 38 we have which ,כָל־אֵ לֶ ה ;Miclol Yophi long ago interpreted them, a comprehensive statement noverant tempora ad omnem rem et quodque refers to all the bodies of men enumerated in ;defectively written שְּאֵרִ ית is שֵרִ ית .negotium, sicut sapiens dixit: Suum cuique vv. 24–37 tempus est et opportunitas cuique rei, Koh. iii. 1. and as it occurs only here, it may be perhaps a The words refer not to the whole tribe, but only mere orthographical error. The whole of the to the two hundred heads, who, as Lavater remainder of Israel who did not go to Hebron expresses it, are designated prudentes viri, as of one, i.e., of united heart (2 ,לֵב אֶחָ ד being men qui quid, quando et quomodo were agendum esset, varia lectione et usu rerum Chronicles 30:12): they had a unanimous wish cognoscebant. The only thing to be objected to to make David king.

1 CHRONICLES Page 113 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

1 Chronicles 12:39. Those gathered together the first acts of David tending to the raising of were there three days eating and drinking, the Israelitish kingship, and has consequently, holding festive meals (cf. 1 Sam. 30:16, 1 Kings in his estimation of the matter, only taken 1:45, etc.), for their brethren had prepared account of its importance politically to David as sc. the eating king. The author of our Chronicle, on the ,הֵכִ ינּו them for them. The object of and drinking, may easily be supplied from the contrary, has had mainly in view the religious significance of this design of David to restore are the inhabitants of Hebron אֲחֵיהֶ ם .context the Levitic cultus prescribed in the Mosaic law; and the neighbourhood; the tribe of Judah in and in order to impress that upon the reader, general, who had already recognised David as he not only gives a detailed account of the part king. which the Levites took in the solemn transfer of 1 Chronicles 12:40. But it was not only these the ark of God (1 Chronicles 15), but he sets who performed this service, but also those of forth minutely the arrangements which David the remaining tribes dwelling near them; and made, after the ark had been brought into the indeed the men of Issachar, Zebulun, and capital of the kingdom, for the restoration of a Naphtali, those on the northern frontier of permanent worship about that sanctuary (1 Canaan as well as those who bordered upon Chronicles 16). Both the narratives are taken Judah, had sent provisions upon beasts of from an original document which related the burden, “for joy was in Israel.” This joy moved matter more at length; and from it the author of those who remained at home to show their 2 Samuel has excerpted only what was sympathy with the national festival solemnized important for his purpose, while the author of .the Chronicle gives a more detailed account ,דְּבֵלִ ים at Hebron by sending the provisions. For masses of The opinion held by de Wette and others, that ,צִֹּמּוקִ ים masses of dried figs, and the narrative in the Chronicle is merely an raisins or cakes, see on 1 Sam. 25:18. expansion by the author of the Chronicle, or by 1 Chronicles 13 the author of the original document followed by our chronicler, of the account in 2 Sam. 6, for Ch. 13–16. The Removal of the Ark from Kirjath- the purpose of glorifying the Levitic cultus, is jearim. David’s Building, His Wives and Children, shown to be incorrect and untenable by the and His Victories over the Philistines. The multitude of historical statements peculiar to 1 Bringing of the Ark into the City of David, and Chronicles 15 and 16, which could not possibly the Arrangement of the Worship in Mount Zion. have been invented. 1 Chronicles 13–16. All these facts are 1 Chronicles 13. The removal of the ark from described in the second book of Samuel, for the Kirjath-jearim. Cf. 2 Sam. 6:1–11, with the most part in the same words. There, however, commentary on the substance of the narrative the contents of our chapter 14, David’s building, there given. wives and children, and victories over the 1 Chronicles 13:1–5. The introduction to this Philistines, immediately follow, in 2 Sam. 5:11– event is in 2 Sam. 6:1 and 2 very brief; but 25, the account of the conquest of the citadel of according to our narrative, David consulted Zion (1 Chronicles 11:4–8); and then in 2 Sam. with the chief men over thousands and 6 the removal of the ark from Kirjath-jearim, hundreds (1 Chronicles 15:25), viz., with all the groups כָ ל־נָגִיד before לְּ and the bringing of it, after an interval of three princes. The preposition months, to Jerusalem, are narrated together the individual chiefs of the people just consecutively, but much more shortly than in named. He laid his purpose before “all the the Chronicle. The author of the books of congregation of Israel,” i.e., before the above- Samuel confined himself to a mere narration of mentioned princes as representatives of the the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem, as one of whole people. “If it seem good to you, and if it

1 CHRONICLES Page 114 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

-see on Num. 34:8. Kirjath ,לְּ בוא חֲמָ ת ,come from Jahve our God,” i.e., if the matter be frontier willed of and approved by God, we will send as jearim, the Canaanitish Baalah, was known among the Israelites by the name Baale Jehudah נִפְּרְּ צָ הנִשְּ לְּחָ ה speedily as possible. The words without the conjunction are so connected that or Kirjath-baal, as distinguished from other we cities named after Baal, and is now the still“ ,נפרצה defines the idea expressed by נשלחה will break through, will send,” for “we will, considerable village Kureyeh el Enab; see on breaking through,” i.e., acting quickly and Josh. 9:17. In this fact we find the explanation of v. 6: to Baalah, to Kirjath-jearim ,בַעֲלָתָה אֶ ל ק׳ י׳ energetically, “send thither.” The construction is accounted for by the fact that of Judah. The ark had been brought thither עַ ל with שָ לַ ח of the sending thither includes the notion of when the Philistines sent it back to Beth- Shemesh, and had been set down in the house all the ,כָ ל־אֲרָ צות .(צִּוָה עַ ל) commanding of Abinadab, where it remained for about provinces of the various tribal domains, is used seventy years; see 1 Sam. 6 and 7:1, 2, and the is not to ראֲשֶ נִקְּרָא שֵ ם .Sam. 13:19, here, and 2 remarks on 2 Sam. 6:3f 1 ,כָ ל־הָאָרֶ ץ for Chronicles 11:23 and 34:33; in all which places be translated “which is named name,” which the idea of the division of the land into a gives no proper sense. Translating it so, number of territories is prominent. This usage according to ,שָ ם into שֵ ם Bertheau would alter is founded upon Gen. 26:3 and 4, where the plural points to the number of small tribes an arbitrary conjecture of Thenius on 2 Sam. 6:2, “who there (by the ark) is invoked.” But or עַ ל ,וְּעִֹּמָהֶ ם which possessed Canaan. After the true reading, it could not refer to שָ ם were לֹׁא דְּרַשְּ נֻ הּו is to be repeated. The words נִשְּ לְּחָ ה עַ ל since in ,מִשָ ם the ark, but only to the preceding in v. 3, we have not sought it, nor asked after it, are meant to include all. the whole Old Testament the idea that by or at the resting-place of the ark Jahve was invoked 1 Chronicles 13:4f. As the whole assembly ,would signify) nowhere occurs אֲשֶר שָ ם which) it is to do ,לַעֲ ׂשות כֵ ן) approved of David’s design since no one could venture to approach the ark. so = so much we do), David collected the whole If referred to , it would signify that Jahve מִשָ ם שָ ם ”,of Israel to carry it out. “The whole of Israel from the southern frontier of Canaan to the was invoked at Kirjath-baal, that there a place northern; but of course all are not said to have of worship had been erected by the ark; but of been present, but there were numerous that the history says nothing, and it would, representatives from every part,—according to moreover, be contrary to the statement that the 2 Sam. 6:1, a chosen number of 30,000 men. ark was not visited in the days of Saul. We must שֵ ם which is named as the consequently reject the proposal to alter ,שִ יחור מִצְּרַ יִם The as useless and unsuitable, and seek for שָ ם southern frontier, is not the , although it into in the אֲשֶ ר Isa. 23:3 and Jer. 2:18), and another explanation: we must take) שִ חֹׁר also is called the name “the black river” also suits it (see Del. sense of ὡς, which it sometimes has; cf. Ew. § שֵ ם before, i.e., 333, a.: “as he is called by name,” where שִ יחור on Isaiah, loc. cit.); but is the but also to the ,יהוה i.e., the does not refer only to ,( ראֲשֶ עַ ל־פְּ נֵי מִצְּרַ יִם) eastward from Egypt and the meaning ,יושֵ בהַכְּ רּובִ ים the Rhinocorura, now additional clause ,נַחַל מִצְּרַ יִם , el Arish, which in all accurate statements of the is that Jahve is invoked as He who is enthroned frontiers is spoken of as the southern, in above the cherubim; cf. Ps. 80:2, Isa. 37:16.— contrast to the neighbourhood of Hamath, On the following vv. 7–14, cf. the commentary which was the northern boundary: see on Num. on 2 Sam. 6:3–11. 34:5. For the designation of the northern

1 CHRONICLES Page 115 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

1 Chronicles 14 “he went forth against them.” In v. 14, the 1 Chronicles 14. David’s palace-building, wives divine answer to David’s question, whether he and children, vv. 1–7; cf. 2 Sam. 5:11–16. Two should march against the Philistines, runs thus: Thou shalt not go ,לֹׁא תַעֲלֶה אַחֲרֵ יהֶ ם הָסֵ ב מֵעֲלֵ יהֶ ם .victories over the Philistines, vv. 8–17; cf. 2 Sam 5:17–25.—The position in which the narrative up after them; turn away from them, and come of these events stands, between the removal of upon them over against the baca-bushes;— לֹׁא :the ark from Kirjath-jearim and its being while in Sam. v. 23, on the contrary, we read brought to Jerusalem, is not to be supposed to ,.Thou shalt not go up (i.e ,תַעֲלֶ ה הָסֵב אֶל־אַחֲרֵ יהֶ ם indicate that they happened in the interval of three months, curing which the ark was left in advance against the enemy to attack them in the house of Obed-edom. The explanation of it front); turn thee behind them (i.e., to their rather is, that the author of our Chronicle, for rear), and come upon them over against the the reasons given in page 170, desired to baca-bushes. Bertheau endeavours to get rid of represent David’s design to bring the ark into the discrepancy, by supposing that into both the capital city of his kingdom as his first texts corruptions have crept through undertaking after he had won Jerusalem, and transcribers’ errors. He conjectures that the ,לֹׁא תַעֲלֶה אַחֲרֵ יהֶ ם was consequently compelled to bring in the text of Samuel was originally events of our chapter at a later period, and for while in the Chronicle a transposition of the was occasioned by a אַחֲרֵ יהֶ ם and עֲלֵיהֶ ם that purpose this interval of three months words seemed to offer him the fittest opportunity. The copyist’s error, which in turn resulted in the whole contents of our chapter have already This .מֵעֲלֵיהֶ ם into עֲלֵיהֶ ם alteration of been commented upon in 2 Sam. 5:1, so that we need not here do more than refer to a few supposition, however, stands or falls with the Sam.) an attack is) לֹׁא תַעֲלֶ ה subordinate points. presumption that by that He forbidden; but for that presumption no tenable ,כִ י נִשֵ א Chronicles 14:2. Instead of 1 grounds exist: it would rather involve a perf. Pi.), as in Sam. contradiction between the first part of the ,נִשֵ א) Jahve) had lifted up) ,divine answer and the second. The last clause ,כִ ינִשֵ את לְּמַעְּלָ ה v. 2, in the Chronicle we read that his kingdom had been lifted up on high. “Come upon them from over against the baca- may be, according to bushes,” shows that the attack was not נִשֵ את The unusual form forbidden; all that was forbidden was the the context, the third pers. fem. perf. Niph., making of the attack by advancing straight and forward: instead of that, they were to try to fall ,נִשֶאֶ ת having first been changed into נִשָ את cf. Ew. § 194, b. In 2 upon them in the rear, by making a circuit. The ;נִשֵ את thus contracted into Sam. 19:43 the same form is the infin. abs. Niph. chronicler consequently gives us an explanation is here, as frequently in the Chronicles, of the ambiguous words of 2 Samuel, which לְּמַעְּלָ ה might easily be misunderstood. As David’s used to intensify the expression: cf. 22:5; 23:17; question was doubtless expressed as it is in v. 29:3, 25; 2 Chronicles 1:1; 17:12. With regard might be לֹׁא תַעֲלֶ ה the answer ,הַאֶעֱלֶה עַ ל הפל׳ ,10 to the sons of David, see on 3:5–8. understood to mean, “Go not up against them, In the account of the victories over the attack them not, but go away behind them;” but Philistines, the statement (Sam. v. 17) that Come“ ,ּובָ אתָ לָהֶ ם וגו׳ David went down to the mountain-hold, which with that the following has no important connection with the main fact, upon them from the baca-bushes,” did not seem and would have been for the readers of the to harmonize. The chronicler consequently Chronicle somewhat obscure, is exchanged in v. explains the first clauses of the answer thus: Go not up straight behind them,” i.e., advance“ , אוַיֵצֵ לִפְּ נֵיהֶ ם for the more general expression 8 not against them so as to attack them openly,

1 CHRONICLES Page 116 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

“but turn thyself away from them,” i.e., strike off built with the help of King Hiram (1 Chronicles but ,בָ נָ ה is not synonymous with עָׂשָ ה in such a direction as to turn their flank, and 14:1). For come upon them from the front of the baca- expresses the preparation of the building for a bushes. In this way the apparently dwelling, and the words refer to the completion contradictory texts are reconciled without the of the palace as a dwelling-place for the king alteration of a word. In v. 17, which is wanting and his wives and children. In thus making the in Samuel, the author concludes the account of palace which had been built fit for a habitation, these victories by the remark that they tended David prepared a place for the ark, which, greatly to exalt the name of David among the together with its tent, was to be placed in his nations. For similar reflections, cf. 2 Chronicles palace. As to the reasons which influenced David in determining to erect a new tabernacle 2 ,וַיֵצֵא שֵ ם and for ;14:13 ;20:29 ;17:10 Chronicles 26:15. for the ark, instead of causing the old and sacred tabernacle to be brought from Gibeon to 1 Chronicles 15 Jerusalem for the purpose, see the remarks 1 Chronicles 15:1–16:3. The bringing of the introductory to 2 Sam. 6. ark into Jerusalem.—In the parallel account, 2 1 Chronicles 15:2ff. The reason for the Sam. 6:11–23, only the main facts as to the preparations made on this occasion for the transfer of the holy ark to Jerusalem, and the solemn progress is assigned in the statement setting of it up in a tent erected for its reception that David had resolved to cause the ark to be on Mount Zion, are shortly narrated; but the carried by the Levites alone, because God had author of the Chronicle elaborately portrays the chosen them thereto; cf. Num. 1:50; 4:15; 7:9; religious side of this solemn act, tells of the at that time,” i.e., at the end of the“ ,אָ ֹז .10:17 preparations which David had made for it, and there is not to“ ,לֹׁא לָׂשֵ את .gives a special enumeration of the Levites, who three months, 13:14 at the call of the king laboured with him to bear,” i.e., no other shall bear the ark than the carry it out according to the precepts of the law. Levites. “By this arrangement, it is expressly For this purpose he first gives an account of the acknowledged that it was contrary to the law to preparations (1 Chronicles 15:1–24), viz., of the place it upon a cart; 1 Chronicles 13:17” erection of a tent for the ark in the city of David (Berth.). For this purpose, the king assembled (v. 1), of the consultation of the king with the “the whole of Israel” in Jerusalem, i.e., the priests and Levites (vv. 2–13), and of the elders, the rulers over thousands, the heads of accomplishment of that which they had families; cf. 2 Sam. 6:15, where it is stated that .took part in the solemn march כָ ל־בֵ ית יִׂשְּרָ אֵ ל .(determined upon (vv. 14–29 1 Chronicles 15:1. In 2 Sam. 6:12a the whole 1 Chronicles 15:4. From among assembled matter is introduced by a statement that the Israel David then specially gathered together motive which had determined the king to bring the heads of the priests and Levites, to the ark to Jerusalem, was his having heard of determine upon the details of this solemn the blessing which the ark had brought upon procession. “The sons of Aaron” are the high the house of Obed-edom. In our narrative (v. 1), priests Zadok and Abiathar, v. 11; and the the remark that David, while building his house “Levites” are the six princes named in vv. 5–10, in Jerusalem, prepared a place for the ark of with their brethren, viz., (vv. 5–7) the three God, and erected a tent for it, forms the heads of the families into which the tribe of transition from the account of his palace- Levi was divided, and which corresponded to building (1 Chronicles 14:1ff.) to the bringing in the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and of the ark. The words, “he made unto himself Merari, respectively (Ex. 6:16): Uriel head of the houses,” do not denote, as Bertheau thinks, the Kohathites, Asaiah of the Merarites, and Joel building of other houses besides the palaces head of the Gershonites, with their brethren.

1 CHRONICLES Page 117 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Kohath is first enumerated, because Aaron the 1 Chronicles 15:13. “For because in the chief of the priests was descended from Kohath, beginning (i.e., when the ark was removed from and because to the Kohathites there fell, on the house of Amminadab, 1 Chronicles 13) it account of their nearer relationship to the was not you (sc., who brought it up), did Jahve priests, the duty of serving in that which is most our God made a breach upon us,” sc. by the holy, the bearing of the holiest vessels of the slaying of Uzza, 13:11. In the first clause the tabernacle. See Num. 4:4, 15; 7:9; as to Uriel, predicate is wanting, but it may easily be see on 6:9; for Asaiah, see 6:15; and as to Joel, supplied from the context. The contracted form is ,בָרִ אשונָ ה and לְּמָ ה made up of ,לְּמַבָרִ שונָ ה see 6:21. Then in vv. 8, 9 we have the heads of three other Kohathite families: Shemaiah, chief is so united only with small מָ ה unique, since of the sons of Elizaphan, i.e., Elizaphan son of Isa. 3:15; but we ,מַלָכֶ ם ,Ex. 4:2 ,מַ זֶ ה the Kohathite Uzziel (Ex. 6:22); Eliel, chief of words, as in ,Mal. 1:13; cf. Ew. § 91 ,מַ ה־ֹּתְּ לָאָ ה for מַֹּתְּ לָאָ ה the sons of Hebron the Kohathite (Ex. 6:18); find and Amminadab, chief of the sons of Uzziel. The = here signifies: on account of this which לְּמָ ה .d sons of Uzziel, consequently, were divided into two fathers’-houses: the one founded by because; cf.’Ew. § 222, a, and 353, a. “This was Uzziel’s son Elizaphan, and named after him (v. done, because we did not seek Him according to 8); the other founded by his other sons, and the right,” which required that the ark, upon called by his name. Of the fathers’-houses here which Jehovah sits enthroned, should be enumerated, four belong to Kohath, and one carried by Levites, and touched by no unholy each to Merari and Gershon; and the Kohathites person, or one who is not a priest (Num. 4:15). were called to take part in the solemn act in 1 Chronicles 15:14f. The Levites consecrated greater numbers than the Merarites and themselves, and bare—as v. 15 anticipatively Gershonites, since the transport of the ark was remarks—the ark of God upon their shoulders, the Kohathites’ special duty. according to the prescription in Num. 7:9, by means of poles upon them (the ,בַ ֹּמוטות עֲלֵיהֶ ם Chronicles 15:11. Zadok of the line of 1 the flexible pole used for ,מוטָ ה .(Eleazar (1 Chronicles 5:27–41), and Abiathar of shoulders the line of Ithamar, were the heads of the two carrying burdens, Num. 13:23. Those used to priestly lines, and at that time both held the ,in the Pentateuch בַדִ ים carry the ark are called office of high priest (1 Chronicles 24:3; cf. 2 Sam. 15:24ff., 20:25). These priests and the six Ex. 25:13ff. princes of the Levites just enumerated were 1 Chronicles 15:16–24. David gave the princes charged by David to consecrate themselves of the Levites a further charge to appoint with their brethren, and to bring up the ark of singers with musical instruments for the .to solemn procession, which they accordingly did ,הִתְּקַדֵ ש .God to the place prepared for it instruments to accompany the song. In ,כְּלֵי שִ יר consecrate oneself by removal of all that is ,נְּבָלִ ים :unclean, washing of the body and of the clothes v. 16 three kinds of these are named (Gen. 35:2), and careful keeping aloof from nablia, ψαλτήρια, which Luther has translated every defilement, avoiding coition and the by psalter, corresponds to the Arabic santir, touching of unclean things; cf. Ex. 19:10, 15. which is an oblong box with a broad bottom to (the place) which I have and a somewhat convex sounding-board, over ,אֶ ל־הֲכִ ינותִ י לו is a relative clause which strings of wire are stretched; an הֲכִ ינותִ י לו .prepared for it כִ ,ּנֹׁרות .instrument something like the cithara construed with a preposition as ,אֲשֶ ר with harps, more properly lutes, as this instrument though it were a substantive: cf. similar more resembled our lute than the harp, and constructions, 29:3, 2 Chronicles 16:9; 30:18, corresponded to the Arabic catgut instrument Neh. 8:10; and Ew. § 33, b. el ‘ûd (}l-{ûd); cf. Wetzstein in Delitzsch, Isaiah,

1 CHRONICLES Page 118 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

S. 702, der 2 Aufl., where, however, the which are repeated in v. 20, have been there statement that the santir is essentially the same transposed. All the other names in vv.18 and 20 as the old German cymbal, vulgo Hackebrett, is coincide. incorrect, and calculated to bring confusion into 1 Chronicles 15:19–21. These singers formed the matter, for the cymbal was an instrument three choirs, according to the instruments they the later played. Heman, Asaph, and Ethan played brazen ,מִצִלְֹּּתַ יִם .provided with a small bell v. 19); Benaiah and the seven) לְּהַשְּמִיעַ cymbals, castanets; see on 2 cymbals ,צֶלְּצְּלִ ים word for עַל עֲלָ מות (does not belong to the three who follow played nablia (psalteria מַשְּמִיעִ ים .Sam. 6:5 עַ ל (before-mentioned instruments (Berth.), but, as (v. 20); while the last six played lutes (harps v. 21). These three Hebrew words) הַשְּמִ ינִית לְּנַצֵחַ is clear from vv. 19, 28, 16:5, 42, undoubtedly only to (Böttcher, Neue krit. Aehrenlese, ,plainly denote different keys in singing, but are מְּצִלְֹּּתַ יִם iii. S. 223); but the meaning is not “modulating,” owing to our small acquaintance with the music but “sounding clear or loud,”—according to the of the Hebrews, obscure, and cannot be going over from ,נַצֵחַ .proper meaning of the word, to make to hear. interpreted with certainty The infinitive clause belongs to the the fundamental signification glitter, shine, into לְּהָרִ ים וגו׳ preceding sentence: “in order to heighten the the idea of outshining and superior capacity, sound (both of the song and of the instrumental overwhelming ability, might also, as a musical music) to joy,” i.e., to the expression of joy. term, denote the conducting of the playing and is frequently used to express festive joy: singing as well as the leading of them. The לְּׂשִ ימְּחָ ה cf. v. 25, 2 Chronicles 23:18; 29:30; but also as signification to direct is here, however, early as in 2 Sam. 6:12, 1 Sam. 18:6; Judg. 16:23, excluded by the context, for the conductors etc.—In vv. 17, 18 the names of the singers and were without doubt the three chief musicians players are introduced; then in vv. 19–21 they or bandmasters (Capellenmeister), Heman, are named in connection with the instruments Asaph, and Ethan, with the cymbals, not the they played; and finally, in vv. 22–24, the other psaltery and lute players belonging to the Levites and priests who took part in the second rank. The conducting must therefore be and this word must mean ,לְּהַשְּמִיעַ celebration are mentioned. The three chief expressed by singers, the Kohathite Heman, the Gershonite “in order to give a clear tone,” i.e., to regulate לְּנַצֵחַ Asaph, and the Merarite Ethan, form the first the tune and the tone of the singing, while class. See on 6:18, 24, and 29. To the second signifies “to take the lead in playing;” cf.Del. on class ( , cf. , 2 Kings 23:4) belonged Ps. 4:1. This word, moreover, is probably not to הַֹּמִשְּ נֶ ה הַֹּמִשְּ נִים thirteen or fourteen persons, for in v. 21 an be restricted to the singers with the lutes, the Azaziah is named in the last series who is third choir, but must be held to refer also to the omitted in v. 18; and it is more probable that second choir. The meaning then will be, that his name has been dropped out of v. 18 than Heman, Asaph, and Ethan had cymbals to direct that it came into our text, v. 21, by an error. In v. the song, while the other singers had partly by an error or psalteries, partly lutes, in order to play the ֹזְּכַרְּ יָהּו comes in after בֵ ן 18 before the accompaniment to the singing. The song of ו transcription, as we learn from the these two choirs is moreover distinguished and following name, and from a comparison of vv. These . לעַ הַשְּמִ ינִית and עַל עֲלָ מות defined by is in v. 20 written יַעֲ ֹזִ יאֵ ל and 25. The name 20 after עַל עֲלָ מות ;words specify the kind of voices ,יְּעִיאֵ ל Yodh being rejected; and in 16:5 it is ,עֲ ֹזִיאֵ ל עַ ל ;which is probably only a transcriber’s error, the manner of virgins, i.e., in the soprano after the octave, i.e., in bass—al ottava ,הַשְּמִ ינִית occurs along with it both in v. 18 and יְּעִיאֵ ל since in 16:5. The names Benaiah and Maaseiah, bassa. See Del. on Ps. 6:1; 46:1. In vv. 22–24 the

1 CHRONICLES Page 119 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

ׂשָרַ ר in the signification of סָרַ ר still remaining priests who were engaged in the imperf. of solemn procession are enumerated. (Bertheau and others), but a nominal formation cf. on this formation as the most) יָסַ ר Chronicles 15:22. “Chenaniah, the prince of from 1 the Levites, for the bearing, teacher in bearing; proper designation of the actor, Ew. § 152, b), in for he was instructed in it.” Since Chenaniah the signification teacher, which is shown by Isa. does not occur among the six princes of the יָסֹׁר The clause .יָסַ ר certainly to belong to 28:26 הַשַ ר Levites in vv. 5–10, and is called in v. 27 gives the explanation of the preceding בַֹּמַשָ א as most) בְּמַשָ א we must here also join ,הַֹּמַשָ א or it specifies what Chenaniah had to do ,בְּמַשָ א while’,במׂשא editions punctuate the first in the procession. He had to take the lead in the is the right reading בַֹּמַשָ א according to Norzi in it, i.e., was מֵבִ ין bearing because he was instructed in that which was to be observed in ,ׂשַ ר־הַ לְּוִיִם even in the first case) closely with with the meaning that Chenaniah was captain it.—In v. 23 two doorkeepers for the ark are of the Levites who had charge of the bearing of named; and in v. 24, at the end of the the ark, a chief of the Levites who bore it. The enumeration of the Levites who were busied is,however, very variously about the transport, two additional names are מַשָ א word interpreted. The LXX have ἄρχων τῶν ᾠδῶν, and mentioned as those of men who had the same the Vulgate, prophetiae praeerat ad duty. The business of these doorkeepers was, as praecinendam melodiam; whence Luther Seb. Schmidt has already remarked on 2 Sam. 6, translates: the master in song to teach them to non tam introitum aperire arcae, quam sing. This translation cannot, however, be custodire, ne ad eam irrumperetur. Between means only these two pairs of doorkeepers in v. 24, the מַשָ א linguistically upheld; the word priests, seven in number, who blew the the bearing of the burden (Num. 4:19, 27, etc.; 2 trumpets, are named. The Kethibh is to מחצצרים Chronicles 35:3), and a prophetical utterance of the Keri ;חֲ צֹׁצְּרָ ה a denom. from ,מַחֲ צֹׁצְּרִ ים an oppressive or threatening character (Isa. be read ;as in 2 Chronicles 7:6 ,חָ צַ ר is Hiph. of מַחְּ צְּרִ ים and 15:1, etc.). But from this second ,13:1 signification neither the general meaning 13:14, and 29:28. In 2 Chronicles 5:12 and 13, prophetia, nor, if we wish to go back upon the is partic. Pi. The מְּחַ צְּרִ ים ,on the contrary to raise the voice, the signification ,נָׂשָ א קול blowing of the silver trumpets by the priests in master of song, supremus musicus (Lavat.), or this solemn procession rests on the qui principatum tenebat in cantu illo sublimiore prescription in Num. 10:1–10, which see. The (Vatabl.), can be derived. The meaning place assigned to these trumpet-blowing prophetia, moreover, does not suit the context, priests was either immediately before the ark, and we must consequently, with Bertheau and like the priestly trumpeters in the march round others, hold fast the signification of bearing. We Jericho (Josh. 6:4, 6), or immediately after it. are determined in favour of this, (1) by the For, that these priests entered in the immediate context, which here treats of the bearing of the vicinity of the ark, may be inferred from the fact is the usual word; and (2) by that before and behind them were doorkeepers מַשָ א ark, for which the circumstance that in 26:29 Chenaniah is of the ark. The procession, then, was probably mentioned as the chief of the Levites for the arranged in this way: (1) the singers and external business, which goes to show, if the players in front, in three division; (2) persons are identical, that he here had the Chenaniah, the captain of the bearers; (3) two oversight of the external business of the doorkeepers; (4) the priests with the trumpets is not the inf. absol., which cannot immediately before or after the ark; (5) two יָסֹׁר .transport stand directly for the verb. finit.; nor is it the doorkeepers; (6) the king with the elders and captains of thousands (v. 25). The two

1 CHRONICLES Page 120 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

while the words ,מכרבל as מכרכר might write ,(יְּחִ יָה) doorkeepers Obededom and Jehiah which were probably illegible,were ,בכל עֹז Rashi, Berth.,and others consider to be the same persons as the singers Obededom and This opinion would ”.במעיל בוץ conjecture to be supposing that the latter name is ,(יְּעִיאֵ ל) Jeiel be worthy of consideration, if only the other wrongly written in one of the passages. This, discrepancies between the Chronicle and however, is incorrect, for the identity of the Samuel were thereby made more name Obededom is no sufficient ground for comprehensible. That, besides David, the supposing the persons to be the same, since in bearers of the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah 16:38 the singer Obededom and the doorkeeper are mentioned, Bertheau thinks can be easily Obededom the son of Jeduthun seem to be explained by what precedes; but how can that distinguished. And besides that, Obededom and of Samuel לפני יהוה explain the absence of the his colleagues could not possibly at the same time as porters precede, and as singers come from our text? Bertheau passes this over in after, the priests and the ark, and there is silence; and yet it is just the absence of these מכרבל במעיל consequently no reason to doubt that the name words in our text which shows that cannot have arisen from an orthographical בוץ .is correct יְּחִ יָה לפני יהוה since ,בכל עֹז Chronicles 15:25–16:3. narrate the further error and the illegibility of 1 proceedings connected with the bring of the ark must have been purposely omitted. Böttcher’s to Jerusalem; cf. 2 Sam. 6:12–19. By the words opinion (N. kr. Aehrenl. iii. S. 224), that the can scarcely have been מכרבל the account of the execution of the Chaldaizing וַיְּהִי דָ וִ יד וגו׳ design is connected with the statements as to written by the chronicler, because it is not at all the preparations (vv. 2–24): “And so were like his pure Hebrew style, and that David … who went to bring up the ark.” consequently a later reader, who considered it 1 Chronicles 15:26. When God had helped the objectionable that a Levite should dance, and Levites who bare the ark of the covenant of perhaps impossible that the bearers should Jahve, they offered seven bullocks and seven (forgetting that they were released in turn from rams, i.e., after the journey had been happily performing their office), while holding as accomplished. Instead of this, in 2 Sam. 6:13, closely to the letter of the text as possible, and ,מכרבל במעיל בוץ into מכרכר בכל עֹז the offering which was made at the corrected commencement of the journey to consecrate it that the same person, or perhaps a later, added is still less probable. In ,וְּהַמְּ שֹׁרְּרִ יםּוכְּ נַנְּיָה is mentioned; see on the passage. besides 1 Chronicles 15:27. The discrepancy between that way, indeed, we get no explanation of the v. 27 and 2 Sam. 6:14 is more difficult of הַ לְּוִיִם main difficulty, viz., how the words from דָ וִדמְּכַרְּ כֵ ר explanation. Instead of the words ,came into the text of the Chronicle הַמְּ שֹׁרְּרִ ים to David danced with all his might ,בְּכָ ל־עֹֹׁז לִפְּ נֵי יהוה of Samuel. The לפני יהוה instead of the דָ וִ יד before Jahve, we read in the Chronicle וְּדָ וִ יד supposition that originally the words from David was clothed with a robe ,מְּכֻרְּ בָ לבִמְּעִ יל בּוץ stood in the וְּהַמְּ שֹׁרְּרִ ים to מְּכַרְּ רכֵ בְּכָ ל־עֹֹׁז וְּכָ ל־הַ לְּוִיִם מכרבל differs from מכרכר of byssus. But since text, when of course the statement would be, ,might be not only that David danced with all his might כר only in the last two letters, and we may suppose that but also that all the Levites who bore the ark ,בל easily exchanged for danced,is in the highest degree unsatisfactory; Bertheau .מכרכר has arisen out of מכרבל for this reason, if for no other, that we cannot accordingly says: “Any one who remembered conceive how the singers could play the nebel that in this verse David’s clothing was spoken of and the kinnor and dance at the same time,

1 CHRONICLES Page 121 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study since it is not alternations between singing and justified and shown to be in accordance with playing, and dancing and leaping that are the circumstances. The words therefore are to to וְּכָ ל־הַ לְּוִיִם spoken of. be so understood. The words from and may ,וְּדָ וִ יד are co-ordinate with הַשַ רהַֹּמַשָ א The discrepancy can only be got rid of by supposing that both narratives are abridged translate the verse thus: “David was clothed in extracts from a more detailed statement, which a me’il of byssus, as also were all the Levites,” contained, besides David’s dancing, a completer etc. No objection can be taken to the הַשַ רהַֹּמַשָ א account of the clothing of the king, and of the Levites who took part in the procession. Of when we have the article with a nomen regens, these the author of the books of Samuel has for cases of this kind frequently occur where communicated only the two characteristic facts, the article, as here, has a strong retrospective הַמְּ שֹׁרְּרִ ים ,that David danced with all his might before the force; cf. Ew. § 290, d. On the contrary is meaningless, and can only have הַֹּמַשָ א Lord, and wore an of white; while the after author of the Chronicle gives us an account of come into the text, like in v. 18, by an error of בֵ ן David’s clothing and that of the Levites, while he omits David’s dancing. This he does, not the transcriber, although it was so read as early because he was scandalized thereby, for he not as the time of the LXX. For the last clause, cf. 2 only gives a hint of it in v. 29, but mentions it in Sam. 6:14. 13:8, which is parallel to 2 Sam. 6:5; but 1 Chronicles 15:28. V. 28 is, as compared with because the account of the king’s clothing, and 2 Sam. 6:5, somewhat enlarged by the of that of the Levites, in so far as the religious enumeration of the individual instruments. meaning of the solemn progress was thereby brought out, appeared to him more important 1 Chronicles 16 for his design of depicting at length the 1 Chronicles 15:29–16:3. V. 29 and 1 religious side of the procession. For the clothing Chronicles 16:1–3 agree in substance with 2 of the king had a priestly character; and not Sam. 6:15–19a, only some few words being מְּפַ זֵ ֹז v. 29, instead of , דמְּרַקֵ ּומְּׂשַחֵ ק ,.only the ephod of white (see on 2 Sam. 6:14), explained: e.g אֲ רון instead of אֲ רון בְּרִ ית יהוה Sam.), and) ּומְּכַרְּ כֵ ר ,white byssus ,בּוץ but also the me’il of .Sam.); see the commentary on 2 Sam. l.c) יהוה distinguished the king as head of a priestly people. The me’il as such was,it is true, an outer garment which every Israelite might wear, but 1 Chronicles 16:4–42. The religious festival, it was worn usually only by persons of rank and and the arrangement of the sacred service before distinction (cf. 1 Sam. 2:19; 15:27; 18:4; 24:5; the ark of the covenant in the city of David.— Ezra 9:3; Job 29:14), and white byssus was the This section is not found in 2nd Samuel, where material for the priests’ garments. Among the the Conclusion of this whole description (v.43, articles of clothing which the law prescribed for Chron.) follows immediately upon the feasting the official dress of the simple priest (Ex. 28:40) of the people by the king, vv. 19b and 20. a 1 Chronicles 16:46. When the solemnity of the ,כְּ תונֶ ת was not included, but only the מְּעִ יל the tight close-fitting coat; but the priests were not transfer of the ark, the sacrificial meal, and the thereby prevented from wearing a me’il of dismissal of the people with a blessing, and a byssus on special festive occasions, and we are distribution of food, were ended, David set in informed in 2 Chronicles 5:12 that even the order the service of the Levites in the holy tent Levites and singers were on such occasions clad on Zion. He appointed before the ark, from in byssus. In this way the statement of our among the Levites, servants to praise and verse, that David and all the Levites and bearers celebrate God, i.e., singers and players to sing ,לְּהַ ֹזְּכִ יר .of the ark, the singers, and the captain psalms as a part of the regular worship Chenaniah, had put on me’ilim of byssus, is literally, “in order to bring into remembrance,”

1 CHRONICLES Page 122 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

committed to Asaph in vv. 8–36, a הודות לַ יהוה is not to praise in general, but is to be in the song of thanks and praise is given, which the לְּהַ ֹזְּכִ יר interpreted according to the superscription of Ps. 38 and 70, by which these Levites were to sing as part of the service with psalms are designated as the appointed prayers instrumental accompaniment. It is not at the presentation of the Azcarah of the meat- expressly said that this song was composed by accordingly is a denom. David for this purpose; but if Asaph with his הַ ֹזְּכִ יר .(offering (Lev. 2:2 singers was to perform the service committed to present the Azcarah (cf. Del. on ,אַ ֹזְּכָרָ ה from to him, he must have been provided with the Ps. 38:1), and is in our verse to be understood songs of praise (psalms) which were necessary of the recital of these prayer-songs with for this purpose; and if David were in any way to confess, the founder of the liturgical psalmody, he, as a ,הודות .musical accompaniment refers to the psalms in which invocation and richly endowed psalm-singer, would doubtless acknowledgment of the name of the Lord compose the necessary liturgical psalms. These to those in which praise considerations render it very probable that the הַ לֵ ל predominates, and (Hallelujah) is the prominent feature. In vv. 5 following psalm was a hymn composed by and 6 there follow the names of the Levites David for the liturgical song in the public appointed for this purpose, who have all been worship. The psalm is as follows:— already mentioned in 15:19–21 as 8 Give thanks unto Jahve; preach His name; accompanying the ark in its transmission; but Make known His deeds among the peoples: all who are there spoken of are not included in 9 Sing to Him, play to Him; our list here. Of the chief singers only Asaph is mentioned, Heman and Ethan being omitted; of Meditate upon all His wondrous works. the singers and players of the second rank, only 10 Glory ye in His holy name: nine; six of the eight nebel-players (1 Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the .is a transcriber’s error Lord יְּעִיאֵ ל .Chronicles 15:20 ;and only three of the six 11 Seek ye the Lord, and His strength ,(15:18 ,יַעֲ ֹזִיאֵ ל for kinnor-players; while instead of seven trumpet- Seek His face continually. blowing priests only two are named, viz., 12 Remember His wonders which He has done; Benaiah, one of those seven, and Jehaziel, His wondrous works, and the judgments of whose name does not occur in 15:24. His mouth; 1 Chronicles 16:7. On that day David first 13 O seed of Israel, His servants, committed it to Asaph and his sons to give Sons of Jacob, His chosen. ,בְּ יַד is to be connected with נָתַ ן .thanks to Jahve 14 He, Jahve, is our God; which is separated from it by several words, and denotes to hand over to, here to commit to, His judgments go forth over all the earth. to enjoin upon, since that which David 15 Remember eternally His covenant, committed to Asaph was the carrying out of a The word which He commanded to a business which he enjoined, not an object thousand generations: ,is 16 Which He made with Abraham בַ יום הַ הּוא .which may be given into the hand ;at the beginning,” “at And His oath to Isaac“ ,בָ רֹׁאש .אָ ֹז accented by first,” to bring out the fact that liturgical singing 17 And caused it to stand to Jacob for a law, ;the brethren of To Israel as an everlasting covenant ,אֶחָ יו .was then first introduced Asaph, are the Levites appointed to the same 18 Saying, “To thee I give the land Canaan, duty, whose names are given in vv. 5, 6. But in As the heritage meted out to you.” order to give a more exact description of the

1 CHRONICLES Page 123 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

19 When ye were still a people to be And gather us together, and deliver us from numbered, the heathen, Very few, and strangers therein, To give thanks to Thy holy name, 20 And they wandered from nation to nation, To glory in Thy praise. From one kingdom to another people, 36 Blessed be Jahve, the God of Israel, 21 He suffered no man to oppress them, From everlasting to everlasting. And reproved kings for their sake: And all the people said , and praised 22 “Touch not mine anointed ones, Jahve. And do my prophets no harm.” 1 Chronicles 16:8–36. This hymn forms a connected and uniform whole. Beginning with a 23 Sing unto Jahve, all the lands; summons to praise the Lord, and to seek His Show forth from day to day His salvation. face (vv. 8–11), the singer exhorts his people to 24 Declare His glory among the heathen, remember the wondrous works of the Lord (vv. Among all people His wondrous works. 12–14), and the covenant which He made with 25 For great is Jahve, and greatly to be praised; the patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan (vv. 15–18), and confirms his exhortation by And to be feared is He above all the gods. pointing out how the Lord, in fulfilment of His 26 For all the gods of the people are idols; promise, had mightily and gloriously defended And Jahve has made the heavens. the patriarchs (vv. 19–22). But all the world 27 Majesty and splendour is before Him; also are to praise Him as the only true and almighty God (vv. 23–27), and all peoples do Strength and joy are in His place. homage to Him with sacrificial gifts (vv. 28–30); 28 Give unto Jahve, ye kindreds of the people, and that His kingdom may be acknowledged Give unto Jahve glory and strength. among the heathen, even inanimate nature will 29 Give unto Jahve the honour of His name: rejoice at His coming to judgment (vv. 31–33). In conclusion, we have again the summons to Bring an offering, and come before His thankfulness,combined with a prayer that God presence; would further vouchsafe salvation; and a Worship the Lord in the holy ornaments. doxology rounds off the whole (vv. 34–36). 30 Tremble before Him, all the lands; When we consider the contents of the whole Then will the earth stand fast unshaking. hymn, it is manifest that it contains nothing 31 Let the heavens be glad, and the earth which would be at all inconsistent with the rejoice; belief that it was composed by David for the above-mentioned religious service. There is And they will say among the heathen, Jahve nowhere any reference to the condition of the is King. people in exile, nor yet to the circumstances 32 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof; after the exile. The subject of the praise to Let the field exult, and all that is thereon. which Israel is summoned is the covenant 33 Then shall the trees of the wood rejoice which God made with Abraham, and the wonderful way in which the patriarchs were Before the Lord; for He comes to judge the led. The summons to the heathen to earth. acknowledge Jahve as alone God and King of the 34 Give thanks unto Jahve, for He is good; world, and to come before His presence with For His mercy endureth for ever. sacrificial offerings, together with the thought 35 And say, “Save us, God of our salvation:” that Jahve will come to judge the earth, belong to the Messianic hopes. These had formed

1 CHRONICLES Page 124 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study themselves upon the foundation of the that v. 36 is even the doxology of the fourth promises given to the patriarchs, and the view book of Psalms, taken to be a component part of they had of Jahve as Judge of the heathen, when the psalm. These two latter grounds would be He led His people out of Egypt,so early, that decisive, if the facts on which they rest were even in the song of Moses at the Red Sea (Ex. well authenticated. If. v. 36 really contained 15), and the song of the pious Hannah (1 Sam. only the doxology of the fourth book of 2:1–10), we meet with the first germs of them; Psalms—which, like the doxologies of the first, and what we find in David and the prophets second, and third books (Ps. 41:14; 72:18, 19, after him are only further development of and 89:53), was merely formally connected these. with the psalm, without being a component Yet all the later commentators, with the part of it,—there could be no doubt that the exception of Hitzig, die Psalmen, ii. S. ix.f., judge author of the Chronicle had taken the otherwise as to the origin of this festal hymn. conclusion of his hymn from our collection of Because the first half of it (vv. 8–22) recurs in psalms, as these doxologies only date from the Ps. 105:1–15, the second (vv. 23–33) in Ps. 96, originators of our collection. But this is not the and the conclusion (vv. 34–36) in Ps. 106:1, 47, state of the case. The 48th verse of the 106th 48, it is concluded that the author of the Psalm does, it is true, occupy in our Psalter the Chronicle compounded the hymn from these place of the doxology to the fourth book, but three psalms, in order to reproduce the festive belonged, as Bertheau also acknowledges, songs which were heard after the ark had been originally to the psalm itself. For not only is it brought in, in the same free way in which the different in form from the doxologies of the first ןאָמֵ וְּאָמֵ ן speeches in Thucydides and Livy reproduce three books, not having the double what was spoken at various times. Besides the with which these books close, but it concludes ןאָמֵ וְּאָמֵ ן If the . ןאָמֵ הַ לְּ לּו־יָּה later commentators, Aug. Koehler (in the Luth. with the simple Ztschr. 1867, S. 289ff.) and C. Ehrt connected by is, in the Old Testament ו ,Abfassungszeit und Abschluss des Psalters) Leipz. 1869, S. 41ff.) are of the same opinion. language, exclusively confined to these The possibility that our hymn may have arisen doxologies, which thus approach the language in this way cannot be denied; for such a of the liturgical Beracha of the , supposition would be in so far consistent with as Del. Ps. p. 15 rightly remarks, while in Num. without אָמֵן אָמֵ ן the character of the Chronicle, as we find in it 5:22 and Neh. 8:6 only occurs, it is just this peculiarity of ו speeches which have not been reported copulative verbatim by the hearers, but are given in the liturgical Beracha which is wanting, both in substance or in freer outline by the author of the concluding verse of the 106th Psalm and in our Chronicle, or, as is more probable, by the v. 36 of our festal hymn. Moreover, the author of the original documents made use of remainder of the verse in question,—the last by the chronicler. But this view can only be clause of it, “And let all the people say Amen, shown to be correct if it corresponds to the Halleluiah,”—does not suit the hypothesis that relation in which our hymn may be ascertained the verse is the doxology appended to the to stand to the three psalms just mentioned. conclusion of the fourth book by the collector of Besides the face that its different sections are the Psalms, since, as Hengstenberg in his again met with scattered about in different commentary on the psalm rightly remarks, “it is psalms, the grounds for supposing that our inconceivable that the people should join in hymn is not an original poem are mainly the that which, as mere closing doxology of a book, want of connection in the transition from v. 22 would have no religious character;” and “the to v.23, and from v. 33 to v.34; the fact that in praise in the conclusion of the psalm beautifully v.35 we have a verse referring to the coincides with its commencement, and the Babylonian exile borrowed from Ps. 106; and

1 CHRONICLES Page 125 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Halleluiah of the end is shown to be an original phenomenon is the recurrence of the second part of the psalm by its correspondence with half of Ps. 40:17ff. as an independent psalm, Ps. the beginning.”26 The last verse of our hymn 70. “But it is also readily seen,“continues Hitzig, does not therefore presuppose the existence of “how easily the psalmist might separate the last the collection of psalms, nor in v. 35 is there three verses from each other (vv. 34 to 36 of any indubitable reference to the exilic time. The the Chronicle), and set them as a frame round words, “Say, ‘Save us, Thou God of our Ps. 106. V. 34 is not less suitable in the salvation; gather us together, and deliver us Chronicle for the commencement of a from among the heathen,’ ” do not presuppose paragraph than in Ps. 107, which v. 6 would that the people had been previously led away admit of no continuation, but was the proper into the Chaldean exile, but only the dispersion end. On the other hand, we can scarcely believe of prisoners of war, led away captive into an that the chronicler compiled his song first from enemy’s land after a defeat. This usually Ps. 105, then from Ps. 96, and lastly from Ps. occurred after each defeat of Israel by their 106, striking off from this latter only the enemies, and it was just such cases Solomon beginning and the end.” had in view in his prayer, 1 Kings 8:46–50. Finally, if we compare the text of our hymn with The decision as to the origin of this festal hymn, the text of these psalms, the divergences are of therefore, depends upon its internal such a sort that we cannot decide with certainty characteristics, and the result of a comparison which of the two texts is the original. To pass of the respective texts. The song in itself forms, over such critically indifferent variations as Ps. 105:5; the ,פִ יו Chronicles v. 12, for ,פִ יהּו as Hitz. l.c. S. 19 rightly judges, “a thoroughly coherent and organic whole. The worshippers ,Chronicles v. 18 ,אֵ ת .omission of the nota acc of Jahve are to sing His praise in memory of His covenant which He made with their fathers, and compared with Ps. 105:10, and vice versa in Ps. .Chronicles v ,עֲצֵ י הַ יַעַ ר ;because of which He protected them (vv. 18– 96:3 and Chronicles v. 24 Ps. 96:12, —the ,כָ ל־עֲצֵ י הַ יַעַ ר But all the world also are to praise Him, the 33, instead of .(22 only true God (vv. 23–27); the peoples are to .Ps ,יִׂשְּחָ ק v. 16, instead of ,יִצְּחָ ק chronicler has in come before Him with gifts; yea, even ,Ps. 96:12 ,יַעֲ ֹלֹז v. 32, instead of ,יַעֲ ֹלץ inanimate nature is to pay the King and Judge 105:9, and בִ נְּבִיאַ י its homage (vv. 28–33). Israel—and with this the earlier and more primitive form; in the end returns to the beginning—is to thank .Ps ,לִנְּבִיאַי אַ ל ֹּתָרֵ עּו v. 22, instead of ,אַ ל ֹּתָרֵ עּו Jahve, and invoke His help against the heathen (vv. 34 and 35).” This exposition of the 105:15, a quite unusual construction; and in .v. 23, the older form (cf. Num ,מִ יום אֶ ל יום symmetrical disposition of the psalm is not .Ps. 96:2, as in Esth ,מִ יום לְּ יום rendered questionable by the objections raised 30:15), instead of by Koehler, l.c.; nor can the recurrence of the 3:7; while, on the other hand, instead of the individual parts of it in three different psalms of ,Ps. 105:14 ,הִ ּנִיחַ אָדָ םלְּעָשְּקָ ם unexampled phrase itself at all prove that in the Chronicle we have not the original form of the hymn. “There is there stands in the Chronicle the usual phrase in Ps. 96:12 is the poetical ׂשָדַ י and ,הִ ּנִיחַ לְּאִ יש nothing to hinder us from supposing that the of Chronicles v. 32. More הַשַדֶ ה author of Ps. 96 may be the same as the author form for the of Ps. 105 and 106; but even another might be important are the wider divergences: not so induced by example to appropriate the first half , עֹזֶרַ אַבְּרָ הָ ם Chronicles v. 13, for ,ֹזֶרַ עיִׂשְּרָ אֵ ל much of 1 Chronicles 16:8ff., as his predecessor had appropriated the second, and it would naturally Ps. 105:6, in which latter case it is doubtful refers to the patriarchs or to עַבְּ דו occur to him to supply from his own resources whether the the continuation which had been already taken the people, and consequently, as the away and made use of” (Hitz. l.c.). A similar parallelismus membrorum demands the latter

1 CHRONICLES Page 126 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

בָרְּ כּו .in Ps. 40:4, a Davidic psalm שִ יר חָדָ ש is clearly the more correct and יׂשראל ,references is also met with in Ps. 100:4; and still אֶ ת־שְּ מו ,.and intelligible; but rather than the others, viz ;in Ps. 103:02, 22 ,בָרְּ כּו אֶ ת־יהוה Ps. 105:8; since more frequently ,ֹזָכָ ר Chronicles v. 15, for ,ֹזִכְּ רּו of v. 11, 134:1, and elsewhere, even as early as ֹזִכְּ רּו not only corresponds to the ֹזִכְּ רּו שִ ירּו ליהוה but alto to the use made of the song for the Deborah’s song, Judg. 5:2, 9; while purposes stated in the Chronicle; while, on the occurs in the song of Moses, Ex. 15:1. Since, of the psalm corresponds to the then, the strophes of the 96th Psalm are only ֹזָכַ ר ,contrary object of the psalm, viz., to exalt the covenant reminiscences of, and phrases which we find in, grace shown to the patriarchs. Connected with the oldest religious songs of the Israelites, it is when ye (sons clear that Ps. 96 is not an original poem. It is“ ,בִהְּ יותְּ כֶ ם this also is the reading rather the re-grouping of the well-known and .Ps ,בִהְּ יותָ ם of Jacob) were” (v. 19), instead of current thoughts; and the fact that it is so, 105:12, “when they (the patriarchs) were,” favours the belief that all which this psalm since the narrative of what the Lord had done contains at the beginning and end, which the Now the more likely the Chronicle does not contain, is merely an .בהיותם demanded reference of the words to the patriarchs was to addition made by the poet who transformed suggest itself, the more unlikely is the this part of the chronicler’s hymn into an and the independent psalm for liturgical purposes. This ;בִהְּ יותְּ כֶ ם hypothesis of an alteration into text of the Chronicle being the more difficult, is purpose clearly appears in such variations as ,וְּחֶדְּ וָ הבִמְּ קֹׁמו Ps. 96:6, instead of ,וְּתִ פְּאֶרֶ תבְּמִקְּדָ שו .consequently to be regarded as the earlier ,Ps. 96:8 ,ּובֹׁאּו לְּחַ צְּ רותָ יו Moreover, the divergences of vv. 23 to 33 of our Chronicles v. 27, and hymn from Ps. 96 are such as would result from Chronicles v. 29. Neither ,ּובֹׁאּו לְּפָ נָיו instead of its having been prepared for the above- nor the mention of “courts” is מִקְּדָ ש mentioned solemn festival. The omission of the the word two strophes, “Sing unto Jahve a new song, sing suitable in a hymn sung at the consecration of unto Jahve, bless His name” (Ps. 96:1a and 2a), the holy tent in Zion, for at that time the old in v. 23 of the Chronicle might be accounted for national sanctuary with the altar in the court by regarding that part of our hymn as an (the tabernacle) still stood in Gibeon. abridgment by the chronicler of the original Here, therefore, the text of the Chronicle song, when connecting it with the preceding corresponds to the circumstances of David’s and of courts מִקְּדָ ש praise of God, were it certain on other grounds time, while the mention of that Ps. 96 was the original; but if the in the psalm presupposes the existence of the chronicler’s hymn be the original, we may just temple with its courts as the sanctuary of the as well believe that this section was amplified people of Israel. Now a post-exilic poet would when it was made into an independent psalm. A scarcely have paid so much attention to this comparison of v. 33 (Chron.) with the end of the delicate distinction between times and 96th Psalm favours this last hypothesis, for in circumstances as to alter, in the already existing the Chronicle the repetition of is wanting, psalms, out of which he compounded this festal כִ י בָ א as well as the second hemistich of Ps. 96:13. hymn, the expressions which were not suitable The whole of the 13th verse recurs, with a to the Davidic time. Against this, the use of the joy, which occurs elsewhere ,חֶדְּ וָ ה at the end of the 98th Psalm (v. 9), unusual word ,כִ י בָ א single and the thought is borrowed from the Davidic only in Neh. 10:8, 10, and in Chaldee in Ezra Psalm 9:9. The strophes in the beginning of Ps. 6:18, is no valid objection, for the use of the as early as Ex. 18:9 and Job 3:6 shows חָדָ ה which are omitted from Chronicles v.16, verb ,96 often recur. The phrase, “Sing unto Jahve a new that the word does not belong to the later song,” is met within Ps. 33:3; 98:1, and 149:1,

1 CHRONICLES Page 127 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Hebrew. The discrepancy also between vv. 30 independent psalm. Finally, there can be no and 31 and Ps. 96:9–11, namely, the omission in doubt as to the priority of the chronicler’s hymn in vv. 34–36. The author of the Chronicle יָדִ יןעַֹּמִ ים בְּמֵישָרִ ים the Chronicle of the strophe did not require to borrow the liturgical formula וְּ יֹׁאמְּ רּו Ps. v. 10), and the placing of the clause) from Ps. 106:1, for it occurs הודּו לַ יהוה כִ י טוב וגו׳ ,Chronicles v. 31) וְּתָ גֵ ל הָאָרֶ ץ after בַ גויִם יהוה מָ לַ ְך in as complete a form in Ps. 97:1; 118:1, 29; cf. Ps. 96:10), does not really prove anything as 136:1, and, not to mention 2 Chronicles 5:13; to the priority of Ps. 96. Hitzig, indeed, thinks 7:3; 20:21, is a current phrase with Jeremiah that since by the omission of the one member (Jer. 33:11), and is without doubt an ancient the parallelism of the verses is disturbed, and a liturgical form. Vv. 35 and 36, too, contain such triple verse appears where all the others are divergences from Ps. 106:47 and 48, that it is in double merely, and because by this alteration the highest degree improbable that they were the clause, “Say among the people, Jahve is borrowed from that psalm. Not only is the King,” has come into an apparently unsuitable ,but also ,אִמְּ רּו introduced by הושִ יעֵ נּו וגו׳ prayer position, between an exhortation to the heaven אֱ ֹלהֵ י of the psalm, we have יהוה אֱ ֹלהֵ ינּו and earth to rejoice, and the roaring of the sea instead of is added,—a change וְּהַצִ ילֵ נּו ,וְּקַ בְּצֵ נּו and to ;יִשְּ עֵ נּו and its fulness, this clause must have been unsuitably placed by a copyist’s error. But the which causes the words to lose the reference to transposition cannot be so explained; for not the Chaldean exile contained in the text of the only is that one member of the verse misplaced, Psalms. The post-exilic author of the Chronicle ,of the psalm is altered into would scarcely have obliterated this reference אִמְּ רּו but also the and moreover, we get no explanation of and certainly would not have done so in such a וְּ ,יֹׁאמְּ רּו delicate fashion, had he taken the verse from If we .יָדִ ין וגו׳ the omission of the strophe Ps. 106. A much more probable supposition is, consecutive), “then will that the post-exilic author of the 106th Psalm ו with) וְּ יֹׁאמְּ רּו consider they say,” we see clearly that it corresponds to appropriated the concluding verse of David’s to in v. 33; and in v. 30 the recognition him well-known hymn, and modified it to make אָֹז יְּרַ ּנְּ נּו וגו׳ of Jahve’s kingship over the peoples is it fit into his poem. Indubitable instances of represented as the issue and effect of the joyful such alterations are to be found in the exultation of the heaven and earth, just as in vv. conclusion, where the statement of the 32 and 33 the joyful shouting of the trees of the chronicler, that all the people said Amen and field before Jahve as He comes to judge the praised Jahve, is made to conform to the psalm, earth, is regarded as the result of the roaring of beginning as it does with Halleluiah, by altering וְּהַ לֵ ל and let them say,” and of“ ,וְּאָמַ ר into וַ יֹׁאמְּ רּו אִמְּ רּו the sea and the gladness of the fields. The .הַ לְּ לּו־יָּה into ליהוה of the psalm, on the other hand, the summons to the Israelites to proclaim that Jahve is King On the whole, therefore, we must regard the among the peoples, is, after the call, “Let the opinion that David composed our psalm for the whole earth tremble before Him,” a somewhat above-mentioned festival as by far the most tame expression; and after it, again, we should probable. The psalm itself needs no further When commentary; but compare Delitzsch on the .אַ ףֹּתִ כון וגו׳ not expect the much stronger we further consider that the clause which parallel psalms and parts of psalms. follows in the Chronicle, “He will judge the 1 Chronicles 16:37–43. Division of the Levites people in uprightness,” is a reminiscence of Ps. for the management of the public worship.—At 9:9, we must hold the text of the Chronicle to be the same time as he set up the ark in the tent here also the original, and the divergences in erected for it on Mount Zion, David had Ps. 96 for alterations, which were occasioned prepared a new locality for the public worship. by the changing of a part of our hymn into an

1 CHRONICLES Page 128 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

The Mosaic tabernacle had continued, with its the chief musician is a descendant of Merari, altar of burnt-offering, to be the general place while the doorkeeper Jeduthun belongs to the of worship for the congregation of Israel even Korahites (i.e., Kohathites): see on 26:4. is still dependent וְּאֵת צָ דוק .during the long period when the ark was 1 Chronicles 16:39 separated from it, and it was even yet to be so; in v. 37. The priest Zadok with his וַיַעֲ ֹזָב and it became necessary, in order to carry on on the the religious service in both of these brethren he left before the tent of Jahve, i.e., the see בָמָ ה sanctuaries, to divide the staff of religious tabernacle at the Bamah in Gibeon. For officials: and this David now undertook. on 2 Chronicles 1:13, and for Zadok on 5:38. It 1 Chronicles 16:37. Before the ark he left is surprising here that no priest is named as before the accus. superintendent or overseer of the sacrificial לְּ ) Asaph with his brethren obj., according to the later usage), to serve, to worship in the tent of the ark of the covenant. But the omission is accounted for by the fact ,לִדְּבַ ר־יום בְּ יומו .minister there continually that our chapter treats properly only of the “according to the matter of the day on its day,” arrangement of the sacred music connected i.e., according to the service necessary for each with the worship, and Zadok is mentioned as day; cf. for this expression, Ex. 5:13, 19; 16:4, overseer of the sanctuary of the tabernacle at etc. “And Obed-edom and their brethren.” In Gibeon only in order to introduce the statement these words there is a textual error: the plural as to the Levitic singers and players assigned to at least that sanctuary. Without doubt Abiathar as high עֹׁבֵד אֱ דום shows that after אֲחֵיהֶ ם suffix in one name has been dropped out. But besides priest had the oversight of the sacrificial that, the relation in which the words, “and worship in the sanctuary of the tabernacle: see Obed-edom the son of Jeduthun, and Hosah, to on 18:16; with v. 40 cf. Ex. 29:38, Num. 28:3, 6. and in :לְּהַעֲ לות corresponds to לְּכָ ל־הַכָ תּוב be porters,” stand to the preceding clause, “and Obed-edom and their brethren,” is obscure. reference to all, i.e., to look after all, which was Against the somewhat general idea, that the written. This refers not only to the bringing of words are to be taken in an explicative sense, the sacrifices prescribed, in addition to the “and Obed-edom indeed,” etc., the objection daily burnt-offering, but in general to suggests itself, that Obed-edom is here defined everything that it was the priests’ duty to do in to be the son of Jeduthun, and would seem to be the sanctuary. thereby distinguished from the preceding and with them ,וְּעִֹּמָהֶ ם .Obed-edom. In addition to that, in 15:21 and 1 Chronicles 16:41 Obed-edom is mentioned among the singers, (with Zadok and his brethren) were Heman and and in v. 24 one of the doorkeepers bears that Jeduthun, i.e., (the two other chief musicians, name, and they are clearly distinguished as 15:19), with the other chosen famous, sc. see on 12:31). To these ,נִקְּ בּו בְּשֵ מות) being different persons (see p. 509). On the singers other hand, however, the identity of the two belonged those of the number named in 15:18– Obed-edoms in our verse is supported by the 21, 24, who are not mentioned among those fact that in 1 Chronicles 26:4–8 the assigned to Asaph in 16:5 and 6, and probably doorkeepers Obed-edom with his sons and also a number of others whose names have not brethren number sixty-two, which comes been handed down. In v. 42, if the text be can only be in apposition to הֵ ימָ ןוִ ידּותּון ,pretty nearly up to the number mentioned in correct our verse, viz., sixty-eight. Yet we cannot regard and with them, viz., with Heman and“ :עִֹּמָהֶ ם this circumstance as sufficient to identify the two, and must leave the question undecided, Jeduthun, were trumpets,” etc. But, not to because the text of our verse is defective. mention the difficulty that passages analogous Jeduthun the father of Obed-edom is different and parallel to this statement are not to be from the chief musician Jeduthun (= Ethan); for found, the mention of these two chief musicians

1 CHRONICLES Page 129 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study in the connection is surprising; for the musical his wife Michal. This, as res domestica, the instruments mentioned are not merely the author of the Chronicle has omitted, since the s. 15:19) played by them, but also the reference to it in 15:29 seemed sufficient for) מְּצִלְֹּּתַ יִם is not to greet, but לְּבָרֵ ְך .which the priests blew, and other the design of his work חֲ צֹׁצְּ רות instruments. Moreover, the names Heman and to bless his house, just as in v. 2 he had already Jeduthun are not found here in the LXX, and pronounced a blessing on his people in the have probably been inserted in our verse by name of God. some copyist from v. 41, which likewise begins 1 Chronicles 17 If we omit these names, then, the .וְּעִֹּמָהֶ ם with verse contains no other difficulty worthy of David’s Design to Build a Temple, and the consideration, or any which would occasion or Confirmation of His Kingdom. necessitate such violent alterations of the text 1 Chronicles 17. In the Chronicle, as in the second book of Samuel 2 Sam. 7, the account of עִֹּמָהֶ ם as Berth. has proposed. The suffix in refers to the persons mentioned in v. 41, the removal of the ark to the city of David is Heman, Jeduthun, and the other chosen ones. immediately followed by the narrative of “With them were,” i.e., they had by them, David’s design to build a temple to the Lord; is and this arrangement is adopted on account of מַשְּמִיעִ ים before לְּ trumpets, cymbals, etc. The the connection between the subjects, though is in 15:16 connected the events must have been separated by a מַשְּמִיעִ ים strange, since as an adjective, and in 15:19 we period of several years. Our account of this מְּצִלְֹּּתַ יִם with But if we compare v. 5 of our design of David’s, with its results for him and .לְּהַשְּמִיעַ have for his kingdom, is in all essential points is predicate to Asaph, identical with the parallel account, so that we מַשְּמִ יעַ chapter, where “Asaph gave forth clear notes with cymbals,” may refer to the commentary on 2 Sam. 7 for in connection with any necessary explanation of the matter. The לְּמַשְּמִיעִ ים then here also is thoroughly justified in the difference between the two narratives are in מְּצִלְֹּּתַ יִם great part of a merely formal kind; the author of signification, “and cymbals for those who gave the Chronicle having sought to make the forth the notes or the melody,” i.e., for Heman narrative more intelligible to his are the other contemporaries, partly by using later phrases כְּלֵי שִ יר הא׳ .and Jeduthun ,יהוה for אֱ ֹלהִ ים instruments used in the service of the song, viz., current in his own time, such as the nablia and kinnoroth. “The sons of Jeduthun partly by simplifying and ,מַמְּ לָכָ ה for מַ לְּ כּות -for the gate,” i.e., as doorkeepers. As Obed edom, who was doorkeeper by the ark, explaining the bolder and more obscure according to v. 38, was likewise a son of expressions. Very seldom do we find Jeduthun, here other sons of the same Jeduthun, divergences in the subject-matter which alter brothers of Obed-edom, must be meant, the the meaning or make it appear to be different. number of whom, if we may judge from 26:8, To supplement and complete the commentary was very considerable; so that the members of already given in 2nd Samuel, we will now this family were able to attend to the shortly treat of these divergences. In v. 1, the doorkeeping both by the ark and in the statement that David communicated his tabernacle at Gibeon. purpose to build a temple to the Lord to the 1 Chronicles 16:43. V. 43 brings the account of prophet Nathan, “when Jahve had given him the transfer of the ark to a conclusion, and rest from all his enemies round about,” is coincides in substance with 2 Sam. 6:19 and wanting. This clause, which fixes the time, has 20a, where, however, there follows in addition been omitted by the chronicler to avoid the a narrative of the scene which David had with apparent contradiction which would have

1 CHRONICLES Page 130 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study arisen in case the narrative were taken already been got rid of by the omission of those chronologically, seeing that the greatest of words in v. 1; and the word, “I have cut off all David’s wars, those against the Philistines, thine enemies from before thee” (v. 8), does not Syrians, and Ammonites, are narrated only in necessarily involve the destruction of all the the succeeding chapter. As to this, cf. the enemies who ever rose against David, but discussion on 2 Sam. 7:1–3. refers, as the connection shows, only to the .like enemies who up till that time had attacked him ,ּולְּמִ יָמִ ים ,Chronicles 17:10. In v. 10 1 Had the author of the Chronicle only wished to Sam. v. 11), is to be connected with get rid of this supposed difficulty, he would) ּולְּמִ ן־הַ יום in this sense: “As in the simply have omitted the clause, since “they בָרִ אשונָ ה the preceding beginning (i.e., during the sojourn in Egypt), seed” included the sons of David, and needed and onward from the days when I appointed no explanation if nothing further was meant is than that one of his sons would ascend the לְּמִ ן .judges,” i.e., during the time of the judges throne after him. And moreover, the thought, ”,to mark “thy seed, which shall be among thy sons ,מִ ן only a more emphatic expression for off the time from the beginning as it were (cf. which Bertheau finds in the words, would be אֲשֶ ר while ,אֲשֶר מִבָ נֶיָך Ew. § 218, b), and is wrongly translated by expressed in Hebrew by Berth. “until the days.” In the same verse, signifies, “who will come out of יִהְּ יֶה מִבָ נֶיָך ”,I bow, humble all thine enemies“ ,וְּהִכְּ נַעְֹּּתִ י does not denote to הָ יָה מִ ן from) thy sons;” for) I give thee“ ,וַהֲ נִיחֹׁתִ י substantially the same as the be of one, i.e., to belong to him, but to arise, be peace from all thine enemies” (Sam.); and the born, or go forth, from one: cf. Ben. 17:16; is not to be altered, as Berth. Eccles. 3:20. According to this, the linguistically אויְּבֶ יָך suffix in correct translation, the words cannot be ,אויְּבָ יו proposes, into that of the third person either in the Chronicle or in Samuel, for it is referred to Solomon at all, because Solomon quite correct; the divine promise returning at was not a descendant of David’s sons, but of the conclusion to David direct, as in the David himself.27 The author of the Chronicle has theologically, or אֶ ת־ֹזַרְּ עֲ ָך אַחֲרֶ יָך beginning, vv. 7 and 8, while that which is said interpreted of the people of Israel in vv. 9 and 10a is only an rather set forth the Messianic contents of this extension of the words, “I will destroy all thine conception more clearly than it was expressed The seed after David, which . ראֲשֶ איֵצֵ מִֹּמֵעֶ יָך enemies before thee” (v. 8). in to will arise from his sons, is the Messiah, whom“ ,לָלֶכֶת עִ ם־אֲ בֹׁתֶ יָך ,Chronicles 17:11. In v. 11 1 go with thy fathers,” used of going the way of the prophets announced as the Son of David, death, is similar to “to go the way of all the whose throne God will establish for ever (v. ֹזֶרַ ע world” (1 Kings 2:2), and is more primitive than 12). This Messianic interpretation of David’s explains the divergence of the chronicler’s text עֲשֶ ר .(Sam. v. 12) שָ כַב עִם אָ בות the more usual too, is neither to be altered to suit in vv. 13 and 14 from 2 Sam. 7:14–16. For ,יִהְּ יֶה מִבָ נֶיָך .in v בֵ ן instance, the omission of the words after of Samuel; nor can we consider ראֲשֶ יֵצֵא מִֹּמֵעֶ יָך 13, “If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him it, with Berth., an alteration made by the author with the rod of men” (Sam. v. 14), is the result of the Chronicle to get rid of the difficulty, that since the ,ֹזַרְּ עֲ ָך here the birth of Solomon is only promised, of the Messianic interpretation of while Nathan’s speech was made at a time reference to the chastisement would of course when David had rest from all his enemies round be important for the earthly sons of David and about (2 Sam. 8:1), i.e., as is usually supposed, the kings of Judah, but could not well find place in the latest years of his life, and consequently in the case of the Messiah. The only thing said after Solomon’s birth. For the difficulty had

1 CHRONICLES Page 131 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study of this son of David is, that God will not house and kingdom of David will be established withdraw His grace from him. for ever only under the Messiah. That this The case is exactly similar, with the difference interpretation is correct is proved by the fact between v. 14 and Sam. v. 16. Instead of the that the divergences of the text of the chronicler words, “And thy house and thy kingdom shall from the parallel narrative cannot otherwise be be established for ever before thee, thy throne explained; Thenius and Berth. not having made וְּהַעֲמַדְֹּּתִ יהּו בְּבֵ יתִ י shall be established for ever” (Sam.), the even an attempt to show how The other .וְּנֶאֱמָ ןבֵ יתְּ ָך promise runs thus in the Chronicle: “And I will could have arisen out of cause to stand, maintain, 1 Kings differences between the texts in the verses in ,הֶעֱמִ יד) settle אֵ ת for אֶ ת־כִסְּ או ,לִשְּמִ י Chron.) for) לִ י ,Chronicles 9:8) him (the seed arising question 2 ;15:4 from thy sons) in my house and in my kingdom (Chronicles v. 12, cf. Sam. v. 13), כִסֵאמַמְּ לַכְּ ֹּתו for ever, and his throne shall be established for מֵעִם שָ אּול אֲשֶ ר וגו׳ instead of רמֵאֲשֶ הָ יָהלְּפָ נֶיָך evermore.” While these concluding words of and the promise are, in the narrative in Samuel, (Chronicles v. 13, cf. Sam. v. 15), are only spoken to David, promising to him the eternal variations in expression which do not affect the establishment of his house, his kingdom, and sense. With reference to the last of them, his throne, in the Chronicle they are referred to indeed, Berth. has declared against Thenius, the seed of David, i.e., the Messiah, and promise that the chronicler’s text is thoroughly natural, to Him His establishment for ever in the house and bears marks of being more authentic than and kingdom of God, and the duration of His that of 2 Sam. 7. .here does not signify In the prayer of thanksgiving contained in vv בֵ יתִ י throne for ever. That the congregation of the Lord, the people of 16 to 27 we meet with the following Israel, as Berth. thinks it must be translated, is divergences from the parallel text, which are of .immediately preceding, importance for their effect on the sense ,בַ יִת clear as the sun; for וְּ ֹזֹׁאת manifestly 1 Chronicles 17:17b. Instead of the words בֵ יתִ י denotes the temple of Jahve, and ּורְּ אִ יתַ נִי Sam. v. 19), the Chronicle has) ֹּתורַ ת הָאָדָ ם v. 12), while such a) בַ יִת לִ י refers back to and sawest me (or, that thou ,כְּ תור הָאָדָ םהַֹּמַעֲלָ ה designation of the congregation of Israel or of being ֹּתור ;the people as “house of Jahve” is unheard of in sawest me) after the manner of men the Old Testament. The house of Jahve stands in to see, may ,רָ אָ ה .ֹּתורָ ה = ֹּתורֶ ה the same relation to the kingdom of Jahve as a a contraction of king’s palace to his kingdom. The house which denote to visit (cf. 2 Sam. 13:5; 2 Kings 8:29), or David’s seed will build to the Lord is the house look upon in the sense of regard, respicere. But ,remains obscure in any case הַֹּמַעֲלָ ה of the Lord in his kingdom: in this house and the word kingdom the Lord will establish Him for ever; for elsewhere it occurs only as a substantive, in His kingdom shall never cease; His rule shall the significations, “the act of going up” (or never be extinguished; and He himself, drawing up) (Ezra 7:9), “that which goes up” consequently, shall live for ever. It scarcely (Ezek. 11:5), “the step;” while for the need be said that such things can be spoken signification “height” (locus superior) only this only of the Messiah. The words are therefore passage is adduced by Gesenius in Thes. But merely a further development of the saying, “I even had the word this signification, the word could not signify in loco excelso = in coelis הַֹּמַעֲלָ ה will be to him a Father, and I will not take my mercy away from him, and will establish his in its present connection; and further, even kingdom for ever,” and tell us clearly and were this possible, the translation et me intuitus definitely what is implicitly contained in the es more hominum in coelis gives no tolerable promise, that David’s house, kingdom, and be the vocative of המעלה throne will endure for ever (Sam.), viz., that the sense. But neither can

1 CHRONICLES Page 132 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study address, and a predicate of God, “Thou height, Aufl.), and is to be translated: “honour Jahve God,” as Hgstb. Christol. i. p. 378 trans., concerning Thy servant.” The assertion that is to be erased as a later gloss which אֶ ת־עַבְּדְּ ָך takes it, with many older commentators. The height, has crept into the text, cuts the knots, but does ,מָ רום passage Ps. 92:9, “Thou art sublimity for ever, Jahve,” is not sufficient to not untie them. That the LXX have not these is predicated of words, only proves that these translators did הַֹּמַעֲלָ ה prove that in our verse not know what to make of them, and so just should go with הַֹּמַעֲלָ ה ,God. Without doubt omitted them, as they have omitted the first and appears to correspond to the clause of v. 19. In v. 19 also there is no valid ,רְּ אִ יתַ נִי וגו׳ of the בַעֲ בּור עַבְּדְּ ָך of the preceding clause, in the ground for altering the לְּמֵרָ חוק בַעֲ בּור דְּבָרְּ ָך signification: as regards the elevation, in Chronicle to make it correspond to reference to the going upwards, i.e., the in Samuel; for the words, “for Thy servant’s exaltation of my race (seed) on high. The sake,” i.e., because Thou hast chosen Thy thought would then be this: After the manner of servant, give a quite suitable sense; cf. the men, so condescendingly and graciously, as discussion on 2 Sam. 7:21. In the second half of men have intercourse with each other, hast the verse, however, the more extended phrases Thou looked upon or visited me in reference to of 2nd Samuel are greatly contracted. the elevation of myself or my race,—the text of גְּדֻ לות the Chronicle giving an explanation of the 1 Chronicles 17:21. The combining of as one sentence, “to לָ ׂשּום לְָּך שֵ ם with וְּ נורָ אות ,parallel narrative.28 The divergence in v. 18 Sam. v. make Thee a name with great and fearful) לְּדַבֵר אֵ לֶ יָך instead of אֵלֶ יָך לְּכָ בוד אֶ ת־עַבְּדֶ ָך 20), which cannot be an explanation or deeds,” is made clearer in 2nd Samuel by the and for you doing“ ,וְּלַעֲ ׂשות לָכֶ ם interpretation of Samuel’s text, is less difficult interpolation of of explanation. The words in Samuel, “What can great and fearful things.” This explanation, David say more unto Thee?” have in this however, does not justify us in supposing that .has been dropped out of the Chronicle וְּלַעֲ ׂשות connection the very easily understood signification, What more can I say of the are either to be גְּדֻ לות וְּ נורָ אות promise given me? and needed no explanation. The words When, instead of this, we read in the Chronicle, subordinated in a loose connection to the “What more can Thy servant add to Thee in clause, to define the way in which God has regard to the honour to Thy servant?” an made Himself a name (cf. Ew. § 283), or in a pregnant sense: “to ׂשּום unprejudiced criticism must hold this text for connected with the original, because it is the more difficult. It is make Thee a name, (doing) great and fearful the more difficult, not only on account of the things.” But, on the other hand, the converse which indeed is not absolutely expression in Samuel, “fearful things for Thy ,לְּדַבֵ ר omission of but land, before Thy people which Thou ,יוסִ יף necessary, though serving to explain redeemedst to Thee from Egypt (from) the mainly on account of the unusual construction nations and their gods,” is explained in honour ,אֶ ת־עַבְּדְּ ָך with כָ בוד of the nomen fearful“ :לְּגָרֵ ש Chronicles by the interpolation of towards Thy servant. The construction … things, to drive out before Thy people, which דֵ עָ ה את is not a nations.” The divergences cannot be explained כָ בוד is not quite analogous, for יהוה ,is rather by the hypothesis that both texts are mutilated כבד את־ ;דֵ עָ ה nomen actionis like as is sufficiently shown by the contradictions connected with the practice which begins to into which Thenius and Bertheau have fallen in obtain in the later language of employing as .their attempts so to explain them אֵ ת a general casus obliquus, instead of any more definite preposition (Ew. § 277, d, S. 683f., der 7

1 CHRONICLES Page 133 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

All the remaining divergences of one text from this last section, which is to be regarded even in the other are only variations of the expression, the Chronicle as an appendix, we find the such as involuntarily arise in the endeavour to arrangement and succession of the events to be give a clear and intelligible narrative, without the same in both books, since the sections making a literal copy of the authority made use which in 2 Sam. 9 and 11:1–12, 25, stand between the histories of the wars, contain מָצָא עַבְּדְּ ָך of. Among these we include even sketches of David’s family life, which the author ”Thy servant hath found to pray“ ,לְּהִתְּ פַלֵ ל of the Chronicle has, in accordance with his plan, omitted. Even as to individual details the מָצָא עַבְּדְּ ָך Chronicles v. 25), as compared with) Thy servant hath found his two narratives are perfectly agreed, the“ ,אֶ ת־לִ בו לְּהִתְּ פַלֵ ל heart,” i.e., found courage, to pray (Sam. v. 28); divergences being inconsiderable; and even where it is impossible to decide whether the these, in so far as they are original, and are not results of careless copying,—as, for instance, אֶ ת־לִ בו author of the books of Samuel has added as ,18:6 ,נְּצִ יבִ ים the omission of the word as an explanation, or the author of the Chronicle has omitted it because the phrase “to compared with v. 13 and 2 Sam. 8:6, and the find his heart” occurs only in this single passage difference in the numbers and names in 1 Chronicles 18:4, 8, as compared with 2 Sam. ,signifies מָצָא עַבְּדְּ ָך להת׳ .of the Old Testament 4:4, 8, are,—partly mere explanations of Thy servant has reached the point of directing obscure expressions, partly small additions or this prayer to Thee. abridgments. For the commentary, therefore, 1 Chronicles 18-20 we may refer to the remarks on 2nd Samuel, where the divergences of the Chronicle from Ch. 18–20.—David’s Wars and Victories; His the record in Samuel are also dealt with. With 1 Public Officials; Some Heroic Deeds Done in the Chronicles 18:1–13 cf. 2 Sam. 8:1–14; and with Philistine Wars. the register of public officials, 1 Chronicles 18:14–17, cf. 2 Sam. 8:15–18. 1 Chronicles 18–20. The events recorded in these three chapters are all narrated in the Examples of paraphrastic explanation are found second book of Samuel also, and in the same in 1 Chronicles 18:1, where the figurative order. First, there are grouped together in our expression, David took the bridle of the mother 18th chapter, and in 2 Sam. 8, in such a manner out of the hands of the Philistines, i.e., deprived as to afford a general view of the whole, all the them of the hegemony, is explained by the wars which David carried on victoriously phrase, David took Gath and her cities out of the against all his enemies round about in the hands of the Philistines, i.e., took from the establishment of the Israelitish rule, with a Philistines the capital with her daughter cities; is rendered by, the first at the כֹׁהֲ נִים ,short statement of the results, followed by a and in v. 17 catalogue of David’s chief public officials. In 1 king’s hand. Among the abridgments, the Chronicles 19 and in 2 Sam. 10 we have a more omission of David’s harsh treatment of the detailed account of the arduous war against the Moabites who were taken prisoners is Ammonites and Syrians, and in 1 Chronicles surprising, no reason for it being discoverable; 20:1–3 and 2 Sam. 12:26–31 the conclusion of for the assertion that the chronicler has the war with the capture of Rabbah, the capital purposely omitted it in order to free David from of the Ammonites; and finally, in 1 Chronicles the charge of such barbarous conduct, is 20:4–8, we have a few short accounts of the disposed of by the fact that he does not pass victories of the Israelitish heroes over giants over in silence the similar treatment of the from the land of the Philistines, which are conquered inhabitants of Rabbah in 1 inserted in 2 Sam. 21:18–22 as a supplement to Chronicles 20:3. Instead of this, the chronicler the last section of David’s history. Apart from has several historical notes peculiar to himself,

1 CHRONICLES Page 134 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

outside“ ,פֶתַ ח הָעִ יר ,which are wanting in the text of Samuel, and (see on Num. 21:30). In v. 9 which prove that the author of the Chronicle the city” (i.e., the capital Rabbah), more correct has not derived his account from the second וַיָבֹׁא Sam. v. 8). On) פֶתַ ח הַשַ עַ ר or exact than book of Samuel. Such, e.g., is the statement in 1 .Sam. v) וַיָבֹׁא חֵ לָאמָ ה as compared with ,אֲ לֵיהֶ ם Chronicles 18:8, that Solomon caused the brazen sea and the pillars and vessels of the 17), cf. the discussion on 2 Sam. 10:16, 17. court of the temple to be made of the brass The account of the siege of Rabbah, the capital, taken as booty in the war against Hadadezer; in in the following year, 1 Chronicles 20:1–3, is .which is wanting in much abridged as compared with that in 2 Sam ,מֵאֱ דום v. 11, the word which in v. 11 of that book is 11:1; 12:26–31. After the clause, “but David sat ,מֵאֲרָ ם Samuel, as (remained) in Jerusalem,” in 2 Sam. 11, from v. used in place of it, probably stood originally in 2 onwards, we have the story of David’s the Chronicle also. Such also are the more adultery with Bathsheba, and the events accurate statements in v. 12 as to the victory connected with it (2 Sam. 11:3–12:25), which over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (see on 2 the author of the Chronicle has omitted, in Sam. 8:13). accordance with the plan of his book. The same phenomena are met with in the Thereafter, in 2 Sam. 12:26, the further detailed account of the Ammonite-Syriac war, 1 progress of the siege of Rabbah is again taken Chronicles 19:1, 2; 20:3, as compared with 2 up with the words, “And Joab warred against Sam. 10:1–11:1, and 12:26–31. In 19:1 the Rabbah of the sons of ;” and in vv. 27– is merely an 29 the capture of that city is circumstantially בְּ נו after חָ נּון omission of the name in 2 narrated, viz., how Joab, after he had taken the נָחָ ש oversight, as the omission of the name Sam. 10:1a also is. In v. 3 there is no need to water-city, i.e., the city lying on both banks of the upper Jabbok (the Wady Ammân), with the ,חֲ קֹׁר אֶ ת־הָעִ יר ּולְּרַ גְּלָ ּה וגו׳ into לַחְּ קֹׁר וְּלַהֲ פְֹׁך וגו׳ alter exception of the Acropolis built on a hill on the 2 Sam. 10:3, although the expression in Samuel north side of the city, sent messages to David, is more precise. If the actual words of the and called upon him to gather together the original document are given in Samuel, the remainder of the people, i.e., all those capable of author of the Chronicle has made the thought bearing arms who had remained in the land; more general: “to search and to overthrow, and and how David, having done this, took the to spy out the land.” Perhaps, however, the citadel. Instead of this, we have in the Chronicle terms made use of in the original document only the short statement, “And Joab smote were not so exact and precise as those of the Rabbah, and destroyed it” (1 Chronicles 20:1, at book of Samuel. In vv. 6, 7, at least, the the end). After this, both narratives (Chronicles divergence from 2 Sam. 10:16 cannot be vv. 2, 3, and Sam. vv. 30, 31) coincide in explained otherwise than by supposing that in narrating how David set the heavy golden neither of the narratives is the text of the crown of the king of the Ammonites on his original document exactly and perfectly head, brought much booty out of the city, reproduced. For a further discussion of the caused the prisoners of war taken in Rabbah differences, see on 2 Sam. 10:6. The special and the other fenced cities of the Ammonites to statement as to the place where the be slain in the cruellest way, and then returned mercenaries encamped, and the Ammonites with all the people, i.e., with the whole of his gathered themselves together from out their army, to Jerusalem. Thus we see that, according cities (v. 7), is wanting in 2nd Samuel. The city to the record in the Chronicle also, David was Medeba, which, according to Josh. 13:16, was present at the capture of the Acropolis of assigned to the tribe of Reuben, lay about two Rabbah, then put on the crown of the hours southeast from Heshbon, and still exists Ammonite king, and commanded the slaughter as ruins, which retain the ancient name Medaba of the prisoners; but no mention is made of his

1 CHRONICLES Page 135 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study having gone to take part in the war. By the being a visible proof of the divine grace which omission of this circumstance the narrative of watched over the pious king. For the concluding the Chronicle becomes defective; but no reason remark in 2 Sam. 21:17, that in consequence of can be given for this abridgment of the record, this event his captains adjured David not to go for the contents of 2 Sam. 12:26–39 must have any more into battle along with them, that the been contained in the original documents made light of Israel might not be extinguished, shows use of by the chronicler. On the differences in how great danger he was of being slain by between v. 31 (Sam.) and v. 3 of the Chronicle, this giant. For this reason the author of the he sawed asunder,” book of Samuel has placed this event at the“ ,וַיָׂשַ ר .see on 2 Sam. 12:31 head of the exploits of the Israelite captains in Samuel is an וַיָׂשֶ ם is the correct reading, and which he was about to relate, although it orthographical error; while, on the contrary, happened somewhat later in time than the three exploits which succeed. The author of the בְּמַ גְֹּזְּ רות in the Chronicle is a mistake for בַֹּמְּ גֵ רות is Chronicle, on the contrary, has made the וְּהֶעֱבִ יראותָ ם בַֹּמַ לְּבֵ ן in Samuel. The omission of probably explained by the desire to abridge; for account of these exploits an appendix to the if the author of the Chronicle does not scruple account of the victorious wars by which David to tell of the sawing asunder of the prisoners obtained dominion over all the neighbouring with saws, and the cutting of them to pieces peoples, and made his name to be feared among under threshing instruments and scythes, it the heathen, as a further example of the would never occur to him to endeavour to greatness of the power given to the prince soften David’s harsh treatment of them by chosen by the Lord to be over His people. For passing over in silence the burning of them in this purpose the story of the slaughter of the brick-kilns. Philistine giant, who had all but slain the weary David, was less suitable, and is therefore passed The passages parallel to the short appendix-like over by the chronicler, although it was accounts of the valiant deeds of the Israelitish contained in his authority,29 as is clear from the leaders in 1 Chronicles 20:4–8 are to be found, almost verbal coincidence of the stories which as has already been remarked, in 2 Sam. 21:18– follow with 2 Sam. 21:18ff. The very first is 24. There, however, besides the three exploits introduced by the formula, “It happened after of which we are informed by the chronicler in this,” which in 2nd Samuel naturally connects vv. 15–17, a fourth is recorded, and that in the the preceding narrative with this; while the first place too, viz., the narrative of David’s fight chronicler has retained as a general אַחֲרֵ י־כֵ ן with the giant Jishbi-Benob, who was slain by עוד ,Abishai the son of Zeruiah. The reason why our formula of transition,—omitting, however historian has not recounted this along with the (Sam.) in the following clause, and writing in the עָמַ ד .וַֹּתְּהִ י there arose,” instead of“ ,וַֹּתַעֲ מוד others is clear from the position which he assigns to these short narratives in his book. In later Hebrew is the same as . The hypothesis קּום the second book of Samuel they are recounted (in Samuel) וַֹּתְּהִ י עוד has arisen out of ותעמד in the last section of the history of David’s reign, that is not עמד as palpable proofs of the divine grace of which is not at all probable, although David had had experience during his whole life, elsewhere used of the origin of a war. Even קּום and for which he there praises the Lord in a psalm of thanksgiving (2 Sam. 22). In this is only once (Gen. 41:30) used of the coming, or instead of סִפַ י and בְּ גֶֹזֶ ר connection, David’s deliverance by the heroic coming in, of a time. On at the end וַיִכָ נֵעּו .see on 2 Sam. 21:18 ,סַ ף and בְּ נֹׁב act of Abishai from the danger into which he had fallen by the fierce attack which the of the fourth verse is worthy of remark, “And Philistine giant Jishbi-Benob made upon him they (the Philistines) were humbled,” which is when he was faint, is very suitably narrated, as omitted from Samuel, and “yet can scarcely

1 CHRONICLES Page 136 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study have been arbitrarily added by our historian” of, and denotes here that those giants fell in (Berth.). This remark, however, correct as it is, wars which David had waged with the does not explain the omission of the word from Philistines—that David had been the main 2nd Samuel. The reason for that can scarcely be cause of their fall, had brought about their other than that it did not seem necessary for death by his servants through the wars he the purpose which the author of the book of waged. Samuel had in the first place in view. As to the two other exploits (vv. 6–8), see the 1 Chronicles 21 ,in The Numbering of the People, the Pestilence אֵ לֶ ה for אֵ ל .commentary on 2 Sam. 21:19–22 the closing remark (v. 8) is archaic, but the and the Determination of the Site for the Temple .(as we (cf. 2 Sam. 24 ,הָאֵ ל instead of אֵ ל) omission of the article find it in Gen. 19:8, 25, and in other passages in 1 Chronicles 21. The motive which influenced the Pentateuch) cannot be elsewhere the king, in causing a census of the men capable paralleled. In the last clause, “And they fell by of bearing arms throughout the kingdom to be the hand of David, and by the hand of his taken in the last year of his reign, has already servants,” that David should be named is been discussed in the remarks on 2 Sam. 24, surprising, because none of those here where we have also pointed out what it was mentioned as begotten of Rapha, i.e., which was so sinful and displeasing to God in descendants of the ancient Raphaite race, had the undertaking. We have, too, in the same fallen by the hand of David, but all by the hand place commented upon the various stages of its of his servants. Bertheau therefore thinks that progress, taking not of the differences which this clause has been copied verbatim into our exist between the numbers given in 2 Sam. passage, and also into 2 Sam. 21:22, from the 24:9, 13, 24, and those in our record, vv. 5, 12, original document, where this enumeration 25; so that here we need only compare the two formed the conclusion of a long section, in accounts somewhat more minutely. They which the acts of David and of his heroes, in correspond not merely in the main points of their battles with the giants in the land of the their narrative of the event, but in many places Philistines, were described. But since the make use of the same terms, which shows that author of the second book of Samuel expressly they have both been derived from the same says, “These four were born to Rapha, and they source; but, as the same time, very considerable fell” (v. 22), he can have referred in the words, divergences are found in the conception and “And they fell by the hand of David,” only to the representation of the matter. In the very first four above mentioned, whether he took the verse, David’s purpose is said in 2nd Samuel to verse in question unaltered from his authority, be the effect of the divine anger; in the In the latter Chronicle it is the result of the influence of .אֶ ת־אַרְּ בַעַת אֵ לֶ ה or himself added without Satan on David. Then, in 2 Sam. 24:4–9, the בְּ יַד־דָ וִ ד case he cannot have added the numbering of the people is narrated at length, some purpose; in the former, the reference of while in the Chronicle, vv. 4–6, only the results the in the “longer section,” from which are recorded, with the remark that Joab did not בְּ יַדֶ־דָ וִ ד the excerpt is taken, to others than the four complete the numbering, Levi and Benjamin giants mentioned, to perhaps in not being included, because the king’s addition, whom David slew, is rendered command was an abomination to him. On the ,The statement, other hand, the Chronicle, in vv. 19–27 .אֶ ת־אַרְּ בַעַ ת אֵלֶ ה impossible by “they fell by the hand of David,” does not narrates the purchase of Araunah’s threshing- presuppose that David had slain all of them, or floor for a place of sacrifice, and gives not merely a more circumstantial account of בְּ יַד even one of them, with his own hand; for David’s offering than we find in Samuel (vv. 19– frequently signifies only through, i.e., by means

1 CHRONICLES Page 137 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

25), but also states, in conclusion (vv. 28–30), consecrated this spot to be the future place of the circumstances which induced David to offer worship for Israel, by the appearance of the sacrifice even afterwards, on the altar which he angel, the command given to David through the had built at the divine command, on the prophet Gad to build an altar where the angel threshing-floor bought of Araunah. The had appeared, and to sacrifice thereon, and by purpose which the author of the Chronicle had the gracious acceptance of this offering, fire in view in making this concluding remark is having come down from heaven to devour it. manifest from v. 1 of 1 Chronicles 22, which For this purpose he did not require to give any should properly be connected with 1 Chronicles lengthened account of the numbering of the 21: “And David said, Here is the house of Jahve people, since it was of importance to him only God, and here the altar for the burnt-offering of as being the occasion of David’s humiliation. Israel.” Only in this verse, as Bertheau has 1 Chronicles 21:1–7. “And Satan stood up correctly remarked, do we find the proper against Israel, and incited David to number conclusion of the account of the numbering of Israel.” The mention of Satan as the seducer of the people, the pestilence, and the appearance David is not to be explained merely by the fact of the angel, and yet it is omitted in the book of that the Israelites in later times traced up Samuel; “although it is manifest from the while everything contrary to God’s will to this evil connection, and the way in which the history of spirit, but in the present case arises from the David and Solomon is presented in the books of author’s design to characterize David’s purpose Samuel and Kings, that the account is given from the very beginning as an ungodly thing. there also only to point out the holiness of the ׂשָרֵ י הָעָ ם place where Solomon built the temple even in 1 Chronicles 21:2. The naming of the the time of David, and to answer the question along with Joab is in accordance with the why that particular place was chosen for the circumstances, for we learn from 2 Sam. 24:4 site of the sanctuary.” This remark is perfectly that Joab did not carry out the numbering of the just, if it be not understood to mean that the people alone, but was assisted by the captains which is not ,וְּהָבִיאּו אֵ לַ י author of our book of Samuel has given a hint of of the host. The object of this purpose in his narrative; for the conclusion expressed, the result of the numbering, may be of 2 Sam. 24:25, “And Jahve was entreated for supplied from the context. No objection need be of v. 3, instead of the כָהֵ ם the land, and the plague was stayed,” is taken to the simple irreconcilable with any such idea. This in Samuel. The repetition of םכָהֵ וְּכָהֵ ם concluding sentence, and the omission of any double reference to the temple, or to the appointment the same word, “there are so and so many of of the altar built on the threshing-floor of them,” is a peculiarity of the author of the book Araunah to be a place of sacrifice for Israel, and of Samuel (cf. 2 Sam. 12:8), while the of the introductory words of the narrative, “And expression in the Chronicle corresponds to that Are“ ,הֲ לֹׁא אֲ דֹׁנִי וגו׳ again the wrath of Jahve was kindled against in Deut. 1:11. With the words Israel, and moved David against them,” (2 Sam. they not, my lord king, all my lord’s servants,” 24:1), plainly show that the author of the book i.e., subject to him? Joab allays the suspicion of Samuel regarded, and has here narrated, the that he grudged the king the joy of reigning event as a chastisement of the people of Israel over a very numerous people. In Sam. v. 3 the for their rebellion against the divinely chosen thought takes another turn; and the last clause, king, in the revolts of Absalom and Sheba (cf. “Why should it (the thing or the numbering) אַשְּמָ ה .the remarks on 2 Sam. 24:1). The author of the become a trespass for Israel?” is wanting Chronicle, again, has without doubt informed us denotes here a trespass which must be atoned of the numbering of the people, and the for, not one which one commits. The meaning is pestilence, with its results, with the design of therefore, Why should Israel expiate thy sin, in showing how God Himself had chosen and

1 CHRONICLES Page 138 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study seeking thy glory in the power and greatness of serves to intensify. So also in reference to the דֶבֶ ר which precedes חֶרֶ ב יהוה thy kingdom? On the numbers, v. 5, see on 2 third evil, the Sam. 24:9. In commenting on v. 6, which is not :and the parallel clause added to both ,בָ אָרֶ ץ to be found in Samuel, Berth. defends the statement that Joab did not make any muster of “and the angel of the Lord destroying in the the tribes Levi and Benjamin, against the whole domain of Israel.” ,וַיִשְּ חלַ הָאֱ ֹלהִ יםמַ לְּאָ ְך ליר׳ .objections of de Wette and Gramberg, as it is 1 Chronicles 21:15 done in my apologet. Versuche, Sa. 349ff., by “And God sent an angel towards Jerusalem,” showing that the tribe of Levi was by law (cf. gives no suitable sense. Not because of the Num. 1:47–54) exempted from the censuses of improbability that God sent the angel with the the people taken for political purposes; and the commission to destroy Jerusalem, and at the tribe of Benjamin was not numbered, because same moment gives the contrary command, David, having become conscious of his sin, “Stay now,” etc. (Berth.); for the reason of this stopped the numbering before it was completed change is given in the intermediate clause, “and (cf. also the remarks on 2 Sam. 24:9). The at the time of the destroying the Lord repented reason given, “for the king’s word was an it,” and command and prohibition are not given abomination unto Joab,” is certainly the “at the same moment;” but the difficulty lies in without the article). For) מַ לְּאָ ְך subjective opinion of the historian, but is shown the indefinite to be well founded by the circumstances, for since the angel of Jahve is mentioned in v. 12 as Joab disapproved of the king’s design from the the bringer of the pestilence, in our verse, if it beginning; cf. v. 3 (Samuel and Chronicles).—In treats of the sending of this angel to execute the v. 7, the author of the Chronicle, instead of must necessarily be הַֹּמַ לְּאָ ְך ,ascribing the confession of sin on David’s part judgment spoken of as in v. 16; the indefinite ,אֵת הַֹּמַ לְּאָ ְך which follows to the purely subjective motive used, or .can by no means be used for it. In 2 Sam מַ לְּאָ ְך stated in the words, “and David’s heart smote him,” i.e., his conscience (Sam. v. 10a), has 24:16 we read, instead of the words in ascribed the turn matters took to objective and the angel“ ,וַיִשְּ לַ חיָדו הַֹּמַ לְּאָ ְך יר׳ ,causes: the thing displeased God; and question anticipating the course of events, he remarks stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem;” and in the) הָאֱ ֹלהִ ים straightway, “and He (God) smote Israel.” This, Bertheau thinks that the reading ידו however, is no reason for thinking, with Berth., Chron.) has arisen out of that, by the letters that the words have arisen out of a being אלהים and ,יהוה being exchanged for ה .misinterpretation or alteration of 2 Sam 24:10a; for such anticipatory remarks, substituted for this divine name, as is often the embracing the contents of the succeeding case in the Chronicle; while Movers, S. 91, on verses, not unfrequently occur in the historical the contrary, considers the reading of the יִשְּ לַ ח books (cf. e.g., 1 Kings 6:14; 7:2).—In reference Chronicle to be original, and would read in Samuel. But in that way Movers leaves יהוה ,to vv. 8–10, see on 2 Sam. 24:10–16.—In v. 12 has not come into the text by mistake or נִסְּפֶ ה in the מַ לְּאָ ְך the omission of the article before by misreading (Sam. v. 13), but is original, Chronicle unexplained; and Bertheau’s נֻסְּ ָך the author of the Chronicle describing the two conjecture is opposed by the improbability of latter evils more at length than Samuel does. such a misunderstanding of a phrase so as ,יִשְּ לַ ח יָדו The word is not a participle, but a noun formed frequent and so unmistakeable as from the participle, with the signification would lead to the exchange supposed, ever “perishing” (the being snatched away). The occurring. But besides that, in Samuel the second parallel clause, “the sword of thine is strange, for the angel has not הַֹּמַ לְּאָ ְך enemies to attaining” (so that it reach thee), simple

1 CHRONICLES Page 139 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study been spoken of there at all before, and the LXX which, as being minor points, are passed over have consequently explained the somewhat in Samuel. In v. 16, the description of the by ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ Θεοῦ. This angel’s appearance, that he had a drawn sword הַֹּמַ לְּאָ ְך obscure explanation suggests the way in which the in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem, and reading of our text arose. The author of the the statement that David and the elders, clad in Chronicle, although he had already made sackcloth (garments indicating repentance), fell down before the Lord; in v. 20, the mention of in v. 12, wrote in v. 15 מַ לְּאַ ְך יהוה mention of the Ornan’s (Araunah’s) sons, who hid themselves the angel of God stretched on beholding the angel, and of the fact that“ ,וַיִשְּ לַח מַ לְּאַ ְך הָאֱ ֹלהִ ים (his hand) out towards Jerusalem,” using Ornan was engaged in threshing wheat when ,as, for example, in Judg. David came to him; and the statement in v. 26—,יהוה instead of האלהים that fire came down from heaven upon the מַ לְּאַ ְך הָאֱ ֹלהִ ים .and 13, 15, 17 ,9 ,13:6 ;22 ,6:20 altar,—are examples of such minor points. We with have already commented on this section in our יָדו and omitting ,מַ לְּאַ ְך יהוה alternates with as is often done, e.g., 2 Sam. 6:6, Ps. 18:17, remarks on 2 Sam. 24:17–25, and the account ,יִשְּ לַ ח in the Chronicle is throughout correct and have been האלהים and מלאְך etc. By a copyist easily understood. Notwithstanding this, was then taken by the however, Bertheau, following Thenius and מַ לְּאָ ְך transposed, and Masoretes for an accusative, and pointed Böttcher, conjectures that the text is in several accordingly. The expression is made clearer by verses corrupt, and wishes to correct them by And as he destroyed, Jahve saw, and it 2nd Samuel. But these critics are misled by the“ ,ּוכְּהַשְּחִ ית repented Him of the evil.” The idea is: Just as erroneous presumption with which they the angel had begun to destroy Jerusalem, it entered upon the interpretation of the Chronicle, that the author of it used as his adverb, “enough,” as in 1 ,רַ ב .repented God authority, and revised, our Masoretic text of the Kings 19:4, etc., with a dativ commodi, Deut. 1:6, second book of Samuel. Under the influence of etc. Bertheau has incorrectly denied this this prejudice, emendations are proposed in which are stamped with their own בָעָ ם with רַ ב meaning of the word, connecting 2 Sam. 24:16, and desiring to alter our text to unlikelihood, and rest in part even on misunderstandings of the narrative in the book רַ ב make it conform to that. In 2nd Samuel also is an adverb, as Thenius also acknowledges. of Samuel. Of this one or two illustrations will be sufficient. Any one who compares v. 17 1 Chronicles 21:16–26. The account of David’s (Sam.) with vv. 16 and 17 of the Chronicle, repentant beseeching of the Lord to turn away without any pre-formed opinions, will see that the primitive judgment, and the word of the what is there (Sam.) concisely expressed is Lord proclaimed to him by the prophet, more clearly narrated in the Chronicle. The commanding him to build an altar to the Lord in beginning of v. 17, “And David spake unto the place where the destroying angel visibly Jahve,” is entirely without connection, as the appeared, together with the carrying out of this thought which forms the transition from v. 16 divine command by the purchase of Araunah’s to v. 17, viz., that David was moved by the sight threshing-floor, the erection of an altar, and the of the destroying angel to pray to God that the offering of burnt-offering, is given more at destruction might be turned away, is only length in the Chronicle than in 2 Sam. 24:17–25, brought in afterwards in the subordinate where only David’s negotiation with Araunah is clause, “on seeing the angel.” This abrupt form more circumstantially narrated than in the of expression is got rid of in the Chronicle by Chronicle. In substance both accounts perfectly the clause: “And David lifted up his eyes, and correspond, except that in the Chronicle several saw the angel … and fell … upon his face; and subordinate circumstances are preserved, David spake to God.” That which in Samuel is

1 CHRONICLES Page 140 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study crushed away into an infinitive clause which he had brought the judgment of the v. 19, into ,בִדְּבַ ר subordinate to the principle sentence, precedes plague upon himself.—To alter in the Chronicle, and is circumstantially as Berth. wishes, would show little ,כִדְּבַ ר narrated. Under these circumstances, of course, ,at Gad’s word David went up ,בִדְּבַ ר .the author of the Chronicle could not intelligence afterwards in v. 17 make use of the clause, “on is proved by Num. 31:16 to be good Hebrew, seeing the angel who smote the people,” and is perfectly suitable. and Ornan“ ,וַיָשָב אָרְּ נָ ן .without tautology. Berth., on the contrary, 1 Chronicles 21:20 maintains that v. 16 is an interpolation of the turned him about,” is translated by Berth. chronicler, and proposes then to cull out from incorrectly, “then Ornan turned back,” who the words and letters ,then builds on this erroneous interpretation בראתו את המלאְך המכה בעם which is contrary to the context, a whole nest of בראתו אמרתי לִמְּ נותי בָעָ ם Sam.), the words) is said to have arisen out of וַיָשָ ב .Chronicles v. 17), great use being made in the conjectures) אַרְּ בַעַ ת ,הַֹּמֶ לֶ ְך out of הַֹּמַ לְּאָ ְך the succeeding ,וַיַשְּקֵ ף ,process of the ever ready auxiliaries, mistakes and a text which has become obscure. This is Sam. v. 20), “by) עֲבָדָ יו עֹׁבְּרִ ים עָלָ יו out of בָ נָיועִ ֹּמו one example out of many. V. 16 of the Chronicle is not an addition which the Chronicle has mistake and further alteration.” In saying this, interpolated between vv. 16 and 17 of Samuel, however, he himself has not perceived that v. but a more detailed representation of the 20 (Sam.) does not correspond to the 20th historical course of things. No mention is made verse of the Chronicle at all, but to the 21st in 2nd Samuel of the drawn sword in the verse, where the words, “and Araunah looked and saw the king,” as parallel to the (ישקף) angel’s hand, because there the whole story is out ”.and saw David (יַבֵ ט) very concisely narrated. This detail need not words, “and Ornan looked have been borrowed from Num. 22:23, for the The 20th verse of the Chronicle contains a drawn sword is a sensible sign that the angle’s statement which is not found in Samuel, that mission is punitive; and the angel, who is said Ornan (Araunah), while threshing with his four to have visibly appeared in 2nd Samuel also, sons, turned and saw the angel, and being could be recognised as the bearer of the judicial terrified at the sight, hid himself with his sons. pestilence only by this emblem, such After that, David with his train came from Zion recognition being plainly the object of his to the threshing-floor in Mouth Moriah, and appearance. The mention of the elders along Araunah looking out saw the king, and came out with David as falling on their faces in prayer, of the threshing-floor to meet him, with deep clad in sackcloth, will not surprise any reader obeisance. This narrative contains nothing or critic who considers that in the case of so improbable, nothing to justify us in having fearful a pestilence the king would not be alone recourse to critical conjecture. in praying God to turn away the judgment. is very הַעֲ לות of the 1 Chronicles 21:24. The infinitive עֲבָדִ ים Besides, from the mention of the king who went with David to Ornan (Sam. v. frequently used in Hebrew as the continuation 20), we learn that the king did not by himself of the verb. fin., and is found in all the books of take steps to turn away the plague, but did so the Old Testament (cf. the collection of passages along with his servants. In the narrative in 2nd illustrative of this peculiar form of brief Samuel, which confines itself to the main point, expression, which We. gives, § 351, c), and that the elders are not mentioned, because only of not only with regard to the infin. absol., but the David was it recorded that his confession of sin infin. constr. also. David’s answer to Ornan’s brought about the removal of the plague. Just as offer to give him the place for the altar, and the little can we be surprised that David calls his cattle, plough, and wheat for the burnt-offering, command to number the people the delictum by was therefore: “no, I will buy it for full price; I

1 CHRONICLES Page 141 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

then he was wont to offer sacrifice“ ,וַיִֹזְּבַח שָ ם will not take what belongs to thee for Jahve, and bring burnt-offerings without cost,” i.e., without there.” In vv. 29 and 30 we have still further having paid the price for them. reasons given for David’s continuing to offer 1 Chronicles 21:25. As to the different sacrifices at the threshing-floor of Ornan. The statements of the price, cf. on 2 Sam. 24:24. legally sanctioned place of sacrifice for Israel 1 Chronicles 21:26–30. In 2 Sam. 24:25 the was still at that time the tabernacle, the Mosaic conclusion of this event is shortly narrated sanctuary with its altar of burnt-offering, which thus: David offered burnt-offerings and peace- then stood on the high place at Gibeon (cf. offerings, and Jahve was entreated for the land, 16:39). Now David had indeed brought the ark and the plague was stayed from Israel. In the of the covenant, which had been separated from the tabernacle from the time of Samuel, to יֵעָתֵ ר Chronicle we have a fuller statement of the Zion, and had there not only erected a tent for in v. 26b. David called upon Jahve, and He it, but had also built an altar and established a יהוה answered with fire from heaven upon the altar settled worship there (1 Chronicles 17), yet of burnt-offering (v. 27); and Jahve spake to the without having received any express command angel, and he returned the sword into its of God regarding it; so that this place of sheath. The returning of the sword into its worship was merely provisional, intended to sheath is a figurative expression for the continue only until the Lord Himself should stopping of the pestilence; and the fire which make known His will in the matter in some came down from heaven upon the altar of definite way. When therefore David, after the burnt-offering was the visible sign by which the conquest of his enemies, had obtained rest Lord assured the king that his prayer had been round about, he had formed the resolution to heard, and his offering graciously accepted. The make an end of this provisional separation of reality of this sign of the gracious acceptance of the ark from the tabernacle, and the existence an offering is placed beyond doubt by the of two sacrificial altars, by building a temple; analogous cases, Lev. 9:24, 1 Kings 18:24, 38, but the Lord had declared to him by the and 2 Chronicles 7:1. It was only by this sign of prophet Nathan, that not he, but his son and the divine complacence that David learnt that successor on the throne, should build Him a the altar built upon the threshing-floor of temple. The altar by the ark in Zion, therefore, Araunah had been chosen by the Lord as the continued to co-exist along with the altar of place where Israel should always thereafter burnt-offering at the tabernacle in Gibeon, offer their burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as is without being sanctioned by God as the place of further recorded in vv. 28–30. and in 22:1. sacrifice for the congregation of Israel. Then From the cessation of the pestilence in when David, by ordering the numbering of the consequence of his prayer and sacrifice, David people, had brought guilt upon the nation, could only draw the conclusion that God had which the Lord so heavily avenged upon them forgiven him his transgression, but could not by the pestilence, he should properly, as king, have known that God had chosen the place have offered a sin-offering and a burnt-offering where he had built the altar for the offering in the national sanctuary at Gibeon, and there demanded by God as a permanent place of have sought the divine favour for himself and sacrifice. This certainly he obtained only by the for the whole people. But the Lord said unto divine answer, and this answer was the fire him by the prophet Gad, that he should bring which came down upon the altar of burnt- his offering neither in Gibeon, nor before the offering and devoured the sacrifice. This v. 28 ark on Zion, but in the threshing-floor of Ornan states: “At the time when he saw that Jahve had (Araunah), on the altar which he was there to answered him at the threshing-floor of Ornan, erect. This command, however, did not settle he offered sacrifice there,” i.e., from that time the place where he was afterwards to sacrifice. forward; so that we may with Berth. translate But David—so it runs, v. 29f.—sacrificed

1 CHRONICLES Page 142 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

because there Jahve had manifested to ,בֵ ית יהוה ,thenceforward in the threshing-floor of Ornan not at Gibeon in the still existent national him His gracious presence; cf. Gen. 28:17. sanctuary, because he (according to v. 30) to seek God, for he 1 Chronicles 22 (לְּפָ נָיו) could not go before it“ was terrified before the sword of the angel of Ch. 22:2–19.—David’s Preparations for the Jahve.” This statement does not, however, Building of the Temple. mean, ex terrore visionis angelicae infirmitatem corporis contraxerat (J. H. Mich.), nor yet, 1 Chronicles 22. With this chapter commences “because he, being struck and overwhelmed by the second section of the history of David’s the appearance of the angel, did not venture to kingship, viz., the account of the preparations, offer sacrifices elsewhere” (Berth.), nor, dispositions, and arrangements which he made “because the journey to Gibeon was too long for in the last years of his reign for the him” (O. v. Gerl.). None of these interpretations establishment of his kingdom in the future under his successors (see above, p. 482ff.). All נִבְּעַת מִפְּ נֵי .suit either the words or the context these preparations and dispositions had terrified before the sword, does indeed reference to the firm establishment of the ,חֶרֶ ב signify that the sword of the angel, or the angel public worship of the Lord, in which Israel, as with the sword, hindered him from going to the people and congregation of Jahve, might Gibeon, but not during the pestilence, when the show its faithfulness to the covenant, so as to angel stood between heaven and earth by the become partakers of the divine protection, and threshing-floor of Araunah with the drawn the blessing which was promised. To build the sword, but—according to the context— temple—this desire the Lord had not indeed afterwards, when the angelophany had ceased, granted the fulfilment of to David, but He had as it doubtless did simultaneously with the given him the promise that his son should carry can therefore out that work. The grey-haired king accordingly יכִ נִבְּ עַ ת וגו׳ pestilence. The words have no other meaning, than that David’s terror made preparations, after the site of the house of before the sword of the angel caused him to God which should be built had been pointed out determine to sacrifice thereafter, not at Gibeon, to him, such as would facilitate the execution of but at the threshing-floor of Araunah; or that, the work by his successor. Of these since during the pestilence the angel’s sword preparations our chapter treats, and in it we had prevented him from going to Gibeon, he did have an account how David provided the not venture ever afterwards to go. But the fear necessary labour and materials for the building before the sword of the angel is in substance of the temple (vv. 2–5), committed the the terror of the pestilence; and the pestilence execution of the work in a solemn way to his had hindered him from sacrificing at Gibeon, son Solomon (vv. 6–16), and called upon the because Gibeon, notwithstanding the presence chiefs of the people to give him their support in of the sanctuary there, with the Mosaic altar, the work (vv. 17–19). had not been spared by the pestilence. David 1 Chronicles 22:2–5. Workmen and materials considered this circumstance as normative ever for the building of the temple.—V. 2. In order to for the future, and he always afterwards offered procure the necessary workmen, David his sacrifices in the place pointed out to him, commanded that the strangers in the land of and said, as we further read in 1 Chronicles Israel should be gathered together, and, as we .properly this, mas. or neut.) learn from :16, also numbered , הֹזֶ הּוא) Here“ ,22:1 the strangers, are the descendants of the ,הַ גֵרִ ים is the house of Jahve God, and here is the altar for the burnt-offering of Israel.” He calls the site Canaanites whom the Israelites had not of the altar in the threshing-floor of Araunah destroyed when they took possession of the land, but had reduced to bondage (2 Chronicles

1 CHRONICLES Page 143 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

is to be taken relatively: and the house ליהוה Kings 9:20–22). This number was so 1 ;9–8:7 considerable, that Solomon was able to employ which is to be built to the Lord is to be made 150,000 of them as labourers and stone-cutters see on 14:2), for a ,לְּמַעֲלָ ה) great exceedingly (1 Kings 5:29; 2 Chronicles 2:16f.). These strangers David appointed to be stone-cutters, name and glory for all lands, i.e., that it might be to the Lord for whom it should be built for an see on 1 Kings) אַבְּ נֵי גָֹזִ ית ,to hew squared stones I will ,אָכִ הינָ ּנָ א לו .honour and glory in all lands 5:31). (= therefore will I) prepare for him (Solomon), 1 Chronicles 22:3. Iron and brass he prepared scil. whatever I can prepare to forward this in abundance: the iron for the nails of the doors, great work. i.e., for the folding-doors of the gates, i.e., partly for the pivots (Zapfen) on which the folding- 1 Chronicles 22:6–16. Solomon commissioned doors turned, partly to strengthen the boards of to build the temple.—V. 6. Before his death (v. 5) David called his son Solomon, in order to ,מְּחַבְּ רות which doors were made; as also for the commit to him the building of the temple, and literally, things to connect, i.e., properly iron to press it strongly upon him, vv. 7–10. With cramps. this design, he informs him that it had been his 1 Chronicles 22:4. The Tyrians sent him cedar intention to build a temple to the Lord, but the trees or beams in abundance, probably in Lord had not permitted him to carry out this exchange for grain, wine, and fruit of various resolve, but had committed it to his son. The v. 7) is, notwithstanding the general) בְּ נִי sorts, which the Phoenicians obtained from the Keri Israelites; cf. Movers, Phönizier, iii. 1, S. 88ff. worthlessness of the corrections in the Keri, Sidonians and Tyrians are named to denote the probably to be preferred here to the Keth. , בְּ נו Phoenicians generally, as in Ezra 3:7. When might have easily arisen by the copyist’s בְּ נו Solomon began to build the temple, he made a for v. 6. David’s ,לִשְּ ֹלמֹׁה בְּ נו regular treaty with Hiram king of Tyre about eye having wandered to the delivery of the necessary cedar wood, 1 addressing him as is very fitting, nay, even בְּ נִי .Kings 5:15ff .אֲ נִי Chronicles 22:5. V. 5 gives in substance the necessary, and not contrary to the following 1 it was with my heart, i.e., I had , םעִ לְּבָבִ י reason of what precedes, although it is consec. Because his intended, occurs indeed very often in the ו connected with it only by son Solomon was still in tender youth, and the Chronicle, e.g., 28:2, 2 Chronicles 1:11; 6:7f., building to be executed was an exceedingly 9:1; 24:4; 29:10, but is also found in other great work, David determined to make books where the sense demands it, e.g., Josh. There came ,וַיְּהִ י עָלַ י Kings 8:17f., 10:2. In 1 ,14:7 נַעַ ר .considerable preparation before his death puer et tener, repeated in 29:1, indicates a to me the word of Jahve (v. 8), it is implied that ,וָרָ ְך the divine word was given to him as a very early age. Solomon could not then be quite command. The reason which David gives why twenty years old, as he was born only after the the Lord did not allow him to build the temple Syro-Ammonite war (see on 2 Sam. 12:24), and is not stated in 1 Chronicles 17 (2 Sam. 7), to calls himself at the commencement of his reign which David here refers; instead of the reason, may of only the promise is there communicated, that נַעַ ר Kings 3:7). The word 1) רנַעַ קָ טֹׁן still itself denote not merely a boy, but also a grown the Lord would first build him a house, and youth; but here it is limited to the boyish age by enduringly establish his throne. This promise Berth. wrongly compares Ex. does not exclude the reason stated here and in .וָרָ ְך the addition of denotes not a boy, but a lad, 1 Chronicles 28:3, but rather implies it. As the נַעַ ר where ,33:11 temple was only to be built when God had ,enduringly established the throne of David לִבְּ נות i.e., a servant. In the succeeding clause

1 CHRONICLES Page 144 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

to observe” = and“ ,וְּלִשְּ מור .David could not execute this work, for he still Israel; cf. 2 Sam. 7:11 had to conduct wars—wars, too, of the Lord— mayest thou observe the law of Jahve; not thou for the establishment of his kingdom, as is to be regarded וְּלִשְּ מור must keep (Berth.), for Solomon also states it in his embassy to Hiram. Wars and bloodshed, however, are unavoidable as a continuation of the verb. finit.; cf. Ew. § 351, and necessary in this earth for the c, S. 840. establishment of the kingdom of God in 1 Chronicles 22:13. The condition of obtaining opposition to its enemies, but are not the result is the faithful observing of the consonant with its nature, as it was to receive a commands of the Lord. The speech is filled with visible embodiment and expression in the reminiscences of the law, cf. Deut. 7:11; 11:32; temple. For the kingdom of God is in its essence and for the exhortation to be strong and of good a kingdom of peace; and battle, or war, or courage, cf. Deut. 31:6, Josh. 1:7, 9, etc. struggle, are only means for the restoration of 1 Chronicles 22:14–16. In conclusion (vv. 14– peace, the reconciliation of mankind with God 16), David mentions what materials he has ,בְּעָ נְּיִי .after the conquest of sin and all that is hostile to prepared for the building of the temple God in this world. See on 2 Sam. 7:11. David, not, in my poverty (LXX, Vulg., Luth.), but, by therefore, the man of war, is not to build the my painful labour (magna molestia et labore, temple, but (v. 9f.) his son; and to him the Lord Lavat.); cf. Gen. 31:42, and the corresponding will give peace from all his enemies, so that he Chronicles 29:2. Gold 100,000 1 ,בְּכָ ל־כוחִ י a man of rest, and shall ,אִ יש מְּ נּוחָ ה shall be talents, and silver 1,000,000 talents. As the rightly bear the name Shelomo (Solomon), i.e., talent was 3000 shekels, and the silver shekel Friederich (rich in peace, Eng. Frederick), for coined by the Maccabees, according to the God would give to Israel in his days, i.e., in his Mosaic weight, was worth about 2s. 6d., the talent of silver would be about £375, and נולָ ד The participle .(שֶקֶ ט) reign, peace and rest has the signification of the future, shall 1,000,000 talents £375,000,000. If we suppose הִ ּנֵ ה after not a man the relative value of the gold and silver to be as ,אִ יש מְּנּוחָ ה .be born; cf. 1 Kings 13:2 10 to 1, 100,000 talents of gold will be about who procures peace (Jer. 51:59), but one who the same amount, or even more, viz., about shows. £450,000,000, i.e., if we take the gold shekel at וַהֲ נִיחותִ י לו enjoys peace, as the following ’see on 2 Sam. 12:24. Into thirty shillings, according to Thenius ,שְּ ֹלמֹׁה As to the name v. 10 David compresses the promise contained calculation. Such sums as eight hundred or in 1 Chronicles 17:12 and 13. eight hundred and twenty-five millions of pounds are incredible. The statements, indeed, 1 Chronicles 22:11. After David had so are not founded upon exact calculation or committed to his son Solomon the building of weighing, but, as the round numbers show, only the temple, as task reserved and destined for upon a general valuation of those masses of the him by the divine counsel, he wishes him, in v. precious metals, which we must not think of as 11, the help of the Lord to carry out the work. bars of silver and gold, or as coined money; for , ut prospere agas et felici successu utaris they were in great part vessels of gold and וְּהִצְּלַחְֹּּתָ of a command silver, partly booty captured in war, partly דִבֶר עַ ל .J. M. Mich.), cf. Josh. 1:8) .v. 8. Above all, however, he tribute derived from the subject peoples ,עָלַ י .from on high; cf Making all these allowances, however, the sums wishes (v. 12) him right understanding and mentioned are incredibly great, since we must insight from God ( , so connected in 2 suppose that even a valuation in round ׂשֵ לכֶ ּובִ ינָ ה Chronicles 2:11 also), and that God may numbers will have more or less establish him over Israel, i.e., furnish him with correspondence to the actual weight, and a might and wisdom to rule over the people subtraction of some thousands of talents from

1 CHRONICLES Page 145 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study the sums mentioned would make no very expenditure of the greatest European states in considerable diminution. On the other hand, it our day.30 is a much more important circumstance that Yet the calculation of the income or the above estimate of the value in our money of expenditure of modern states is no proper these talents of silver rests upon a standard for judging of the correctness of presumption, the correctness of which is open probability of the statements here made, for we to well-founded doubts. For in that calculation cannot estimate the accumulation of gold and the weight of the Mosaic or holy shekel is taken silver in the states and chief cities of Asia in as the standard, and it is presumed that the antiquity by the budgets of the modern talents weighed 3000 Mosaic shekels. But we European nations. In the capitals of the Asiatic find in 2 Sam. 14:26 mention made in David’s kingdoms of antiquity, enormous quantities of time of another shekel, “according to the kings’ the precious metals were accumulated. Not to weight,” whence we may with certainty mention the accounts of Ktesias, Diodor. Sic., conclude that in common life another shekel and others, which sound so fabulous to us now, than the Mosaic or holy shekel was in use. This as to the immense booty in gold and silver shekel according to the king’s weight was in all vessels which was accumulated in Nineveh and probability only half as heavy as the shekel of Babylon (see the table in Movers, die Phönizier, the sanctuary, i.e., was equal in weight to a ii. 3, S. 40ff.), according to Varro, in Pliny, Hist. Mosaic beka or half-shekel. This is proved by a Nat. xxxii. 15, Cyrus obtained by the conquest of comparison of 1 Kings 10:17 with 2 Chronicles Asia a booty of 34,000 pounds of gold, besides 9:16, for here three golden minae are reckoned that which was wrought into vessels and equal to 300 shekels,—a mina containing 100 ornaments, and 500,000 talents of silver; and in shekels, while it contained only 50 holy or this statement, as Movers rightly remarks, it Mosaic shekels. With this view, too, the does not seem probable that there is any statements of the Rabbins agree, e.g., R. Mosis exaggeration. In Susa, Alexander plundered the Maimonidis constitutiones de Siclis, quas— royal treasury of 40,000, according to other illustravit Joa. Esgers., Lugd. Bat. 1718, p. 19, accounts 50,000 talents, or, as it is more accurately stated, 40,000 talents of uncoined שקל or שקל שלחול according to which the i.e., the common or civil shekel, is the gold and silver, and 9000 talents in coined ,המדינה darics. These he caused to be brought to half of the . That this is the true Ecbatana, where he accumulated in all 180,000 שקל הקדש relation, is confirmed by the fact that, according talents. In Persepolis he captured a booty of to Ex. 38:26, in the time of Moses there existed 120,000 talents, and in Pasargada 6000 talents silver coins weighing ten gera (half a holy (see Mov. loc cit. S. 43). Now David, it is true, shekel) called beka, while the name beka is had not conquered Asia, but only the tribes and found only in the Pentateuch, and disappears at kingdoms bordering on Canaan, including the a later time, probably because it was mainly kingdom of Syria, and made them tributary, and such silver coins of ten gera which were in had consecrated all the gold and silver taken as circulation, and to them the name shekel, which booty from the conquered peoples, from the denotes no definite weight, was transferred. Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, Now, if the amounts stated in our verse are Amalekites, and Hadadezer the king of Zobah (2 reckoned in such common shekels (as in 2 Sam. 8:11f.), to Jahve. Now, in consequence of Chronicles 9:16), the mass of gold and silver the ancient connection between Syria and the collected by David for the building of the rich commercial countries of the temple would only be worth half the amount neighbourhood, great treasures of silver and above calculated, i.e., about £375,000,000 or gold had very early flowed in thither. According £400,000,000. But even this sum seems to 2 Sam. 8:7, the servants (i.e., generals) of enormously large, for it is five times the annual King Hadadezer had golden shields, which

1 CHRONICLES Page 146 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

David captured; and the ambassadors of King 1 Chronicles 22:17–19. Exhortation to the Toi of Hamath brought him vessels of silver, princes of Israel to assist in the building of the gold, and copper, to purchase his friendship.31 temple.—David supports his exhortation by The other peoples whom David overcame are calling to remembrance the proofs of his favour not to be regarded as poor in the precious which the Lord had showed His people. The ,לֵ אמֹׁר metals. For the Israelites under Moses had speech in v. 18 is introduced without captured so large a booty in gold rings, וַיְּצַו דָ וִ יד because it is clear from the preceding bracelets, and other ornaments from the nomadic Midianites, that the commanders of that the words are spoken by David: “The Lord the army alone were able to give 16,750 has given you peace round about; for He has shekels (i.e., over 5 1/2 talents of gold, given the inhabitants of the land into my hands, according to the Mosaic weight) to the and the land is subdued before Jahve and sanctuary as a consecrating offering (Num. before His people.” The subdued land is 31:48ff.). Canaan: the inhabitants of the land are, however, not the Israelites over whom the Lord We cannot therefore regard the sums had set David as king, for the words ןנָתַ בְּ יָדִ י mentioned in our verse either as incredible or very much exaggerated,32 nor hold the round cannot apply to them, cf. 14:10f., Josh. 2:24; it is sums which correspond to the rhetorical the Canaanites still left in the land in the time of character of the passage with certainty to be David, and other enemies, who, like the mistakes.33 Brass and iron were not weighed Philistines, possessed parts of the land, and had .cf. Josh ,נִכְּבְּשָ ה הָאָרֶ ץ for abundance; cf. v. 3. Beams of timber also, been subdued by David. On and stones—that is, stones hewed and 18:1, Num. 32:22, 29. This safety which the squared—David had prepared; and to this store Lord had granted them binds them in duty to Solomon was to add. That he did so is narrated seek Him with all their heart, and to build the in 2 Chronicles 2. sanctuary, that the ark and the sacred vessels is not a לַבַ יִת in לְּ Chronicles 22:15. David then turns to the may be brought into it. The 1 is not הֵבִ יא workmen, the carpenters and stone-cutters, sign of the accusative (Berth.), for whom he had appointed (v. 2) for the building. construed with accus. loci, but generally with -properly hewers, in v. 2 limited to stone ,חֹׁצְּבִ ים is לְּ ,for which, however, so early as Josh. 4:5 ,אֶ ל ,חָרָשֵ י אֶבֶ ן וָעֵ ץ hewers, is here, with the addition ה used, or it is construed with the acc. and used of the workers in stone and wood, .Gen. 19:10; 43:47 ,הַבַ יְּתָ ה—locale all ,כָל־חָ כָ ם ב׳ .stonemasons and carpenters manner of understanding persons in each work, 1 Chronicles 23 includes the ,עֹׁׂשֵי מְּ לָ אכָ ה in contradistinction to Ch. 23–26.—Enumeration and Arrangement of idea of thorough mastery and skill in the kind of the Levites according to Their Divisions and labour. These workmen, whom David had levied for the building of the temple, are Employments. mentioned by Solomon, 2 Chronicles 2:6f.—In 1 Chronicles 23–26. These four chapters give a v. 16 all the metals, as being the main thing, are connected view of the condition of the Levites again grouped together, in order that the towards the end, i.e., in the fortieth year, of exhortation to proceed with the erection of the David’s reign (cf. 23:1 and 26:31), and of the before each sections into which they were divided לְּ building may be introduced. The word serves to bring the thing once more into according to their various services. This review prominence; cf. Ew. § 310, a. “As for the gold, it begins with a statement of the total number cannot be numbered.” “Arise and be doing! and belonging to the tribe of Levi according to the Jahve be with thee” (vv. 17–19). census then undertaken, and their divisions

1 CHRONICLES Page 147 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study according to the duties devolving upon (1 taken to mean that David undertook the Chronicles 23:2–5); which is followed by an numbering of the Levites and the arrangement enumeration of the heads of the fathers’-houses of their service only after he had given over the into which the four families of Levites had government to his son Solomon, but signified branched out (1 Chronicles 23:6–23), together that the arrangement of this matter with a short review of their duties (1 Chronicles immediately preceded Solomon’s elevation to 23:24–32). Thereafter we have: 1. In 1 the throne, or was contemporaneous with it. Chronicles 24, a catalogue of the Aaronites, i.e., Our verse therefore does not contain, in its few of the priests, who were divided into twenty- words, a “summary of the contents of the four classes, corresponding to the sons of narrative 1 Kings 1,” as Berth. thinks, for in 1 Eleazar and Ithamar, and were appointed to Kings 1 we have an account of the actual perform the service in succession, according as anointing of Solomon and his accession to the it was determined by lot, special mention being throne in consequence of Adonijah’s attempt to made of the heads of these twenty-four classes; usurp it. By that indeed Solomon certainly was and a catalogue of the heads of the fathers’- made king; but the chronicler, in accordance houses of the other descendants of Levi, in an with the plan of his book, has withdrawn his order of succession, which was likewise settled attention from this event, connected as it was by lot (1 Chronicles 24:20–31). Then, 2. In 1 with David’s domestic relations, and has used in its more general signification, to הִמְּ לִ יְך Chronicles 25 we have a catalogue of the twenty-four orders of Levitic musicians, in an denote not merely the actual elevation to the order fixed by lot. And, 3. In 1 Chronicles 26 the throne, but also his nomination as king. Here classes of doorkeepers (vv. 1–19), the the nomination of Solomon to be king, which administrators of the treasures of the sanctuary preceded the anointing narrated in 1 Kings 1, (vv. 20–28), and the officials who performed that taking place at a time when David had the external services (vv. 29–32). already become bed-rid through old age, is 1 Chronicles 23. Number, duties, and fathers’- spoken of. This was the first step towards the houses of the Levites.—This clear account of the transfer of the kingdom to Solomon; and state and the order of service of the tribe of David’s ordering of the Levitical service, and of Levi is introduced by the words, v. 1, “David the other branches of public administration, so was old, and life weary; then he made his son as to give over a well-ordered kingdom to his .generally an successor, were also steps in the same process ,ֹזָקֵ ן ”.Solomon king over Israel adjective, is here third pers. perf. of the verb, as Of the various branches of the public is administration, our historian notices in detail יָמִ ים also is, to which ׂשָ בַ ע in Gen. 18:12, as on the Levites and their service, compressing subordinated in the accusative. Generally everything else into the account of the army is used, cf. Gen. 35:29, Job arrangements and the chief public officials, 1 ׂשְּ בַ ע יָמִ ים elsewhere .alone, with the same Chronicles 27 ׂשָ בֵעַ and also ,42:17 signification, Gen. 25:8. These words are 1 Chronicles 23:2–5. Numbering of the Levites, indeed, as Berth. correctly remarks, not a mere and partition of their duties.—V. 2. For this passing remark which is taken up again at a purpose David collected “all the princes of later stage, say 1 Chronicles 29:28, but an Israel, and the priests and Levites.” The princes independent statement complete in itself, with of Israel, because the numbering of the Levites which here the enumeration of the and the determination of their duties was a arrangements which David made in the last matter of national importance. “The meaning is, period of his life begins. But notwithstanding that David, in a solemn assembly of the princes, that, it serves here only as an introduction to i.e., of the representatives of the lay tribes, and the arrangements which follow, and is not to be of the priests and Levites, fixed the

1 CHRONICLES Page 148 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study arrangements of which an account is to be vv. 28–32 more nearly defined, and embraces given” (Berth.). all the business that was to be carried on about 1 Chronicles 23:3. The Levites were numbered the sanctuary, except the specifically priestly from thirty years old and upwards. This functions, the keeping of the doors, and the statement agrees with that in Num. 4:3, 23, 30, performance of the sacred music. For these two 39ff., where Moses caused those from thirty to latter offices special sections were appointed, fifty years of age to be numbered, and 4000 for the porters’ services, and the same appointed them for service about the number for the sacred music (v. 5). Besides tabernacle during the journey through the these, 5000 men were appointed Shoterim and wilderness. But Moses himself, at a later time, judges. “The instruments which I have made to determined that their period of service should sing praise” are the stringed instruments which be from twenty-five to fifty; Num. 8:23–26. It is David had introduced into the service to consequently not probable that David confined accompany the singing of the psalms; cf. 2 the numbering to those of thirty and upwards. Chronicles 29:26, Neh. 12:36. But besides that, we have a distinct statement 1 Chronicles 23:6–23. The fathers’-houses of in v. 24 that they were numbered from twenty the Levites.—V. 6. “And David divided them into years of age, the change being grounded by courses according to the sons of Levi, Gershon, David upon the nature of their service; and that Kohath, and Merari;” see on 5:27. The form which recurs in 24:3 with the same וַיֵחָ לְּקֵ ם this was the proper age is confirmed by 2 Chronicles 31:17 and Ezra 3:8, according to pointing, is in more accurate MSS in that place which the Levites under Hezekiah, and There are also found in MSS and .וַיֶחַ לְּקֵ ם pointed afterwards, had to take part in the service from and the rare form of the Kal ,וַיְּחַ לְּקֵ ם their twentieth year. We must therefore regard editions cf. J. H. Mich. Notae crit. This ;(וַיַחְּ לְּקֵ ם for) וַיִחַ לְּקֵ ם in v. 3 as having crept into the text שְּ ֹלשִֹׁ ים through the error of copyists, who were last pronunciation is attested for, 24:3, by D. thinking of the Mosaic census in Num. 4, and Kimchi, who expressly remarks that the regular corresponds to it; cf. Norzi on this וַיַחְּ לְּקֵ ם instead of it. The various form עֶׂשְּרִ ים must read attempts of commentators to get rid of the passage. Gesen. (in Thes. p. 483) and Ew. (§ 83, ,(וַיְּחַ לְּקֵ ם) as a variety of the Piel וַיֵחָ לְּקֵ ם discrepancy between v. 3 and v. 24 are mere c) regard makeshifts; and the hypothesis that David took to which, however, Berth. rightly remarks that two censuses is as little supported by the text, it would be worth a thought only if the as that other, that our chapter contains were confirmed by good וַיְּחָ לְּקֵ ם punctuation divergent accounts drawn from two different sources; see on v. 24. The number amounted to MSS, which is not the case, though we find the Piel in the Chronicle in 15:3, and then with the לִגְּבָרִ ים .according to their heads in men ,38,000 signification to distribute. Berth. therefore and holds—and certainly this is the more correct ,לְּגֻלְּגְֹּלתָ ם serves for a nearer definition of attested by ,וַיֶחָ לְּקֵ ם explains that only men were numbered, women opinion—that the form not being included. Kimchi for 24:3, was the original reading in our 1 Chronicles 23:4, 5. Vv. 4 and 5 contain verse also, and considers it a rare form of the cf. 24:4, 5), by) וַיַחְּ לְּקֵ ם impf. Kal derived from ראֲשֶ עָׂשִ יתִ י words of David, as we learn from Kamets coming into the pretonic syllable, after וַ יֹׁאמֶ ר v. 5, end), so that we must supply) לְּהַ לֵ ל ,Kings 10:14 2 ,יִשְּחֲ טּום for יִשְּחָ טּום of these (38,000) 24,000 the analogy of ,מֵאֵ לֶ ה .before v. 4 דָ וִ יד to superintend the business, and by the passing of an ă (Pathach) into ĕ ,לְּנַצֵחַ וגו׳ shall be (Seghol) before the Kamets, according to well- i.e., to conduct and carry on the business (the known euphonic rules. is a second מַחְּ לְּ קות work) of the house of Jahve. This business is in

1 CHRONICLES Page 149 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

and ;(מִשְּ פָ חות) accusative: “in divisions.” The tribe of Levi had patriarchs, founded the families been divided from ancient times into the three their sons, i.e., the great-grandsons of Jacob, great families of Gershonites, Kohathites, and But this .(בֵ ית־אָ בות) founded the fathers’-houses Merarites, corresponding to the three sons of Levi; cf. 5:27–6:15, 28:32.—From v. 7 onwards natural division or ramification of the people we have an enumeration of the fathers’-houses into tribes, families, and fathers’-houses into which these three families were divided: (groups of related households), was not vv. 7–11, the fathers’-houses of the Gershonites; consistently carried out. Even the formation of vv. 12–20, those of the Kohathites; and vv. 21– the tribes suffered a modification, when the two 23, those of the Merarites. Berth., on the other sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, who hand, thinks that in these verses only the were born before Jacob’s arrival in Egypt, were fathers’-houses of those Levites who performed adopted by him as his sons, and so made the service of the house of Jahve, i.e., the 24,000 founders of tribes (Gen. 48:5). The formation of in v. 4, and not the divisions of all the Levites, the families and fathers’-houses was also are enumerated. But this opinion is incorrect, interfered with, partly by the descendants of and certainly is not proved to be true by the many grandsons or great-grandsons of Jacob circumstance that the singers, porters, and the not being numerous enough to form scribes and judges, are only spoken of independent families and fathers’-houses, and afterwards; nor by the remark that, in great partly by individual fathers’-houses (or groups part, the names here enumerated appear again of related households) having so much in the sections 1 Chronicles 24:20–31 and decreased that they could no longer form 26:20–28, while in the enumeration of the independent groups, and so were attached to twenty-four classes of musicians (1 Chronicles other fathers’-houses, or by families which had becoming so בֵ ית־אָ ב of the doorkeepers (1 Chronicles originally formed a ,(31–25:1 26:1–19), and of the scribes and judges (1 numerous as to be divided into several fathers’- Chronicles 26:29–32), quite other names are houses. In the tribe of Levi there came into met with. The recurrence of many of the names operation this special cause, that Aaron and his here enumerated in the sections 1 Chronicles sons were chosen to be priests, and so his 24:20–31 and 26:20–28 is easily explained by family was raised above the other Levites. From and מִשְּ פָחָ ה the fact that these sections treat of the divisions these causes, in the use of the words of the Levites, according to the service they .many fluctuations occur; cf. my bibl בֵ ית־אָ ב performed, and of course many heads of fathers’-houses must again be named. The Archäol. ii. § 140. Among the Levites, the occurrence of quite other names in the lists of fathers’-houses were founded not by the musicians and doorkeepers, again, is simply the grandsons, but by the great-grandsons of the result of the fact that only single branches of patriarch. fathers’-houses, not whole fathers’-houses, 1 Chronicles 23:7. “Of the Gershonites, Laadan were appointed musicians and doorkeepers. and Shimei,” i.e., these were heads of groups of Finally, Bertheau’s statement, that in the related families, since, according to v. 9, their catalogue of the scribes and judges quite other sons and descendants formed six fathers’- names occur than those in our verses, is based houses. The sons of Gershon, from whom all upon an oversight; cf. 26:31 with 23:19. branches of the family of Gershon come, are 1 Chronicles 23:7–11. The fathers’-houses of called in 6:2, as in Ex. 6:17 and Num. 13:18, the Gershonites.—According to the natural Libni and Shimei; while in our verse, on the development of the people of Israel, the twelve contrary, we find only the second name Shimei, sons of Jacob founded the twelve tribes of whose sons are enumerated in vv. 10, 11; and Israel; his grandsons, or the sons of the twelve instead of Libni we have the name Laadan, which recurs in 26:21. Laadan seemingly

1 CHRONICLES Page 150 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study cannot be regarded as a surname of Libni; for therefore, numbered nine father’s-houses—six not only are the sons of Shimei named along named after Laadan, and three after Shimei. with the sons of Laadan in vv. 8 and 9 as heads 1 Chronicles 23:12–20. The fathers’-houses of of the fathers’-houses of Laadan, without any the Kohathites.—The four sons of Kohath who hint being given of the genealogical connection are named in v. 12, as in 5:28; 6:3, and Ex. 6:18, of this Shimei with Laadan, but mainly because founded the four families of Kohath, Num. 3:27. .in v. 7. In the case of Kohath and From Amram came Aaron and Moses; see on Ex לַגֵרְּשֻ ּנִי of Merari, the enumeration of the fathers’-houses 6:20. Of these, Aaron with his sons was set descended from them is introduced by the apart “to sanctify him to be a most holy one; he vv. and his sons for ever to offer incense before) בני מררי and בני קהת ,mention of their sons Jahve, to serve Him, and to bless in His name for 12, 21), while in the case of Gershon it is not signifies neither, ut לְּהַקְּדִ ישו קֹׁדֶ ש ק׳ ”.ever we find the ,בני גרשון so;—in his case, instead of ministraret in sancto sanctorum (Vulg., Syr.), Gentilic designation , to point out that .nor, ut res sanctissimas, sacrificia, vasa sacra etc גֵרְּשֻ ּנִי Laadan and Shimei are not named as being sons consecrarent (Cler.). Against this interpretation of Gershon, but as founders of the two chief we adduce not only the objection advanced by lines of Gershonites, of which only the second Hgstb. Christol. iii. p. 119, trans., that the office was named after Gershon’s son Shimei, while assigned by it to the Levites is far too the second derived their name from Laadan, subordinate to be mentioned here in the first whose family was divided in David’s time into place, but also the circumstance that the suffix must ,שָרְּ תו after the analogy of ,הַקְּדִ ישו two branches, the sons of Laadan and the sons in of Shimei, the latter a descendant of Libni, not denote the object of the sanctifying; and this elsewhere mentioned. That the Shimei of v. 9 is view is confirmed by the subject, who offers not the same person as Shimei the son of incense and blesses, not being expressed with Gershon mentioned in v. 7, is manifest from the The Vulgate translation cannot .לְּבָרֵ ְך and לְּהַקְּטִ יר fact that the sons of the latter are enumerated cannot be the קֹׁדֶ ש קָדָשִ ים only in v. 10. Each of these two lines numbered be accepted, for at that time three fathers’-houses, the heads of ablative, and the most holy place in the temple .with the article קֹׁדֶ ש הַקָדָשִ ים in v. 8 is always called הָ רֹׁאש .which are named in vv. 8 and 9 without the article, is only used of ,קדש קדשים the sons of Laadan were: the“ :יְּחִיאֵ ל belongs to head (also the first; cf. vv. 11, 16) Jehiel, the most holy things, e.g., of the vessels Zetham, and Joel, three.” connected with the worship, the sacrificial gifts, 1 Chronicles 23:9. The sons of Shimei: and other things which no lay person might Shelomoth or Shelomith (both forms are found touch or appropriate. See on Ex. 30:10, Lev. 2:3, in 26:35 of another Shelomith), Haziel, and and Dan. 9:24. Here it is committed to Aaron, Haran, three. These (three and three) are the who, by being chosen for the priest’s service heads of the fathers’-houses of Laadan.—In vv. and anointed to the office, was made a most 10 and 11 there follow the fathers’-houses of holy person, to discharge along with his sons all the Shimei mentioned in v. 7 along with Laadan: the priestly functions in the sanctuary. they are likewise three, derived from the four Specimens of such functions are then adduced: the offering of the sacrifice of ,הַקְּטִ יר לִפְּ נֵי יי׳ ;sons of Shimei, Jahath, Zina, Jeush, and Beriah for the last two, as they had not many sons, incense upon the altar of the inner sanctuary, as to serve“ ,לְּשָרְּ תו ;.in 2 Chronicles 2:3, 5, Ex. 30:7f ,פְּקֻדָ ה were included in one father’s-house, one i.e., one official class (1 Chronicles 24:3; 2 Him,” Jahve,—a general expression, including Chronicles 17:14). The Gershonites at that time, all the other services in the sanctuary, which to ,לְּבָרֵ ְך בִשְּ מו were reserved for the priests; and

1 CHRONICLES Page 151 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study bless in His name, i.e., to pronounce the Levitical fathers’-houses are descended from blessing in the name of the Lord over the Kohath, and their chiefs who served in the people, according to the command in Num. sanctuary are enumerated in 1 Chronicles 6:23, cf. 16:2, Deut. 21:5; not “to bless His 24:20–25. name” (Ges., Berth.). To call upon or praise the 1 Chronicles 23:21–23. The fathers’-houses of Ps. 96:2; 100:4; and the the Merarites.—V. 21f. As in 6:4, Ex. 6:19, and ,בָרְֵך שְּ מו name of God is —is a somewhat later Num. 3:33, two sons of Merari are mentioned בָרֵ ְך בְּשֵ ם assertion that Mahli and Mushi—who founded the two phrase formed on the model of , for “to families of Merari which existed in the time of אקָרָ בְּשֵ ם ;is Moses. Mahli had two sons, Eleazar and Kish ,(ברְך call upon God” (Ges. in Lex. sub voce quite groundless. Our phrase occurs as early as the first of whom, however, left behind him at in Deut. 10:8 and 21:5; and the latter passage in his death only daughters, who were married to ,(i.e., their cousins ,אֲחֵיהֶ ם) of the priests; in the the sons of Kish לְּשָרְּ תו connection with former, of the tribe of Levi, but so used that it according to the law as to daughters who were can refer only to the priests, not to the Levites heiresses (Num. 26:6–9). The descendants of also. Mahli, therefore, were comprehended in the 1 Chronicles 23:14. “But as to Moses the man one father’s-house of Kish, whose head at that of God” (cf. Deut. 33:1), “his sons were called time (1 Chronicles 24:29) was Jerahmeel. after the tribe of Levi,” i.e., were reckoned in the 1 Chronicles 23:23. Of the sons of Mushi, three founded fathers’-houses, so that the Merarites נִקְּרָ א ranks of the Levites, not of the priests. On formed only four fathers’-houses in all. If we , cf. Gen. 48:6, Ezra 2:61, Neh. 7:63. compare the enumeration of the Merarites in 1 עַ ל 1 Chronicles 23:15–17. Each of his two sons Chronicles 24:26–30, we find there in v. 30 Gershon and Eliezer (see Ex. 2:22 and 18:3f.) Eleazar and Kish called sons of Mahli, with the founded a father’s-house; Gershon through his remark that Eleazar had no sons. In v. 26, Eliezer however, of the same passage we read, “sons of ,(שּובָאֵ ל in 24:20 ,שְּבּואֵ ל) son Shebuel Merari (were) Mahli and Mushi, sons of Jaaziah are בני א׳ ,בני ג׳ through Rehabiah. The plurals his son;” and v. 27, “sons of Merari by Jaaziah used, although in both cases only one son, he his son; and Shoham, and Zaccur, and Ibri.” of the father’s-house, is From this Bertheau concludes that Merari had (הָ רֹׁאש) who was head mentioned, either because they had other sons, really three sons, and that the name of the third or those named had in their turn sons, who has been dropped out of 1 Chronicles 23; but in together formed a father’s-house. From the this he is incorrect, for vv. 26 and 27 of the 24th remark in v. 17, that Eliezer had no other sons chapter are at once, from their whole character, than Rehabiah, while Rehabiah had very many, recognisable as arbitrary interpolations. Not should follow בְּ נֵי יַעֲ ֹזִיָהּו בְּ נו we may conclude that Gershon had other sons only is it strange that besides Shebuel, who are not mentioned the before-mentioned sons of Merari in this because their descendants were numbered unconnected way (Vav being omitted before with Shebuel’s father’s-house. but the form of the expression also is ,(בְּ נֵי 1 Chronicles 23:18. Only one son of Jizhar, the peculiar. If be a third son of Merari, or the יַעֲ ֹזִיָהּו brother of Amram, is mentioned, Shelomith as head, after whom the Jizharite father’s-house is founder of a third family of Merarites, named. coordinate with the families of Mahli and Mushi, as we must conclude from the additional 1 Chronicles 23:19. Amram’s next brother ,we should expect, after the preceding ,בְּ נו Hebron had four sons, and the youngest word brother Uzziel two, who founded fathers’- simply the name with the conjunction, i.e., houses; so that, besides the priests, nine

1 CHRONICLES Page 152 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

is all the more surprising vessels. From this, of course, it results that they בְּ נֵייַעֲ ֹזִיָהּו The .וְּיַעֲ ֹזִיָהּו that the names of the sons of Jaaziah follow in v. had not any longer to do such heavy work as during the march through the wilderness, and is שֹׁהַ ם and there the name of the first son ,27 so might enter upon their service even at the introduced by the Vav copulative. This misled age of twenty. In v. 27 a still further reason is ,given: “For by the last words of David was this בְּ נו the older commentators, so that they took viz.) the numbering of the sons of Levi from) ,בְּ נֵי מְּרָרִ י for a proper name. The repetition of too, at the beginning of the second verse is twenty years old and upwards.” There is a בְּדִבְּרֵי דָ וִ יד strange, and without parallel in the preceding difference of opinion as to how are to be understood. Bertheau הָאַחֲ רונִים enumeration of the fathers’-houses founded by Amram’s sons (1 Chronicles 24:20–25). We translates, with Kimchi, “in the later histories of must, then, as the result of all this, since the David are the number = the numbered,” and Pentateuch knows only two descendants of adduces in support of his translation 1 Merari who founded families of fathers’- Chronicles 29:29, whence it is clear that by “the 34 houses, regard the additions in 24:26, 27 as later histories of David” a part of a historical later glosses, although we are not in a position work is meant. But the passage quoted does not to explain the origin or the meaning of the דִבְּרֵ יהָרִ אשונִים וְּהָאַחֲ רֹׁנִים prove this. In the formula interpolation. This inability arises from the fact that, of the names Jaaziah, Shoham, Zaccur, and … (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; Ibri, only Zaccur again occurs among the 12:15; 16:11, etc.), which recurs at the end of denotes not historiae, in דִבְּרֵ י ,Asaphites (1 Chronicles 25:2), and elsewhere of each king’s reign other persons, while the others are nowhere the sense of a history, but res gestae, which are else to be met with. The three families of Levi recorded in the writings named. In accordance cannot denote דִבְּרֵ י דָ וִ יד ,numbered therefore 9 + 9 + 4 = 22 fathers’- with this, therefore houses, exclusive of the priests. writings of David, but only words or things (= 1 Chronicles 23:24–32. Concluding remarks.— deeds); but the Levites who were numbered V. 24. “These (the just enumerated) are the sons could not be in the acts of David. We must of Levi according to their fathers’-houses, rather translate according to :30 דִבְּרֵי דָ וִ יד according to those who were counted (Num. and 2 Sam. 23:1. In the latter passage 1:21f.; Ex. 30:14) in the enumeration by name are the last words (utterances) of David, and in (Num. 1:18; 3:43), by the head, performing the the former , “by the words of David,” בְּדִבְּרֵ י דָ וִ יד work for the service of the house of Jahve, from i.e., according to the commands or directions of עֹׁׂשֵ ה ”.the men of twenty years and upwards David. In this way, Cler. and Mich., with the is not singular, but plural, as in 2 Vulg. juxta praecepta, have already correctly הַֹּמְּ לָ אכָ ה Chronicles 24:12; 34:10, 13, Ex. 3:9, Neh. 2:16, translated the words: “according to the last is nowhere found in הֵֹּמָ ה ”.commands of David ,עֹׁׂשֵ י cf. 2 Chronicles 11:1. It occurs along with with a similar meaning and in a like position, 2 the signification sunt as the mere copula of the Chronicles 24:13; 34:17, Neh. 11:12; 13:10. It is subject and verb, but is everywhere an ,and the same independent predicate, and is here to be taken ,עֹׁׂשֵ י only another way of writing form is found here and there in other words; cf. according to later linguistic usage, as neutr. Ew. § 16, b. The statement that the Levites were sing. (cf. Ew. § 318, b): “According to the last numbered from twenty years old and upwards commands of David, this,” i.e., this was done, is accounted for in v. 25 thus: David said, The viz., the numbering of the Levites from twenty Lord has given His people rest, and He dwells in years and upwards. From this statement, from Jerusalem; and the Levites also have no longer twenty years and upwards, which is so often to bear the dwelling (tabernacle) with all its repeated, and for which the reasons are so

1 CHRONICLES Page 153 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study given, it cannot be doubtful that the statement referring of them to the Levites who assisted in v. 3, “from thirty years and upwards,” is the priests in the sacrificial worship (Berth.) is הודות ּולְּהַ לֵ ל incorrect, and that, as has been already needs no serious refutation, for has crept into the text the standing phrase for the sacred temple שְֹּלשִ ים ,remarked on v. 3 by an error of the copyist, who was thinking of music; and we can hardly believe that the the Mosaic census.35 In vv. 28–32 we have, in Levites sang psalms or played on harps or lutes the enumeration of the duties which the Levites while the beasts for sacrifices were slaughtered had to perform, another ground for the and skinned, or the meat-offerings baked, or employment of those from twenty years old such duties performed. and upwards in actual service. 1 Chronicles 23:31. “And for all the bringing of 1 Chronicles 23:28. Their appointed place or offerings to Jahve on sabbaths, the new moons, post was at the hand of the sons of Aaron, i.e., and the feasts, in the number according to the they were ready to the priest’s hand, to aid him law concerning them (i.e., according to the in carrying on the service of the house of God. regulations that existed for this matter), “Over the courts and the cells (of the courts; cf. continually before Jahve.” It was the duty of the 9:26), and the purifying of every holy thing,” Levites to procure the necessary number of i.e., of the temple rooms and the temple vessels. beasts for sacrifice, to see to their suitableness, refers to ֹּתָמִ יד .used for mediate to slaughter and skin them, etc ,כָ ל־קֹׁדֶ ש before לְּ On the burnt-offerings for Jahve, which are ,עֹׁלות .connection after the stat. const., cf. Ew. § 289, b because they must always be offered ,ֹּתָמִ יד and for the performance of the , הּומַעֲׂשֵ עֲ בֹׁדַ ת .is anew on the appointed days עַ ל ,מעׂשה service of the house of God. Before to be supplied from the preceding. The 1 Chronicles 23:32. In conclusion, the whole individual services connected with the worship duties of the Levites are summed up in three are specialized in vv. 29–31, and introduced by clauses: they were to keep the charge of the ,.For the bread of the pile, i.e., tabernacle, the charge of the sacred things, i.e .לְּ the preposition the shew-bread (see on Lev. 24:8f.), viz., to of all the sacred things of the worship, and the prepare it; for the laying of the bread upon the charge of the sons of Aaron, i.e., of all that the table was the priest’s business. For fine meal priests committed to them to be done; cf. Num. see on Lev. 2:1) for the meat-offering and 18:3ff., where these functions are more exactly ,סֹׁלֶ ת) fixed. ,(see on Lev. 2:4 ,רְּ קִיקֵ יהַֹּמַ צות) unleavened cakes and for the pans, i.e., that which was baked in 1 Chronicles 24 pans (see on Lev. 2:5), and for that which was 1 Chronicles 24. The division of the priests and see on Lev. 6:14), and for all Levites into classes.—Vv. 1–19. The twenty-four ,מֻרְּ בֶכֶ ת) roasted measures of capacity and measures of length classes of priests. After the statement as to the which were kept by the Levites, because meal, fathers’-houses of the Levites (1 Chronicles 23), oil, and wine were offered along with the we have next the arrangements of the priests sacrifices in certain fixed quantities (cf. e.g., Ex. for the performance of the service in the 29:40; 30:24), and the Levites had probably to sanctuary; the priestly families descended from watch over the weights and measures in Aaron’s sons Eleazar and Ithamar being divided general (Lev. 19:35). into twenty-four classes, the order of whose service was settled by lot. 1 Chronicles 23:30. “On each morning and evening to praise the Lord with song and 1 Chronicles 24:1a. V. 1a contains the instruments.” These words refer to the duties of superscription, “As for the sons of Aaron, their the singers and musicians, whose classes and divisions (were these).” To make the division orders are enumerated in 1 Chronicles 25. The clear, we have an introductory notice of Aaron’s

1 CHRONICLES Page 154 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study descendants, to the effect that of his four sons, determined by lot, as both drew lots mutually. the two elder, Nadab and Abihu, died before “For holy princes and princes of God were of their father, leaving no sons, so that only the sons of Eleazar, and among the sons of i.e., Ithamar;” i.e., of both lines of priests holy ,(יְּכַהֲ נּו) Eleazar and Ithamar became priests entered upon the priesthood. The four sons of princes had come, men who had held the Aaron, v. 1, as in 5:29, Ex. 6:23. highest priestly dignity. The high-priesthood, as is well known, went over entirely to Eleazar 1 Chronicles 24:2. cf. Lev. 10:1f., Num. 3:4. and his descendants, but had been held for a These priestly families David caused (v. 3) to be considerable period in the time of the judges by divided, along with the two high priests (see on the descendants of Ithamar; see above, pp. 444f. office, In the settlement of the classes of priests for the ,פְּקֻדָ ה ”.according to their service“ ,(13:16 official class, as in 23:11. service, therefore, neither of the lines was to 1 Chronicles 24:4. As the sons of Eleazar have an advantage, but the order was to be .cf. Isa , יׂשָרֵ קֹׁדֶ ש .proved to be more numerous in respect of the determined by lot for both Chronicles 36:14, are the 2 , יׂשָרֵ הַ כֹׁהֲ נִים = ,heads of the men than the sons of Ithamar, they 43:28 (David, Zadok, and Ahimelech) divided them high priests and the heads of the priestly thus: “For the sons of Eleazar, heads of fathers’- families, the highest officers among the priests, houses, sixteen; and for the sons of Ithamar, but can hardly be the same as the ἀρχιερεῖς of the gospel history; for the view that these לְּרָ יאשֵ הַ גְּבָרִ ים ”.heads) of fathers’-houses, eight) means neither in respect to the number of the ἀρχιερεῖς were the heads of the twenty-four men by the head (cf. 23:3), nor with respect to classes of priests cannot be made good: cf. the chiefs of the men, divided according to their Wichelhaus, Comment. zur Leidensgesch. (Halle, would seem to denote יׂשָרֵ הָאֱ ֹלהִ ים .fathers’-houses (Berth.). The supplying of the 1855), S. 32ff words, “divided according to their fathers’- the same, and to be added as synonymous; but houses,” is perfectly arbitrary. The expression if there be a distinction between the two is rather to be explained by the fact designations, we would take the princes of God רָ יאשֵ הַ גְּבָרִ ים that, according to the natural articulations of to denote only the regular high priests, who the people, the fathers’-houses, i.e., the groups could enter in before God into the most holy of related families comprehended under the place. ,.divided themselves further into 1 Chronicles 24:6. “He set them down,” viz ,בֵ ית־אָ בות name individual households, whose heads were the classes, as the lot had determined them. belongs to לַ כֹׁהֲ נִים ול׳ .of the tribe of Levi ,מִ ן־הַ לֵוִ י ,as is clear from Josh. 7:16–18 ,גְּבָרִ ים called heads of the fathers’-houses of the ,רָ אשֵ י הָאָ בות ,הַ גֶבֶ ר ,because each household had in the man are therefore the priests and of the Levites. The second hemistich רָ יאשֵ הַ גְּבָ רִ ים .its natural head heads, not of the fathers’-houses, but of the of v. 6 gives a more detailed account of the individual households, considered in their drawing of the lots: “One father’s-house was relation to the men as heads of households. Just drawn for Eleazar, and drawn for Ithamar.” The to lay hold of, to אָ ,חּוֹז .is a technical designation of the larger last words are obscure בֵ ית־אָ ב as groups of households into which the great draw forth (Num. 31:30, 47), here used of is the technical expression drawing lots, signifies plucked forth or drawn הַ גֶבֶ ר families fell, so from the urn. The father’s-house was plucked for the individual households into which the forth from the urn, the lot bearing its name fathers’-houses fell. -which is the only well ,וְּאָהֻ ֹזֹזָאֻ ֹז .being drawn 1 Chronicles 24:5. They divided them by lot, attested reading, only some few MSS containing these with these, i.e., the one as the ,אֵ לֶה עִם־אֵ לֶ ה is very difficult. Although ,וְּאֶחָד אָחֻ ֹז the reading other (cf. 25:8), so that the classes of both were

1 CHRONICLES Page 155 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study this various reading is a mere conjecture, yet are so obscure as to be unintelligible even to Gesen. (Thes. p. 68), with Cappell and Grotius, the old translators. In vv. 7–18 we have the prefers it. The repetition of the same word names of the fathers’-houses in the order of expresses sometimes totality, multitude, succession which had been determined by the of the lot coming forth from the urn, as ,יֵצֵ א .sometimes a distributive division; and here can lot only be taken in this last signification: one in Josh. 16:1; 19:1. The names Jehoiarib and father’s-house drawn for Eleazar, and then Jedaiah occur together also in 9:10; and Jedaiah always drawn (or always one drawn) for is met with, besides, in Ezra 2:36 and Neh. 7:39. Ithamar. So much at least is clear, that the lots The priest , 1 Macc. 2:1, came of the of the two priestly families were not placed in class of Jehoiarib. Of the succeeding names, one urn, but were kept apart in different urns, v. 15) do) הַפִצֵ ץ v. 13), and) יֶשֶ בְּאָ ב ,(v. 8) ׂשְּ עֹׁרִ ים so that the lots might be drawn alternately for .v) חֻ פָ ה Eleazar and Ithamar. Had the lot for Eleazar not elsewhere occur; others, such as v. 17), do not recur among the names) גָ מּול ,(been first drawn, and thereafter that for 13 Ithamar, since Eleazar’s family was the more of priests. The sixteenth class, Immer, on the numerous, they would have had an advantage contrary, and the twenty-first, Jachin, are often over the Ithamarites. But it was not to be mentioned; cf. 9:10, 12. Zacharias, the father of allowed that one family should have an John the Baptist, belonged to the eighth, Abiah advantage over the other, and the lots were (Luke 1:5). consequently drawn alternately, one for the 1 Chronicles 24:19. These are their official one, and another for the other. But as the so that ,לָ בוא ,(Eleazarites were divided into sixteen fathers’- classes for their service (cf. v. 3 houses, and the Ithamarites into eight, Bertheau they came (according to the arrangement thus thinks that it was settled, in order to bring determined) into the house of Jahve, according about an equality in the numbers sixteen and to their law, through Aaron their father eight, in so far as the drawing of the lots was (ancestor), i.e., according to the lawful concerned, that each house of Ithamar should arrangement which was made by Aaron for represent two lots, or, which is the same thing, their official service, as Jahve the God of Israel that after every two houses of Eleazarites one had commanded. This last clause refers to the house of Ithamarites should follow, and that the fact that the priestly service in all its parts was order of succession of the single houses was prescribed by Jahve in the law.36 fixed according to this arrangement. To this or 1 Chronicles 24:20–31. The classes of the some similar conception of the manner of Levites.—The superscription, “As to the other settling the order of succession we are brought, Levites” (v. 20), when compared with the he says, by the relation of the number eight to subscription, “And they also cast lots, like to But their brethren the sons of Aaron” (v. 31), leads .וְּאָחֹֻז אָחֻ ֹז and אָחֻ ֹז sixteen, and by the words even though this conception be readily us to expect a catalogue of these classes of suggested by the relation of the number sixteen Levites, which performed the service in the ,house of God at the hand of, i.e., as assistants to אָחֻ ֹז to eight, yet we cannot see how the words are the Levites still הַ ּנותָרִ ים .the priests indicate it. These words would וְּאָחֹֻז אָחֻ ֹז and remaining after the enumeration of the priests. much rather suggest that a lot for Eleazar We might certainly regard the expression as alternated with the drawing of one for Ithamar, including all the Levites except the Aaronites until the eight heads of Ithamar’s family had (or priests); but the statement of the been drawn, when, of course, the remaining subscription that they cast lots like the sons of eight lots of Eleazar must be drawn one after Aaron, and the circumstance that in 1 the other. We cannot, however, come to any Chronicles 25 the twenty-four orders of singers certain judgment on the matter, for the words

1 CHRONICLES Page 156 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study and musicians, in 1 Chronicles 26:1–19 the Moses’ sons (vv. 20, 21); then the Izharites, class of the doorkeepers, and in 26:20–32 the Hebronites, and Uzzielites (vv. 22–25), and the overseers of the treasures, and the scribes and main branches of the Merarites (vv. 26–30). judges, are specially enumerated, prove that 1 Chronicles 24:20b. V. 20b is to be taken our passage treats only of the classes of the thus: Of the sons of Amram, i.e., of the Kohathite Levites who were employed about the worship. Amram, from whom Moses descended (1 Bertheau has overlooked these circumstances, Chronicles 23:13), that is, of the chief Shubael, and, misled by false ideas as to the catalogue in descended from Moses’ son Gershon (1 1 Chronicles 23:6–23, has moreover drawn the Chronicles 23:16), his son Jehdeiah, who as false conclusion that the catalogue in our verses head and representative of the class made up of is imperfect, from the circumstance that a part his sons, and perhaps also of his brothers, is of the names of the fathers’-houses named in alone mentioned. 23:6–23 recur here in vv. 20–29, and that we 1 Chronicles 24:21. Of the father’s-house find a considerable number of the names which Rehabiah, connected with Eliezer the second are contained in 1 Chronicles 23:6–23 to be son of Moses (1 Chronicles 23:16); of the sons omitted from them. In vv. 20–25, for example, of this Rehabiah, Isshiah was the head. we find only names of Kohathithes, and in vv. 26–29 of Merarites, and no Gershonites. But it 1 Chronicles 24:22. Of the Izharites, namely of by no means follows from that, that the classes the father’s-house Shelomoth (1 Chronicles of the Gershonites have been dropped out, or 23:18), his sons were under the head Jahath. even omitted by the author of the Chronicle as The heads of the class formed by David an unnecessary repetition. This conclusion mentioned in vv. 20–22, Jehdeiah, Isshiah, and would only be warrantable if it were otherwise Jahath, are not met with in 1 Chronicles 23, —a demonstrated, or demonstrable, that the clear proof that 1 Chronicles 23 treats of the Levites who were at the hand of the priests in fathers’-houses; our section, on the contrary, of carrying on the worship had been taken from the official classes of the Levites. all the three Levite families, and that 1 Chronicles 24:23. V. 23 treats of the consequently Gershonites also must have been Hebronites, as is clear from 23:19; but here the included. But no such thing can be proved. text is imperfect. Instead of enumerating the Several fathers’-houses of the Gershonites names of the chiefs of the classes into which were, according to 26:20ff., entrusted with the David divided the four fathers’-houses into oversight of the treasures of the sanctuary. We which Hebron’s descendants fell for the temple have indeed no further accounts as to the service, we find only the four names of the employment of the other Gershonites; but the heads of the fathers’-houses repeated, just as in … as sons of ּובְּ נֵי statements about the management of the 23:19, —introduced, too, by treasures, and the scribes and judges, in 1 Bertheau would therefore interpolate the name according to 23:19). This) ּובְּ נֵי after חֶבְּ רון Chronicles 26:20–32, are everywhere imperfect. David had appointed 6000 men to be scribes and judges: those mentioned in 1 interpolation is probably correct, but is not of בְּ נֵי Chronicles 26:29–32 amounted to only 1700 quite beyond doubt, for possibly only the and 2700, consequently only 4400 persons in the four sons of Hebron named could be all; so that it is quite possible the remaining mentioned as being busied about the service of 1600 were taken from among the Gershonites. the sanctuary according to their divisions. In Thus, therefore, from the fact that the any case, the names of the heads of the classes Gershonites are omitted from our section, we formed by the Hebronites are wanting; but it is cannot conclude that our catalogue is mutilated. impossible to ascertain whether they have been In it all the chief branches of the Kohathites are dropped out only by a later copyist, or were not named, viz., the two lines descended from

1 CHRONICLES Page 157 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study contained in the authority made use of by our 1 Chronicles 25 historian, for even the LXX had our text. 1 Chronicles 25. The twenty-four classes of 1 Chronicles 24:26–28. The classes of the musicians.—V. 1. “David and the princes of the Merarites. As to Jaaziah and his sons, see the host separated for the service the sons of are not princes of the ׂשָרֵ י הַצָבָ א .remarks on 23:31. As Mahli’s son Eleazar had Asaph,” etc no sons, only Jerahmeel from his second son Levite host; for although the service of the Kish, as head of the class formed by Mahli’s in Num. 4:23, yet the צְּ בֹׁא צָבָ א sons, is named. Of Mushi’s sons only the names Levites is called ׂשָרֵ י of the four fathers’-houses into which they fell princes of the Levites are nowhere called This expression rather denotes either the .הָצָבָ א are mentioned, the chiefs of the classes not being noticed. The heads mentioned in our leaders of the army of the chiefs of Israel, as the section are fifteen in all; and supposing that in host of Jahve, Ex. 12:17, 41, etc. Here it is used the cases of the fathers’-houses of the in the last signification, as synonymous with Hebronites and of the Merarite branch of the princes of Israel (1 Chronicles 23:2); in 24:6 we Mushes, where the heads of the classes are not have simply the princes, along with whom the named, each father’s-house formed only one heads of the fathers’-houses of the priests and class, we would have only fifteen classes. It is, ,הִבְּדִ יל לַעֲ בֹׁדָ ה .however, quite conceivable that many of the the Levites are mentioned in לְּ fathers’-houses of the Hebronites and Mushes separate for the service; cf. Num. 16:9. The is nota acc. Since Asaph was, according לִבְּ נֵי אָסָ ף were so numerous as to form more than one class; and so out of the Levite families to 6:24–28, a descendant of Gershon, Heman, mentioned in vv. 20–29 twenty-four classes according to 6:18–23, a descendant of Kohath, could be formed. The subscription, that they and Jeduthun (= Ethan) a descendant of Merari cast the lot like their brethren, makes this (1 Chronicles 6:29–32), all the chief families of probable; and the analogy of the division of the Levi had representatives among the singers. musicians into twenty-four classes (1 is an orthographical error הנביאים Chronicles 25) turns the probability that the The Kethibh Keri), partic. Niph., corresponding to) הַ ּנִבְּאִ ים Levites who were appointed to perform service for prophetare, is ,ּנִבָ א .vv. 2 and 3 ,הַ ּנִבָ א for the priests, were divided into the same the singular number of classes, into a certainty, although we here used in its wider signification of the have no express statement to that effect, and in singing and playing to the praise of God the whole Old Testament no information as to performed in the power of the Divine Spirit. In the order of succession of the Levites is reference to the instruments of these chief anywhere to be found. refers מִסְּפָרָ ם musicians, cf. 15:16. The suffix in 1 Chronicles 24:31. , as in v. 6. In to the following noun, which is subordinated to לִפְּ נֵי דָ וִ יד וגו׳ as genitive; cf. the similar מִסְּפָ ר the word רָ אשֵ י as ,בֵ ית־אָ בות is used for אָ בות the last clause ,his, the sluggard’s, soul ,נַפְּ שו עָצֵ ל in construction רָ אשֵ י בֵ ית־אָ בות stands frequently for אָ בות stands in apposition to Prov. 13:4, and Ew. § 309, e. “Their number (the הָ רֹׁאש .these catalogues the father’s-house; the head even as number) of the workmen for the service, i.e., of ,בֵ ית־אָ בות those who performed the work of the service, his younger brother, i.e., he who was the head was (as follows).” of the father’s-house as etc., i.e., the oldest the לִבְּ נֵי אָסָ ף among the brethren as his younger brethren. 1 Chronicles 25:2. With The Vulgate gives the meaning correctly: tam enumeration beings: “Of Asaph’s sons were, or majores quam minores; omnes sors aequaliter to Asaph’s sons belonged, Zacchur,” etc. Four dividebat. are here named, but the number is not stated, while it is given in the case of the sons of

1 CHRONICLES Page 158 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

increased.37 Heman is ,הותִ יר at the made full, and ,עַ ל־יַד .Jeduthun and Heman, vv. 3 and 5 called in v. 5 the seer of the king in the words of עַ ל vv. 3 and 6), and) עַ ל־יְּדֵ י hand, alternates with God, because he, along with his gift of song, was does not of itself express a different יַד אָסָ ף endowed also with the prophetic gift, and as seer made known to the king revelations of עַ ל relationship to Asaph than that expressed by with reference to the king. It signifies God. In 2 Chronicles 35:15 the same thing is ייְּדֵ הַֹּמֶ לֶ ְך only “under (according to) the direction of;” predicated also of Jeduthun, and in the same and in v. 6 the king, Asaph, Jeduthun, and sense the prophet Gad is called in 21:9 David’s the Masoretes have connected לְּהָרִ ים קֶרֶ ן .Heman are co-ordinated, inasmuch as the seer musical part of the worship was arranged by with the preceding, by placing Athnach under and the phrase has been wholly ,קרן David and the three chief musicians in common, the although only the latter were concerned in its misunderstood by the Rabbins and Christian is placed at the commentators. Berth., e.g., connects it with לִ ידּותּון performance. In v. 3 and translates, “to sound loud , יבְּדִבְּרֵ הָאֱ ֹלהִ ים beginning, because the choir of singers led by him bore his name; and so also in the case of upon horns, according to the divine command,” Heman, v. 4. “As to Jeduthun, were sons of referring to 2 Chronicles 29:15, where, Jeduthun.” The word sons in these catalogues however, both meaning and accentuation forbid denotes not merely actual sons, but those with what follows. This בְּדִבְּרֵ י יהוה us to connect intellectually sons, i.e., scholars taught by the master. This is clear from the fact that the interpretation of the words is thoroughly twenty-four classes, each of which numbered wrong, not only because the Levites under twelve men, consist of sons and brothers of the Heman’s direction did not blow horns, the horn leaders. The names given as those of the sons of not being one of the instruments played by the Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman, in vv. 2–5, do not Levites in connection with the worship, but also represent the whole number of the scholars of because on linguistic grounds it is never has the הֵרִ ים קֶרֶ ן .these masters, but only the presidents of the objectionable twenty-four classes of Levites who were signification to blow the horn; for to elevate the engaged under their leadership in performing horn signifies everywhere to heighten the the sacred music. Only five sons of Jeduthun are power of any one, or unfold, show power; cf. 1 named in our text, while according to the Sam. 2:10; Lam 2:17; Ps. 148:14; 89:18; 92:11, number given there should be six. A etc. That is the meaning of the phrase here, and comparison of the names in vv. 9–31 shows the words are to be connected, according to v. 17) has been their sense, with what follows: “to elevate the) שִמְּעִ י that in v. 3 the name horn,” i.e., to give power, God gave Heman under the :יְּדּותּון belongs to בַכִ ּנור .dropped out fourteen sons and three daughters; i.e., to make direction of their father Jeduthun (the master), Heman’s race mighty for the praise of God, God upon the kinnor (see on 15:16), who was gave him so many sons and daughters. inspired to sing praise, i.e., who played 1 Chronicles 25:6. V. 6 is the subscription to inspiredly to bring praise and honour to the are not the כָל־אֵ לֶ ה .Lord; cf. 16:4; 23:30, etc. the enumeration, vv. 2–5 1 Chronicles 25:4f. Fourteen sons of Heman fourteen sons of Heman, but all the sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman. All these were ,is one name, cf. 31 רֹׁמַמְֹּּתִי עֶ ֹזֶר .are enumerated under the direction of their fathers for song in is without doubt to be supplied the house of Jahve, with cymbals … for the עֶ ֹזֶר although is to be service in the house of God under the direction מַחֲ ֹזִ יאות Probably also .גִדַ לְֹּּתִ י also after is used distributively of אֲבִיהֶ ם .I of the king, etc ,מַ לותִ י .supplied in thought after the names each father of the sons named. Bertheau

1 CHRONICLES Page 159 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

is עֹֻּמַ ת since ,לְּעֹֻּמַ ת the name Heman, and be the genitive belonging to אֲבִיהֶ ם supplies after thereby the first half of the verse contradicts in Eccles. 5:15 also connected with a clause: “in the second, which he correctly understands to the manner of, as the small, so the great,” i.e., refer to the twenty-four persons enumerated.— the small and the great, the older as the In v. 7 the total number is given. Their number younger. This is further defined by “the skilled (the number) of the sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, as the scholars.” From these words it is and Heman (i.e., of the twenty-four [4 + 6 + 14] manifest that not merely the 288 cast lots, for v. 7), but also the other) כָל־מֵבִ ין mentioned by name), with their brethren, was these were 288 (×); whence we learn that each of those 3712 Levites appointed for the service of the singers; whence it further follows that only the ,מְּ לֹֻּמְּדֵי שִ יר all of them ,אַחִ ים named had eleven who were divided by lot into twenty-four 288 כָ ל־הַֹּמֵבִ ין learned, practised in song for Jahve. In the sons and the brothers are both included, in classes, each numbering twelve persons, were thoroughly skilled in singing and playing, and having ,מֵבִ ין .order to give the total number the scholars were so distributed to them that understanding, knowledge of a thing, denotes each class received an equal number of them, here those who by education and practice were whom they had to educate and train. These, skilled in song—the accomplished musicians. then, were probably trained up for and Their number was 288, and these were divided employed in the temple music according to into twenty-four choirs (classes). David had, their progress in their education, so that the according to 23:5, appointed 4000 Levites for ἐφημερ α which had at any time charge of the the performance of the music. Of these, 288 service consisted not only of the twelve skilled skilled in song; the others were musicians, but also of a number of scholars who מְּבִ ינִים were and assisted in singing and playing under their מֵבִ ין as v. 8 shows, where ,(ֹּתַ לְּמִידִ ים) scholars direction. are the two categories into which the ֹּתַ לְּמִ יד 1 Chronicles 25:9–31. The order of succession musicians are divided. was so determined by lot, that the four sons of Asaph (v. 3) received the first, third, fifth, and גורָ לות ,Chronicles 25:8. They cast lots 1 κλήρους ἐφημερ ων (LXX), by which the seventh places; the six sons of Jeduthun, the ,מִשְּמֶרֶ ת second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, and fourteenth; ,the waiting upon the service, was fixed ,מִשְּמֶרֶ ת and finally, the four sons of Heman (first that is, the order of their succession in the mentioned in v. 4), the sixth, ninth, eleventh, is variously translated. As and thirteenth places; while the remaining לְּעֹֻּמַ ת .official service no name follows, R. Shel. and Kimchi would places, 15–24, fell to the other sons of Heman. one class as the From this we learn that the lots of the sons of :מִשְּמֶרֶ ת repeat the preceding other; and this is supported by 26:16 and Neh. the three chief musicians were not placed in separate urns, and one lot drawn from each ,מִֹּמִשְּ כָ ן and by the fact that in 17:5, after ,12:24 alternately; but that, on the contrary, all the lots have been dropped out. But were placed in one urn, and in drawing the lots אֶל מִשְּ כָ ן the words belongs to of Asaph and Jeduthun came out so, that after מִשְּמֶרֶ ת according to the accentuation the fourteenth drawing only sons of Heman and so the proposed completion is at ,גורָ לות remained.38 As to the details in v. 9, after Joseph once disposed of. Besides this, however, the we miss the statement, “he and his sons and his thought “class like class” does not appear quite brothers, twelve;” which, with the exception of suitable, as the classes were only formed by the used only of the second lot, and omitted ,הּוא the lots, and so were not in existence so as to be able to cast lots. We therefore, with Ewald, § for the sake of brevity in all the other cases, is repeated with all the 23 numbers, and so can to כַקָ טֹׁן כַגָדול a, and Berth., hold the clause ,360 have been dropped here only by an error. The

1 CHRONICLES Page 160 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

are to be understood thus: passage we learn that Obed-edom belonged to ףלְּאָסָ לְּ יוסֵ ף words The first lot drawn was for Asaph, viz., for his the Kohathite family of the Korahites. son Joseph. In the succeeding verses the names According to v. 19, the doorkeepers were are enumerated, sometimes with and Korahites and Merarites. The Merarites, however, are only treated of from v. 10 and Some of the names .לְּ sometimes without v. 4) corresponds to) ּולְּ עֹׁבֵד אֱ דֹׁם .onwards diverge somewhat in form. Izri, v. 11, stands for v. 2), and is consequently) ּוהָ ישמּרלּרששמִ לְּ ו ;Zeri, v. 3; Jesharelah, v. 14, for Asarelah, v. 2 ,v. 1). Here, vv. 4) לַקָרְּ חִ ים Azarel, v. 18, for Uzziel, v. 4 (like the king’s thereby brought under names Uzziah and Azariah, 3:12, and 2 5, eight sons with whom God had blessed him Chronicles 26:1); Shubael, v. 20, for Shebuel, v. (cf. 13:14), and in 6 and 7 his grandchildren, are 4 (cf. 23:16 with 24:20); Jeremoth, v. 22, for is used in the נולַ ד enumerated. The verb Jerimoth, v. 4; Eliyathah, v. 27, for Eliathah, v. 4. Besides these, the fuller forms Nethanyahu (v. singular, with a subject following in the plural, 12), Hashabyahu (v. 3), Hananyahu (v. 23), are as frequently (cf. Ew. § 316, a). The used instead of the shorter Nethaniah, etc. (vv. grandchildren of Obed-edom by his first-born the ,הַֹּמִמְּשָ לִ ים Of the 24 names which are here son Shemaiah are characterized as .(4 ,19 ,2 enumerated, besides those of Asaph, Jeduthun, dominions, i.e., the lords (rulers) of the house of the abstract dominion, for ,מִמְּשָ ל) and Heman, only Mattithiah recurs (1 their fathers Chronicles 15:18, 21) in the description of the cf. Ew. § 160, b), because they ;מֹׁשֵ ל the concrete solemnities connected with the bringing in of valiant heroes, and so qualified ,גִ בורֵ י חַ יִל the ark; “but we are not justified in seeking were there the names of our twenty-four classes” for the office of doorkeepers. In the .cop ו Berth.). enumeration in v. 7, the omission of the) is strange; probably we must אֶ לְּ ֹזָבָד אֶחָ יו Chronicles 26 with 1 :before both words, and take them thus וְּ Chronicles 26. The classes of the doorkeepers, supply 1 the stewards of the treasures of the sanctuary, And Elzabad and his brethren, valiant men, and the officers for the external business.—Vv. (viz.) Elihu and Semachiah. For the conjecture (.are not given (Berth אֶחָ יו The classes of the doorkeepers. V. 1. The that the names of the .19–1 .the is not a very probable one (לְּ ) superscription runs shortly thus: “As to divisions of the doorkeepers.” The enumeration 1 Chronicles 26:8. The whole number of to the Korahites (belongs) doorkeepers of Obed-edom’s family, his sons :לַקָרְּ חִ ים beings with Meshelemiah (in v. 14, Shelemiah). Instead of and brethren, was sixty-two; able men with ,אִ יש חַ יִל we should read, according to 9:19, strength for the service. The singular מִ ן־בְּ נֵי אָסָ ף for the Korahites are descended after the preceding plural, is most simply ,מִ ן־בְּ נֵי אֶבְּ יָסָ ף from Kohath (Ex. 6:21; 18:16), but Asaph is a explained by taking it to be in apposition to the כֹׁל at the beginning of the verse, by repeating כֹׁל —.(.descendant of Gershon (1 Chronicles 6:24f In v. 9 the number of—.אִ יש In vv. 2, 3, seven sons of Meshelemiah are mentally before enumerated; the first-born Zechariah is Meshelemiah’s sons and brothers is brought in mentioned also in 9:21, and was entrusted, in a supplementary way. according to v. 14, with the guarding of the north side. 1 Chronicles 26:10, 11. The Merarites. Hosah’s has been already חוסָ ה .sons and brothers 1 Chronicles 26:4–8. Obed-edom’s family. Obed-edom has been already mentioned in 1 mentioned (1 Chronicles 16:38) along with Chronicles 16:38 and 15:24 as doorkeeper; see Obed-edom as doorkeeper. Hosah made Shimri the commentary on the passage. From our head of the Merarites, who served as

1 CHRONICLES Page 161 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study doorkeepers, because there was no first-born, 1 Chronicles 26:14. The lot towards the east, i.e., because his first-born son had died without i.e., for the guarding of the east side, fell to leaving any descendant, so that none of the Shelemiah (cf. vv. 1, 2); while that towards the families descended from Hosah had the natural north fell to his first-born Zechariah. Before יועֵ ץ is to be repeated. To him the title לְּ ,ֹזְּכַרְּ יָהּו claim to the birthright. All the sons and brothers of Hosah were thirteen. Meshelemiah הִפִ ילּו .is given, for reasons unknown to us בְּׂשֶ כֶ ל had eighteen (cf. v. 9), and Obed-edom sixty- .for him) they threw lots) ,גו׳ two (v. 8); and all taken together they make ninety-three, whom we are (according to v. 1 Chronicles 26:15. To Obed-edom (fell the 12f.) to regard as the heads of the 4000 lot) towards the south, and to his sons it fell (to ,בֵ ית־הָאֲסֻפִ ים oorkeepers. In 9:22 the number of the guard) the house Asuppim. As to doorkeepers appointed by David is stated to be in v. 17, i.e., house of אֲסֻפִ ים but that number most probably refers to a called for brevity ,212 different time (see on 9:22). Bertheau further collections or provisions (cf. Neh. 12:25), we remarks: “According to 16:38, sixty-eight are can say nothing further than that it was a reckoned to Obed-edom and Hosah, in our building used for the storing of the temple passage seventy-five; and the small difference goods, situated in the neighbourhood of the between the numbers is explained by the fact southern door of the temple in the external that in the first passage only the doorkeepers court, and that it probably had two entrances, before the ark are referred to.” Against this we since in v. 19 it is stated that two guard-stations have already shown, in our remarks on 16:38, were assigned to it. is לְּשֻ פִ ים that the number there mentioned cannot be 1 Chronicles 26:16. The word held with certainty to refer to the doorkeepers. unintelligible, and probably has come into the 1 Chronicles 26:12–19. The division of the text merely by a repetition of the two last doorkeepers according to their posts of service. syllables of the preceding word, since the name Chronicles 7:12) has no connection 1) שֻ פִ ים V. 12. “To these classes of doorkeepers, viz., to the heads of the men, (were committed) the with this passage. To Hosah fell the lot towards watches, in common with their brethren, to the west, by the door Shallecheth on the it לְּאֵ לֶהמַחְּ לְּ קות serve in the house of Jahve.” By is the way הַמְּסִ לָ ה הָ עולָ ה .ascending highway is placed beyond doubt that the above- which led from the lower city up to the more mentioned names and numbers give us the lofty temple site. Instead of the door on this classes of the doorkeepers. By the apposition highway, in v. 18, in the statement as to the , the meaning of which is discussed distribution of the guard-stations, Parbar is לְּרָ יאשֵ הַ גְּבָרִ ים ,is so named, and the highway distinguished from it מַחְּ לְּ קות הש׳ ,in the commentary on 24:4 ,מְּסִ לָ ה defined as to show that properly the heads of four doorkeepers being appointed for the probably identical with ,פַרְּ בָ ר .פַרְּ בָ ר the households are meant, only these having and two for been enumerated in the preceding section, and Kings 23:11, a word of uncertain 2 ,פַרְּ וָרִ ים .not the classes 1 Chronicles 26:13. The distribution of the meaning, was the name of an out-building on stations by lot followed (cf. 25:8), the small as the western side, the back of the outer court of the great; i.e., the younger as the older cast lots, the temple by the door Shallecheth, which according to their fathers’-houses, “for door contained cells for the laying up of temple ,Böttcher translates ,שַ לֶכֶ ת .and door,” i.e., for each door of the four sides of goods and furniture the temple, which was built so that its sides Proben, S. 347, “refuse-door;” see on 2 Kings corresponded to the points of the compass. 23:11. Nothing more definite can be said of it, unless we hold, with Thenius on 2 Kings 23:11,

1 CHRONICLES Page 162 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study that Ezekiel’s temple is in all its details a copy of classes respectively is no sufficient analogy in the Solomonic temple, and use it, in an the case, for these classes had to perform the unjustifiable way, as a source of information as service in succession each for a week at a time, as while the twenty-four doorkeepers’ stations) מִשְּמָ רלְּעֹֻּמַת מִשְּמָ ר .to the prae-exilic temple in Neh. 12:24), guard with (over against?) had to be all occupied simultaneously every day.—In vv. 2–11, then, twenty-eight heads in .v ,לְּעֹֻּמַ ת guard, or one guard as the other (cf. on all are enumerated by name (Meshelemiah with 12 and 25:8), Bertheau connects with Hosah, seven sons, Obed-edom with eight sons and six according to the Masoretic punctuation, and grandsons, and Hosah with four sons); but the explains it thus: “Because it was Hosah’s duty to total number in all the three families of set guards before the western gate of the doorkeepers is stated at ninety-three, and temple, and also before the gate Shallecheth, neither the one nor the other of these numbers which lay over against it.” Clericus, on the bears any relation to twenty-four. Finally, the contrary, refers the words to all the guard- posts are so distributed that Meshelemiah with stations: cum ad omnes januas essent custodiae, his eighteen sons and brothers kept guard on sibi ex adverso respondebant. This reference, the east and north sides with six posts; Obed- according to which the words belong to what edom with his sixty-two sons and brothers on follows, and introduce the statement as to the the south side with four and ×, that is, eight number of guards at the individual posts which posts; and Hosah with his thirteen sons and follows in v. 17ff., seems to deserve the brothers on the western side with four and two, preference. So much is certain in any case, that that is, six; so that even here no symmetrical there is no ground in the text for distinguishing distribution of the service can be discovered. the gate Shallecheth from the western gate of 1 Chronicles 26:19. Subscription, in which it is the temple, for the two gates are not again stated that the classes of doorkeepers distinguished either in v. 16 or in v. 18. were taken from among the Korahites and 1 Chronicles 26:17f. Settlement of the number Merarites. of guard-stations at the various sides and 1 Chronicles 26:20–28. The stewards of the places. Towards morning (on the east side) treasures of the sanctuary.—V. 20 appears to were six of the Levites (six kept guard); contain the superscription of the succeeding towards the north by day (i.e., daily, on each section. For here the treasures of the house of day), four; towards the south daily, four; and at God and the treasures of the consecrated things the storehouse two and two, consequently four are grouped together, while in vv. 22 and 26 also; at Parbar towards the west, four on the they are separated, and placed under the highway and two at Parbar, i.e., six. In all, oversight of two Levite families: the treasures therefore, there were twenty-four guard- of the house of Jahve under the sons of the stations to be occupied daily; but more than Gershonite Laadan (vv. 21, 22); the treasures of twenty-four persons were required, because, the consecrated things under the charge of the even supposing that one man at a time was הַ לְּוִיִם אֲחִ יָה sufficient for each post, one man could not Amramites. But with this the words stand the whole day at it: he must have been cannot be made to harmonize. According to the alone would be הַ לְּוִיִם ,relieved from time to time. Probably, however, Masoretic accentuation alone gives no הַ לְּוִיִם there were always more than one person on the superscription; but guard at each post. It further suggests itself that suitable sense, for the Levites have been treated the number twenty-four may be in some way of already from 1 Chronicles 23 onwards. connected with the divisions or classes of Moreover, it appears somewhat strange that doorkeepers; but there is only a deceptive for ,אֲחִ יָה appearance of a connection. The division of the there is no further characterization of priests and musicians each into twenty-four the name is a very common one, but has not

1 CHRONICLES Page 163 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study before occurred in our chapter, whence we (Eliezer’s) son, and Jeshaiah his son, … and would expect a statement of his descent and his Shelomoth his son.” These descendants of family, such as we find in the case of the Eliezer were called brethren of Shebuel, succeeding chief overseers. All these things because they were descended through Eliezer tend to throw doubt upon the correctness of from Moses, as Shebuel was through his father the Masoretic reading, while the LXX, on the Gershon. contrary, in κα οἱ ευῖται ἀδελφο αὐτῶν ἐπ τῶν 1 Chronicles 26:26. This Shelomoth (a θησαυρῶν κ.τ.λ., give a perfectly suitable descendant of Eliezer, and so to be superscription, which involves the reading distinguished both from the Jisharite Shelomith This reading we, with J. [23:18 and 24:22], and the Gershonite of the .אֲחִ יָה instead of אֲחֵיהֶ ם D. Mich. and Berth., hold to be the original. On same name [23:9]), and his brethren were over cf. 6:29, 2 Chronicles 29:34. the treasures of the consecrated things which ,הַ לְּוִיִם אֲחֵיהֶ ם David the king had consecrated, and the heads 1 Chronicles 26:21, 22. Vv. 21 and 22 to we לְּׂשָרֵ י of the fathers’-houses, etc. Instead of together: “The sons of Laadan, (namely) the according to 29:6. The princes ,וְּׂשָרֵ י sons of the Gershonite family which belong to must read Laadan, (namely) the heads of the fathers’- over the thousands and hundreds are the war are the ׂשָרֵ י הַצָבָ א houses of Laadan of the Gershonite family: captains, and the Jehieli, (namely) the sons of Jehieli, Zetham and commanders-in-chief, e.g., Abner, Joab, 27:34, 2 his brother Joel (see 23:7), were over the Sam. 8:16, 1 Chronicles 18:15.—The 27th verse treasures of the house of Jahve.” The meaning is is an explanatory parenthesis: “from the wars this: “Over the treasures of the house of Jahve and from the booty,” i.e., from the booty taken were Zetham and Joel, the heads of the father’s- to make ,לְּחַ זֵ ק .in war had they consecrated house of Jehieli, which belonged to the Laadan branch of the Gershonites.” Light is thrown strong, i.e., to preserve in strength and good elsewhere of חַ זֵ ק .upon these words, so obscure through their condition the house of Jahve brevity, by 1 Chronicles 23:7, 8, according to the renovation of old buildings, 2 Kings 12:8ff., which the sons of Jehiel, or the Jehielites, are Neh. 3:2ff., here in a somewhat general descended from Laadan, the older branch of the signification.—In v. 28 the enumeration of Gershonites. This descent is briefly but fully those who had consecrated, thus interrupted, is stated in the three clauses of the 21st verse, resumed, but in the form of a new sentence, each of which contains a more definite which concludes with a predicate of its own. In as in 29:17, 2 ,אֲשֶ ר the article represents הַהִקְּדִ יש ,characterization of the father’s-house Jehieli whose two heads Zetham and Joel were Chronicles 29:36, and elsewhere; cf. Ew. § 331, entrusted with the oversight of the treasures of all who had consecrated, the ,כֹׁל הַֹּמַקְּדִ יש b. With the house of God. enumeration is concluded, and the predicate, 1 Chronicles 26:23, 24. Vv. 23 and 24 also go “was at the hand of Shelomith and his together: “As to the Amramites, Jisharites, brethren,” is then brought in. , laid upon עַ ל־יַד Hebronites, and Uzzielites (the four chief branches of the Kohathite family of Levites, 1 the hand, i.e., entrusted to them for Chronicles 23:15–20), Shebuel the son of preservation; Germ. unter der Hand (under the Gershon, the son of Moses, was prince over the hand). before Shebuel introduces the If we glance back at the statements as to the ו) ”treasures apodosis, cf. Ew. § 348, a, and = Germ. “so stewards of the treasures (vv. 20–28), we find war”). that the treasures of the house of Jahve were under the oversight of the Jehielites Zetham 1 Chronicles 26:25. “And his (Shebuel’s) and Joel, with their brethren, a branch of the brethren of Eliezer were Rehabiah his Gershonites (v. 22); and the treasures of the

1 CHRONICLES Page 164 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study consecrated things under the oversight of the be referred only to the two different kinds of Kohathite Shelomith, who was of the family of treasures distinguished in v. 22. This reference .v) נָגִיד … שְּ בּואל Moses’ second son Eliezer, with his brethren (v. is also demanded by the words 28). But in what relation does the statement in 24). Heads of fathers’-houses, with their v. 24, that Shebuel, the descendant of Moses are mentioned as guardians ,(אֲחֵיהֶ ם) brethren stand to ,נָגִיד עַ ל־הָ אֹׁצָ רות through Gershon, was of the two kinds of treasures spoken of in v. 20; this? Bertheau thinks “that three kinds of while here, on the contrary, we have Shebuel treasures are distinguished, the guarding of alone, without assistants. Further, the other which was committed to different officials: (1) as Shebuel is. The ,נָגִיד guardians are not called The sons of Jehieli, Zetham and Joel, had the ,denotes not an overseer or steward נָגִיד oversight of the treasures of the house of God, word which, as we may conclude from 29:8, had been but only princes of kingdoms (kings), princes of collected by voluntary gifts: (2) Shebuel was tribes (1 Chronicles 12:27; 13:1; 27:16; 2 prince over the treasures, perhaps over the Chronicles 32:21), ministers of the palace and sums which resulted from regular assessment the temple, and commanders-in-chief (2 for the temple (Ex. 30:11–16), from Chronicles 11:11; 28:7), and is consequently redemption-money, e.g., for the first-born used in our section neither of Zetham and Joel, נָגִיד Num. 18:16ff.), or for vows (Lev. 27); nor of Shelomoth. The calling of Shebuel) consequently over a part of the sums which are consequently shows that he was the chief guardian of the sacred treasures, under whose כסף designated in 2 Kings 12:5 by the name Shelomith and his brothers had the oversight the guardians of the two different (3) :הקדשים kinds of treasures were placed. This is stated in i.e., of the ,אוצרות הקדשים oversight of all the vv. 23, 24; and the statement would not have consecrated gifts which are called in 2 Kings been misunderstood if it had been placed at the beginning or the end of the enumeration; and כסף and distinguished from the ,קדשים 12:19 in v. 5.” But this view has no support in its position in the middle between the קדשים the text. Both in the superscription (v. 20) and Gershonites and the Kohathites is explained by in the enumeration (vv. 22, 26) only two kinds the fact that this prince was, according to 23:16, of treasures—treasures of the house of God (of the head of the four Levite families descended from Kohath. are—קדשים Jahve), and treasures of the 1 Chronicles 26:29–32. The officials for the mentioned. Neither by the facts nor by the external business.—V. 29. “As to the Izharites, language used are we justified in supposing Chenaniah (see on 15:22) with his sons was for that there was a third kind of treasures, viz., the the outward business over Israel for scribes sums resulting from the regular assessment for and judges.” According to this, the external the holy place. For it is thoroughly arbitrary to business of the Levites consisted of service as confine the treasures of the house of God to the scribes and judges, for which David had set voluntary contributions and the consecrated apart 6000 Levites (1 Chronicles 23:4). Without gifts given from the war-booty; and it is still sufficient reason, Bertheau would refer the more arbitrary to limit the treasures over external business to the exaction of the dues for which Shebuel was prince to the sums flowing הַֹּמְּ לָ אכָ ה into the temple treasures from the regular the temple, because in Neh. 11:16 for the temple is spoken of. But it does הַחִ יצֹׁנָ ה assessment; for the reference to 2 Kings 12:19 and 5 is no proof of this, because, though two not at all follow that in our verse the external are there distinguished, yet both work had any reference to the temple, and that קדשים kinds of are further defined. The quite general the scribes and judges had only this narrow the treasures, can naturally sphere of action, since here, instead of the ,הָ אֹׁצָ רות expression

1 CHRONICLES Page 165 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

or heads of ,(גְּבָרִ ים) is mentioned as the must be only 2700 men עַ ליִׂשְּרָ אֵ ל ,house of God object with which the external service was families, i.e., households. Not only the large connected. number demands this signification, but also the 1 Chronicles 26:30. Of Hebronites, Hashabiah comparison of this statement with that in v. 30. ,of which the Hebronite branch בְּ נֵי חַ יִל The 1700 עַ ל and his brethren, 1700 valiant men, were for the oversight (inspection) of Israel Hashabiah with his brethren, consisted, were , תפְּקֻדַ יׂש׳ not so many πατρια , but only so many men of this side Jordan, for all the business of Jahve this πατριά. In the same way, the Hebronite branch of which Jeriah was head, with his פְּקֻדָ ה and the service of the king. Bertheau takes were also not 2700 ,בְּ נֵי חַ יִל to mean “due,” “fixed tribute,” a meaning which brethren, 2700 the word cannot be shown to have. The LXX πατρια , but only so many men, that is, fathers of have translated correctly, ἐπ τῆς ἐπισκέψεως families. It is thus placed beyond doubt that τοῦΊσραὴλ, ad inspectionem Israelis, i.e., cannot here denote the heads of רָ אשֵ י אָ בות .is in v לעַ פְּקֻדַ ת praefecti erant (J. H. Mich.). For fathers’-houses, but only heads of households. is shown by רמֵעֵבֶ לַ יַרְּדֵ ן .יַפְּקִיד עַ ל rendered by 32 לְּאָ בות And accordingly we must not understand to refer to the land of (v. 31) of fathers’-houses, as the LXX and all מַעֲרָ בָ ה the addition Canaan, as in Josh. 5:1; 22:7, since Israel, both commentators do, but only of heads of also נִדְּרְּ שּו under Joshua and also after the exile, had come households. The use of the verb from the eastward over Jordan into Canaan. The favours this view, for this verb is not elsewhere are synonymous, and used of the legal census of the people, i.e., the עֲ בֹׁדַ ת and מְּ לֶ אכֶ ת words are consequently both represented in v. 32 by numbering and entering of them in the public lists, according to the great families and .דְּבַ ר fathers’-houses. There may therefore be in 1 Chronicles 26:31f. David set another branch a hint that it was not a genealogical נִדְּרְּ שּו .of the Hebronites, under the head Jeriah (cf 23:9), over the East-Jordan tribes. Between the census which was undertaken, but only a v. 32, a numbering of the heads of households, in order ,וְּאֶחָ יו words “Jeriah the head,” v. 31, and to ascertain the number of scribes and judges to parenthesis is inserted, which gives the reason be appointed. There yet remain in this section why David made these Hebronites scribes and three things which are somewhat strange: 1. judges among the East-Jordan tribes. The Only 1700 scribes and judges were set over the parenthesis runs thus: “As to the Hebronites, cis-Jordanic land, inhabited as it was by ten and according to their generations, according to a half tribes, while 2700 were set over the fathers, they were sought out in the fortieth trans-Jordanic land with its two and a half year of David’s rule, and valiant heroes were tribes. 2. Both numbers taken together amount found among them in Jazer of Gilead.” Jazer was to only 4400 men, while David appointed 6000 a Levite city in the tribal domain of Gad, Levites to be scribes and judges. 3. The scribes assigned, according to Josh. 21:39, to the and judges were taken only from two fathers’- Merarites (see on 6:66). The number of these houses of the Kohathites, while most of the Hebronites was 2700 valiant men (v. 32). The other Levitical offices were filled by men of all is obscure, for if we take the families of the tribe of Levi. On all these רָ אשֵ י הָאָ בות additional to be, as it often is in the genealogies, a grounds, it is probable that our catalogue of the אָ בות ,.the number given does Levites appointed to be scribes and judges, i.e ,בֵ ית־אָ בות contraction for for the external business, is imperfect. not suit; for a branch of the Hebronites cannot possibly have numbered 2700 fathers’-houses (πατρια , groups of related households): they

1 CHRONICLES Page 166 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

1 Chronicles 27 for this the short superscription, “the Israelites according to their number, and the princes of Division of the Army. Tribal Princes, the divisions which served the king,” would be Administrators of the Domains, and Councillors amply sufficient, Bertheau thinks that the of State. superscription originally belonged to a more complete description of the classes and their 1 Chronicles 27. This chapter treats of the organization of the army (vv. 1–15) and the different officers, of which only a short extract is here communicated. This hypothesis is public administration; in vv. 16–24, the princes of the twelve tribes being enumerated; in vv. indeed possible, but is not at all certain; for it is questionable whether, according to the above 25–31, the managers of the royal possessions and domains; and in vv. 32–34, the chief superscription, we have a right to expect an enumeration by name of the various officials councillors of the king. The information on these points immediately succeeds the who served the king in the classes of the army. The answer to this question depends upon our arrangement of the service of the Levites, because, as we learn from v. 23f., David view of the relation of the words, “the heads of the fathers’-houses, and the princes,” to the first attempted in the last year of his reign to give a more stable form to the political constitution of clause, “the sons of Israel according to their the kingdom also. In the enumeration of the number.” Had these words been connected by with this clause, and (וְּרָ אשֵ י) ו twelve divisions of the army, with their leaders the conjunction (vv. 1–15), it is not indeed said when David thereby made co-ordinate with it, we should be organized the men capable of bearing arms for justified in having such an expectation. But the the alternating monthly service; but the want of the conjunction shows that these words reference in v. 23f. of our chapter to the form an apposition, which as to signification is numbering of the people, spoken of in 1 subordinate to the main idea. If we take this Chronicles 21, leaves no doubt of the fact that appositional explanation to mean something this division of the people stands in intimate like this, “the sons of Israel, according to their connection with that numbering of the people, number, with the heads of the fathers’-houses and that David caused the people to be and the princes,” the emphasis of the and the ,לְּמִסְּפָרָ ם numbered in order to perfect the military superscription falls upon constitution of the kingdom, and to leave his number of the sons of Israel, who with their kingdom to his son strong within and mighty heads and princes were divided into classes, is without. announced to be the important thing in the 1 Chronicles 27:1–15. The twelve divisions of following catalogue. That this is the meaning the army.—V. 1. The lengthy superscription, and object of the words may be gathered from “And the sons of Israel according to their this, that in the second half of the verse, the number, the heads of the fathers’-houses, and number of the men fit for service, who from the princes over the thousands and the month to month came and went as one class, is one at a time (distributive), as in ,הָאַחַ ת hundreds, and their scribes, who swerved the stated king in regard to every matter of the divisions; Judg. 8:18, Num. 17:18, etc.; cf. Ew. § 313, a, which month for month of all months of the used of entering upon and ,בוא וְּיָצָ א .note 1 year went and came, one division 24,000 men,” is towards the end so intimately interwoven leaving the service (cf. 2 Chronicles 23:4, 8; 2 with the divisions of the army, that it can only Kings 11:5, 7, 9). But the words are hardly to be refer to this, i.e., only to the catalogue, vv. 2–15. understood to mean that the classes which Since, then, we find in this catalogue only the were in service each month were ordered from twelve classes, the number of the men various parts of the kingdom to the capital, and belonging to each, and their leaders, and since there remained under arms; but rather, as Clericus, that they paratae essent ducum

1 CHRONICLES Page 167 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study imperiis parere, si quid contigisset, dum ceterae Asahel (see 11:26 and on 2 Sam. 23:24) was copiae, si necesse essent, convenirent. slain by Abner (2 Sam. 2:18–23) in the 1 Chronicles 27:2ff. Over the first division was beginning of David’s reign, and consequently long before the division of the army here עַ ל Jashobeam, scil. commander. The second recorded. The words, “and Zebadiah his son is to be rendered, “in his division were after him,” point to his death, as they mention מַחֲ לֻקְּ ֹּתו 24,000 men,” i.e., they were reckoned to it. As to his son as his successor in the command of the Jashobeam, see on 11:11 and 2 Sam. 23:8. fourth division of the army. When Asahel, 1 Chronicles 27:3. V. 3 further relates of him therefore, is called commander of the fourth that he was of the sons (descendants) of Perez, division of the host, it is done merely honoris and the head of all the army chiefs in the first causâ, since the division over which his son was month (i.e., in the division for the first month). named, de patris defuncti nomine (Cler.). according to 1 Chronicles 27:8. Shamhuth is called in 11:27 ,דודַ י Chronicles 27:4. Before 1 Shammoth, and in 2 Sam. 23:25 Shamma. He has been dropped out (see on 2 אֶ לְּעָ ֹזָ ר בֶ ן ,11:12 the הַ יִֹזְּרָ ח was born in Harod; here he is called are ּומַחֲ לֻקְּ ֹּתוּומִקְּ לות הַ ּנָגִיד Sam. 23:9). The words v. 13, of the family of Zerah ,הַ זַרְּ חִ י = ,Jizrahite obscure. At the end of the sixth verse similar the son of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:4, 6). words occur, and hence Bertheau concludes .is to be struck out, and 1 Chronicles 27:9. Ira; see 11:28, 2 Sam. 23:26 מִקְּ לות before ּו that translated, “and his divisions, Mikloth the 1 Chronicles 27:10. Helez: 11:27; 2 Sam. prince,” which might denote, perhaps, “and his 23:26. division is that over which Mikloth was prince.” 1 Chronicles 27:11. Sibbecai; see 11:29, 2 Sam. Older commentators have already translated 23:27. the word in a similar manner, as signifying that 1 Chronicles 27:12. Abiezer; see 11:28, 2 Sam. Mikloth was prince or chief of this division 23:27; he was of Anathoth in the tribe of under the Ahohite Eleazar. All that is certain is, Benjamin (Jer. 1:1). is a name which occurred in 8:32 1 Chronicles 27:13. Maharai (see 11:30, 2 מִקְּ לות that and 9:37 among the Benjamites. Sam. 23:28) belonged also to the family of 1 Chronicles 27:5. Here the form of expression Zerah; see vv. 11, 8. the chief of the third host, 1 Chronicles 27:14. Benaiah of Pirathon; see ,ׂשַ ר הַצָבָ א ;is changed begins the sentence. As to Benaiah, see 11:22 11:31, 2 Sam. 23:30. does 1 Chronicles 27:15. Heldai, in 11:30 Heled, in רֹׁאש .and the commentary on 2 Sam. 23:20 2 Sam. 23:29 erroneously called Heleb, but is the predicate of ,הַ כֹׁהֵ ן not belong to belonging to Othniel’s family (Josh. 15:17). Benaiah: “the prince of the … was Benaiah … as 1 Chronicles 27:16–24. The princes of the head,” sc. of the division for the third month. twelve tribes.—The enumeration of the tribal This is added, because in v. 6 still a third princes, commencing with the words, “and over military office held by Benaiah is mentioned. He the tribes of Israel,” immediately follows the was hero of the (among the) thirty, and over catalogue of the divisions of the army with their the thirty, i.e., more honoured than they (cf. commanders, because the subjects are in so far 11:25 and 2 Sam. 23:23).—With v. 6b cf. what is connected as the chief management of the said on the similar words, v. 4. internal business of the people, divided as they 1 Chronicles 27:7. From here onwards the were into tribes, was deposited in their hands. mode of expression is very much compressed: In the catalogue the tribes Gad and Asher are the fourth of the fourth month, instead of the omitted for reasons unknown to us, just as in 1 chief of the fourth host of the fourth month. Chronicles 4–7, in the genealogies of the tribes,

1 CHRONICLES Page 168 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Dan and Zebulun are. In reference to Levi, on the official number which was usually inserted neither stands for בְּמִסְּפַ ר .the contrary, the Nagid of Aaron, i.e., the head in the public annals of the priesthood, is named, viz., Zadok, the high according to 2 Chronicles 20:34), nor) בְּסֵפֶ ר priest of the family of Eleazar. does it denote, “in the section which treats of 1 Chronicles 27:18. Elihu, of the brethren of the numberings” (Berth.). is a shorter דִבְּרֵ י הַ יָמִ ים ,David, is only another form of the name Eliab book of the events of ,סֵפֶר דִבְּרֵ י ה׳ David’s eldest brother, who, as Jesse’s expression for ,2:13 first-born, had become tribal prince of Judah. the day. 1 Chronicles 27:20f. Of Manasseh two tribal 1 Chronicles 27:25–31. The managers of princes are named, because the one half of this David’s possessions and domains.—The property tribe had received its inheritance on this side and the income of the king were (v. 25) divided towards into treasures of the king, and treasures in the ,גִלְּעָדָ ה .Jordan, the other beyond Jordan Gilead, to designate the East-Jordan Manassites. country, in the cities, the villages, and the castles. By the “treasures of the king” we must 1 Chronicles 27:23, 24. Vv. 23 and 24 contain therefore understand those which were in a concluding remark on the catalogue of the Jerusalem, i.e., the treasures of the royal palace. twelve detachments into which the men These were managed by Azmaveth. The capable of bearing arms in Israel were divided, remaining treasures are specified in v. 26ff. contained in vv. 2–15. David had not taken their They consisted in fields which were cultivated number from the men of twenty years and by labourers (v. 26); in vineyards (v. 27); under, i.e., he had only caused those to be plantations of olive trees and sycamores in the numbered who were over twenty years old. The Shephelah, the fruitful plain on the Mediterranean Sea (v. 28); in cattle, which נָׂשָ א .v. 1 ,לְּמִסְּפָרָ ם points back to מִסְּפָרָ ם word Ex. 30:12, pastured partly in the plain of Sharon between , אנָׂשָ רֹׁאש = as in Num. 3:40 מִסְּפָ ר Num. 1:49, to take up the sum or total. The Caesarea Palestina and Joppa (see p. 440f.), reason of this is given in the clause, “for Jahve partly in various valleys of the country (v. 29); had said (promised) to increase Israel like to and in camels, asses, and sheep (v. 30f.). All and the ,רְּ כּוש the stars of heaven” (Gen. 22:17), which cannot these possessions are called They consisted in .ׂשָרֵ יהָרְּ כּוש mean: For it was impossible for David to overseers of them number all, because they were as numerous as the produce of agriculture and cattle-breeding, the stars of heaven, which of course cannot be the two main branches of Israelitish industry. numbered (Berth.). The thought is rather that David never intended to number the whole 1 Chronicles 27:27. Special officers were set people from the youngest to the eldest, for he over the vineyards and the stores of wine. The over that“ :אֲשֶ ר is a contraction of שֶ בַכְּרָ מִ ים in שֶ did not desire in fidem divinarum promissionum inquirere aut eam labefactare (J. H. Mich.); and which was in the vineyards of treasures he accordingly caused only the men capable of (stores) of wine.” The officer over the bearing arms to be numbered, in order to vineyards, Shimei, was of Ramah in Benjamin organize the military constitution of the (cf. Josh. 18:25); he who was over the stores of probably not from ,הַשִ פְּמִ י kingdom in the manner recorded in vv. 2–15. wine, Zabdi, is called But even this numbering which Joab had begun on the northern frontier of Canaan, Num. שְּ פָ ם was not completed, because wrath came on Israel because of it, as is narrated in 1 34:10, the situation of which has not yet been Chronicles 21. For this reason also the number, discovered, but from the equally unknown in the Negeb of Judah, 1 Sam. 30:28. For שִ פְּ מות ,i.e., the result of the numbering begun by Joab but not completed, is not included in the since the vineyards, in which the stores of wine number of the chronicle of King David, i.e., in were laid up, must certainly have lain in the

1 CHRONICLES Page 169 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study tribal domain of Judah, so rich in wine (Num. not the chief public officials who are 13:23ff.; Gen. 49:11), probably the overseers of enumerated, but only the first councillors of the it were born in the same district. king, who formed as it were his senate, and that see on the catalogue probably is derived from the ,שְּ פֵלָ ה Chronicles 27:28. As to the 1 same source as the preceding catalogues. ,he who was born in Geder ,הַ גְּדֵרִ י .Josh. 15:33 דוד of David. The word דוד Jonathan, the generally denotes a father’s brother; but since a הַ גְּדֵרָתִ י not Gedera, for which we should expect (1 Chronicles 12:4), although the situation of Jonathan, son of Shimea, the brother of David, Gedera, south-east from Jabne (see on 12:4), occurs 20:7 and 2 Sam. 21:21, Schmidt and in Bertheau hold him to be the same as our גְּדור or גֶדֶ ר appears to suit better than that of would be used in the דוד the hill country of Judah; see Josh. 12:13 and Jonathan, when 15:58. general signification of “relative,” here of a 1 Chronicles 27:30. The name of the nephew. Nothing certain can be ascertained in councillor, and, as is ,יועֵ ץ Ishmaelite who was set over the camels, Obil reference to it. He was is here not סופֵ ר .reminds us of the Arab. abila, multos added, a wise and learned man ,(אובִ יל) ,he of an official designation, but signifies literatus ,הַֹּמֵ רֹׁנֹׁתִ י .possedit vel acquisivit camelos Meronoth (v. 30 and Neh. 3:17). The situation learned, scholarly, as in Ezra 7:6. Jehiel, the son of this place is unknown. According to Neh. 3:7, of Hachmon, was with the children of the king, it is perhaps to be sought in the neighbourhood i.e., was governor of the royal princes. of Mizpah. Over the smaller cattle (sheep and 1 Chronicles 27:33. Ahithophel was also, goats) Jaziz the Hagarite, of the people Hagar according to 2 Sam. 15:31; 16:23, David’s (cf. 5:10), was set. The oversight, consequently, confidential adviser, and took his own life when of the camels and sheep was committed to a Absalom, in his conspiracy against David, did Hagarite and an Ishmaelite, probably because not regard his counsel (2 Sam. 17). Hushai the they pastured in the neighbourhood where the Archite was also a friend and adviser of David Ishmaelites and Hagarites had nomadized from (2 Sam. 15:37 and 16:16), who caused Absalom early times, they having been brought under to reject Ahithophel’s counsel (2 Sam. 17). the dominion of Israel by David. The total 1 Chronicles 27:34. After Ahithophel, i.e., after number of these officials amounted to twelve, his death, was Jehoiada the son of Benaiah (scil. of whom we may conjecture that the ten counsellor of the king), and Abiathar. As overseers over the agricultural and cattle- Benaiah the son of Jehoiada is elsewhere, when breeding affairs of the king had to deliver over named among the public officials of David, the annual proceeds of the property committed called chief of the royal body-guard (cf. 18:17), to them to the chief manager of the treasures in Bertheau does not scruple to transpose the the field, in the cities, and villages, and towns. names here. But the hypothesis of such a 1 Chronicles 27:32–34. David’s councillors. transposition is neither necessary nor probable This catalogue of the king’s officials forms a in the case of a name which, like Benaiah the supplementary companion piece to the son of Jehoiada, so frequently occurs (e.g., in v. catalogues of the public officials, 1 Chronicles 5). Since sons not unfrequently received the 18:15–17, and 2 Sam. 8:15–18 and 20:25, 26. name of the grandfather, Jehoiada the son of the Besides Joab, who is met with in all catalogues hero Benaiah may have been named after his as prince of the host, i.e., commander-in-chief, grandfather Jehoiada. Abiathar is without doubt we find in our catalogue partly other men the high priest of this name of Ithamar’s family) introduced, partly other duties of the men 15:11, etc.; see on 5:27–31), and is here formerly named, than are mentioned in these mentioned as being also a friend and adviser of three catalogues. From this it is clear that it is David. As to Joab, see on 18:15.

1 CHRONICLES Page 170 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

1 Chronicles 28 hundreds are the chiefs and captains of the twelve army corps (1 Chronicles 27:1), who are Ch. 28 and 29.—David’s Last Directions, and His subordinate to the princes of the host: the Death. princes of all the substance and possessions of 1 Chronicles 28–29. In order to give over the the king are the managers of the domains ,לַֹּמֶ לֶ ְך is added to ּולְּבָ נָיו .throne before his death to his son Solomon, and enumerated in 27:25–31 so secure to him the succession, and facilitate “of the king and of his sons,” because the his accomplishment of the great work of his possession of the king as a property belonging reign, the building of the temple, David to the house (domanium) belonged also to his לְּבָ נָיו summoned the estates of his kingdom, the court sons. The Vulg. incorrectly translates cannot be לְּ officials, and the heroes of the people in filiosque suos, for in this connection Jerusalem. In a solemn address he designated with (together with) the ,עִ ם הַסָרִ יסִ ים .Solomon as his divinely chosen successor on nota accus are not eunuchs, but royal סָרִ יסִ ים .the throne, and exhorted him to keep the court officials commandments of God, to serve the Lord with chamberlains, as in 1 Sam. 8:15; see on Gen. has been well translated by the הַ גִ בורִ ים .devoted heart, and to build Him a house for a 37:36 sanctuary (1 Chronicles 28:1–10). He then committed to Solomon the sketches and plans LXX τοὺς δυνάστας, for here the word does not for the sacred buildings and sacred objects of denote properly or merely war heroes, but various sorts, with the confident promise that powerful influential men in general, who did he, by the help of God, and with the co- not occupy any special public or court office. In all the others who were present in ּולְּכָ ל־גִ בור חַ יִל ,operation of the priests and of the people would complete the work (vv. 11–21). Finally, the assembly are comprehended. he announced, in the presence of the whole 1 Chronicles 28:2. The king rose to his feet, in assembly, that he gave over his treasures of order to speak to the assembly standing; till gold and silver to this building, and called upon then he had, on account of his age and the chiefs of the people and kingdom for a feebleness, sat, not lain in bed, as Kimchi and voluntary contribution for the same purpose; others infer from 1 Kings 1. and on their freely answering this call, 1 Chronicles 28:3. The address, “My brethren concluded with a solemn prayer of thanks, to and my people,” is expressive of condescending which the whole assembly responded, bowing .Sam. 30:23, 2 Sam. 19:13 1 ,אַחַ י goodwill; cf. on low before God and the king (1 Chronicles 29:1–20). This reverence they confirmed by What David here says (vv. 3–7) of the temple numerous burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, building, he had in substance already (1 and by the repeated anointing of Solomon to be Chronicles 22:7–13) said to his son Solomon: I, king (vv. 21 and 22). it was with my heart, i.e., I purposed (cf. 22:7) to build a house of rest for the ark of the 1 Chronicles 28:1–10. David summoned the covenant of Jahve, and the footstool of the feet estates of the kingdom, and presented Solomon of our God, i.e., for the ark and for the to them as his divinely chosen successor on the capporeth upon it, which is called “footstool of throne. the feet of our God,” because God was 1 Chronicles 28:1. “All the princes of Israel” is enthroned above the cherubim upon the the general designation, which is then capporeth. “And I have prepared to build,” i.e., specialized. In it are included the princes of the prepared labour and materials, 22:2–4 and tribes who are enumerated in 1 Chronicles 14ff.; on v. 3, cf. 22:8.—In v. 4 David states how 27:16–22, and the princes of the divisions his election to be king was of God, who had which served the king, who are enumerated in chosen Judah to be ruler (cf. 5:2); and just so 27:1–15; the princes of thousands and (vv. 5, 6) had God chosen Solomon from among

1 CHRONICLES Page 171 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study all his many sons to be heir to the throne, and sketches and plans of the temple, and is taken committed to him the building of the temple; cf. up again only in v. 20. 22:10. The expression, “throne of the kingdom 1 Chronicles 28:11–19. The sketches and plans of Jahve,” and more briefly, “throne of Jahve” (1 of the sacred buildings and vessels.—The denotes that enumeration begins in v. 11 with the temple ,(17:14 ,מַ לְּ כּותִ י Chronicles 29:23, or Jahve is the true King of Israel, and had chosen house, progressing from outside to inside, and Solomon as He had chosen David to be holder in v. 12 goes on to the courts and the buildings ,ֹּתַבְּ נִית .and administrator of His kingdom dominion.— in them, and in v. 13ff. to the vessels, etc On vv. 6b and 7, cf. 22:10 and 17:11f.; and with model, pattern; cf. Ex. 25:9; here the sketches וְּאֶ ת־בָֹּתָ יו .cf. 1 Kings 3:14; 9:4, and drawings of the individual things ,אִ םיֶחְּ ֹזַ ק וגו׳ the condition and the suffix ,וְּאֶ ת־ֹּתַבְּ נִית בָֹּתָ יו where God imposes an exactly similar condition is a contraction for on Solomon. , as is done at this time; cf. refers, as the succeeding words show, not to כַ יום הַ זֶ ה which may be easily supplied ,הַבַ יִת but to ,הָ אּולָ ם .Kings 8:61, and the commentary on Deut 1 2:30. On this speech J. H. Mich. well remarks: from the context (v. 10). In the porch there “tota haec narratio aptata est ad prospositum are the buildings of בָֹּתִ ים Davidis: vult enim Salomoni auctoritatem apud were no houses. The principes et fratres conciliare, ostendendo, non the temple house, viz., the holy place and the humana, sed divina voluntate electum esse,” To most holy, with the three-storeyed side- this David adds an exhortation to the whole building, which are specified in the following occurs only here, but is related to גַנְֹּזַכָ יו .assembly (v. 8), and to his son Solomon (v. 9), words .Esth. 3:9; 4:7, Ezra 27:24, and to the Chald ,גִנְֹּזִים .to hold fast their faithfulness to God 1 Chronicles 28:8. “And now before the eyes of Ezra 7:20, and signifies store and treasure ,גִנְֹּזִין all Israel, of the congregation of Jahve (collected in their representatives), and into the ears of chambers, for which the chambers of the three- are the עֲלִ יות .our God (so that God should hear as witness), storeyed side-building served (scil. I exhort you), observe and seek … that ye upper chambers over the most holy place, 2 are the inner חֲדָרָ יו הַפְּ נִימִ ים ;may possess (that is, keep as possession) the Chronicles 3:9 good land (cf. Deut. 4:21f.), and leave it to your rooms of the porch and of the holy place, since sons after you for an inheritance” (cf. Lev. -the house of the ark with the mercy ,בֵ ית הַכַ פֹׁרֶ ת 25:46).—In v. 9 he turns to his son Solomon in particular with the fatherly exhortation, “My seat, i.e., the most holy place, is mentioned son, know thou the God of thy father (i.e., of immediately after. David, who has ever helped him, Ps. 18:3), and 1 Chronicles 28:12. And the pattern, i.e., the serve Him with whole (undivided) heart (1 description of all that was in the spirit with him, as to ,לְּחַ צְּ רות ,Chronicles 29:9, 19; 1 Kings 8:61) and willing i.e., what his spirit had designed in reference to all ,לְּכָ ל־הַ לְּשָ כות סָבִ יב .soul.” To strengthen this exhortation, David the courts reminds him of the omniscience of God. Jahve the chambers round about, i.e., to all the rooms seeks, i.e., searches, all hearts and knows all the for the ,לְּ אֹׁצְּ רות .imagination of the thoughts; cf. Ps. 7:10, 1 Sam. on the four sides of the courts .as in treasures of the house of God; see on 26:20 יֵצֶ ר מַחֲשָ בות .Jer. 11:20, Ps. 139:1ff ,16:7 continuation) ּולְּמַחְּ לְּ קות הך׳ .Gen. 6:5. With the last clauses cf. Deut. 4:29, Isa. 1 Chronicles 28:13 and for the divisions of the priests“ ,(לְּ אֹׁצְּ רות only here and 2 Chronicles 11:14; of ,יַֹזְּנִיחַ .etc ,55:6 29:19.—With v. 10 the discourse turns to the and Levites, and for all the work of the service, ,and for all vessels,”—for for all these purposes חֲ ֹזַ ק building of the temple. The exhortation is interrupted by the giving over of the viz., for the sojourn of the priests and Levites in וַעֲׂשֵ ה the service, as well as for the performance of

1 CHRONICLES Page 172 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

quoad; cf. Ew. § 277, d) by weight ,אֵ ת) the necessary works, e.g., preparation of the the gold shew-bread, cooking of the sacrificial flesh, acc. of free subordination) for the tables ,מִשְּקָ ל) holding of the sacrificial meals, and for the storing of the vessels necessary for these of the spreading out, i.e., of the shew-bread Chronicles 13:11); see 2 ,מַעֲרֶ כֶ ת לֶחֶ ם = מַעֲרֶ כֶ ת) purposes, the cells and building of the courts were set apart.—With v. 14 begins the on Lev. 24:6), for each table, and silver for the is co-ordinate silver tables.” Silver tables, i.e., tables overlaid לַזָהָ ב .enumeration of the vessels with silver-lamin, and silver candlesticks (v. v. 12: he gave him ,לְּכָ ל־הַ לְּשָ כות … לְּחַ צְּ רות with 15), are not elsewhere expressly mentioned the description of that which he had in mind among the temple vessels, since the whole of “with regard to the golden (i.e., to the golden the vessels are nowhere individually registered vessels, cf. 29:2), according to the weight of the even in the description of the building of the golden, for all vessels of every service,” in temple. Yet, when the temple was repaired regard to all silver vessels according to the under Joash, 2 Kings 12:14, 2 Chronicles 24:14, weight.—With v. 15 the construction hitherto and when it was destroyed by the Chaldeans, 2 employed is dropped. According to the usual Kings 25:15, vessels of gold and silver are is to be supplied from spoken of. The silver candlesticks were וַיִֹּתֵ ן supposition, the verb and gave him the weight for probably, as Kimchi has conjectured, intended“ :ּומִשְּקָ ל v. 11 after the golden candlesticks and their golden for the priests engaged in the service, and the tables for reception of the sacrificial flesh after being in a state of free ֹזָהָ ב ”,lamps it had been prepared for burning upon the altar. ,.J. H. Mich) וְּנֵ רֹׁתֵיהֶ ם subordination to the word we וְּהַֹּמִ ֹזְּלָ גות וגו׳ Chronicles 28:17. Before 1 Berth., and others). But apart from the fact that should probably supply from v. 11: “he gave no analogous case can be found for such a and for ,וְּלִכְּ פורֵ י … subordination (for in 2 Chronicles 9:15, which him the pattern of the forks Berth. cites as such, there is no subordination, the golden tankards, according to the weight of see on 2 ,מִ ֹזְּרָ קות and מִ ֹזְּלָ גות is the accusative of each tankard.” For ֹזָהָב שָ חּוט for there the first σπονδεῖα, cups for the ,קְּׂשָ ות .the Chronicles 4:22 ,(וַיַעַ ׂש the material dependent upon gives no suitable sense; for libations, occur only in Ex. 25:29; 37:16, and וַיִֹּתֵ ן supplying of in free subordination: of ,ֹזָהָ ב טָ הור .David here does not give Solomon the metal for Num. 4:7 to cover, are vessels ,כָפַ ר from כְּ פורִ ים .the vessels, but, according to vv. 11, 12, 19, only pure gold be provided with covers, tankards; only וַיִֹּתֵ ן pattern or model for them. If ,ֹּתַבְּ נִית a .must be “he appointed,” and so mentioned here and in Ezra 1:10; 8:27 נָתַ ן ,supplied have a different sense here from that which it 1 Chronicles 28:18. And (the pattern) for the has in v. 11. This appears very questionable, altar of incense of pure gold by weight. In the without the second member of the verse, at the close of the מִשְּקָ ל and it is simpler to take from vv. 11, 12, is again ,ֹּתַבְּ נִית ,article, as an accusative of nearer definition, enumeration which Berth. rightly takes ,לְּ and to connect the verse thus: “and (what he taken up, but with had in mind) as weight for the golden to be nota accus.: and (gave him) “the model of candlesticks and their lamps, in gold, according the chariot of the cherubim of gold, as to the weight of each candlestick and its lamps, spreading out (wings), and sheltering over the is not הַכְּ רּובִ ים ”.and for the silver candlesticks, in weight— ark of the covenant of Jahve according to the service of each ,כַעֲ בודַ ת but is in ,הַֹּמֶרְּ כָבָ ה subordinated in the genitive to candlestick” (as it corresponded to the service explanatory apposition to it. The cherubim, not of each).—In v. 16 the enumeration is the ark, are the chariot upon which God enters continued in very loose connection: “And as to

1 CHRONICLES Page 173 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

That .כֹׁל מַ לְּאֲ כות הת׳ or is throned; cf. Ps. 18:11; 99:1, Ex. 25:22. The defined by the apposition conception of the cherubim set upon the golden the verse contains words of David is clear from is Jahve, which is easily הִׂשְּ כִ יל The subject of .עָלַ י is derived from the מֶרְּ כָבָ ה cover of the ark as It is, however, a question .מִ יַד יהוה Ps. 18:11. Ezekiel, it is true, supplied from ,יִרְּ כַב עַ ל־כְּ רּוב idea saw wheels on the throne of God under the Its position .עָלַ י with what we should connect cherubim (Ezek. 1:15ff., 26), and in accordance with this the LXX and Vulg. have made a before the verb, and the circumstance that pers. does not עַ ל construed with הִׂשְּ כִ יל cherubim-chariot out of the words (ἅρμα τῶν Χερουβ μ, quadriga cherubim); but as against elsewhere, occur, are against its being taken and there remains, therefore, only ;הִׂשְּ כִ יל this Berth. rightly remarks, that the idea of a with chariot of the cherubim does not at all appear in מִ יַד יהוה the choice between connecting it with the two sculptured cherubim upon the ark, nor ,In favour of the last, Ps. 40:8 .בִכְּתָ ב without the article, and with) לְּ פֹׁרְּׂשִ ים .yet in our passage ;prescribed to me, may be compared ,כָ תּוב עָלַ י ,Berth. thinks quite unintelligible (לְּ and with ,can only mean כְּתָ ב עָלַ י ,and according to that הַ פֹׁרְּׂשִים and would alter the text, reading כְּתָ ב because the two participles should be “what is prescribed to me;” cf. for the use of ,וְּהַ סֹׁכְּכִ ים for written prescription, the command in 2 But this is an error; for .הַכְּ רּובִ ים in apposition to Chronicles 35:4. Bertheau accordingly neither by the meaning of the words, nor by the by a writing given“ ,בִכְּתָב מִ יַד יהוה עָלַ י translates passages, 2 Chronicles 5:8, Ex. 25:20, 1 Kings 8:7, are we compelled to make this alteration. to me for a rule from Jahve’s hand,” and The two first-mentioned passages prove the understands the law of Moses to be meant, opposite, viz., that these participles state for because the description of the holy things in Ex. 25ff. is manifestly the basis of that in our לְּ פֹׁרְּׂשִ ים .what purpose the cherubim are to serve verses. But had David wished to say nothing further than that he had taken the law in the וְּהָ יּו הַכְּ רּובִ יםפֹׁרְּׂשֵ י have the signification of וְּ סֹׁכְּכִ ים that the cherubim might be spreading Scriptures for the basis of his pattern for the“ ,כְּ נָפַ יִם wings and protecting” (Ex. 25:20), as J. H. Mich. holy things, the expression which he employs would be exceedingly forced and wilfully even לְּ where in ,לְּ has rightly seen. This use of obscure. And, moreover, the position of the without a verb the idea of “becoming בִכְּתָ ב words would scarcely allow us to connect something” lies, but which Berth. does not for in that case we should rather have ,עָלַ י understand, has been already discussed, Ew. § with We must there take .בִכְּתָ ב עָלַי מִ יַד יהוה d, and illustrated by passages, among expected ,217 which 1 Chronicles 28:18 is one. The reference writing from the hand“ :מִ יַד יהוה along with עָלַ י פָרַ ׂש to Ex. 25:20 explains also the use of of Jahve came upon me,” i.e., according to the Kings 2) הָ יְּתָ ה יַד יהוה עָלַ י the author of the Chronicle not analogy of the phrase ,כְּ נָפַ יִם without Ezek. 1:3; 3:14, etc.), a writing coming by ,3:15 ,פָרַ ׂש thinking it necessary to give the object of as he might assume that that passage would be divine revelation, or a writing composed in known to readers of his book. consequence of divine revelation, and founded 1 Chronicles 28:19. In giving over to Solomon upon divine inspiration. David therefore says the model of all the parts and vessels of the that he had been instructed by a writing resting temple enumerated in vv. 11–18, David said: upon divine inspiration as to all the works of “All this, viz., all the works of the pattern, has the pattern of the temple. This need not, He taught by writing from the hand of Jahve however, be understood to mean that David is more closely had received exemplar vel ideam templi et הַ כֹׁל ”.which came upon me

1 CHRONICLES Page 174 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

Chronicles 29:31, Ex. 35:5, 22, usually 2 , נְּ דִ יב לֵ ב ,vasorum sacrorum immediately from Jahve either by a prophet or by vision, as the model of denotes him who brings voluntary gifts, but the tabernacle was shown to Moses on the here, him who voluntarily brings wisdom to mount (Ex. 25:40; 27:8); for it signifies only every service, who willingly employs his that he had not himself invented the pattern wisdom and knowledge in a service. Cunning, which he had committed to writings, i.e., the intelligent workmen and artists are meant, sketches and descriptions of the temple and its towards all“ ,לְּכָל־דְּבָרֶ יָך .Chronicles 2:6 2 ,22:15 furniture and vessels, but had drawn them up under the influence of divine inspiration. thy words,” i.e., as thou sayest or commandest them, the princes and the people, or callest 1 Chronicles 28:20, 21. In conclusion, David upon them for assistance in the work. encourages his son to go forward to the work with good courage, for his God would not 1 Chronicles 29 forsake him; and the priests and Levites, 1 Chronicles 29:1–9. Contributions of the cunning workmen, and the princes, together collected princes for the building of the temple.— with the whole people, would willingly support David then turns to the assembled princes to him. With the encouragement, v. 20a, cf. 22:13; press upon them the furthering of the building and with the promise, v. 20b, cf. Deut. 31:6, 8, of the temple. After referring to the youth of his my God, says David, ut in mentem son, and to the greatness of the work to be ,אֱ ֹלהַ י .Josh. 1:5 ei revocet, quomodo multis in periculis servatus accomplished (v. 1), he mentions what all the work- materials he has prepared for the building of ,כָל־מְּ לֶ אכֶת עֲ בודָ ה .(.sit (Lav business, i.e., all the labour necessary for the the temple (v. 2); then further states what he building of the house of God. has resolved to give in addition from his private resources (v. 4); and finally, after this is fittingly translated introduction, calls upon those present to make וְּהִ ּנֵ ה .Chronicles 28:21 1 by Clericus, “en habes.” The reference which lies a voluntary collection for this great work (v. 5). ”,to the classes of the priests and The words, “as only one hath God chosen him הִ ּנֵ ה in the Levites, i.e., the priests and Levites divided into form a parenthesis, which is to be translated as classes, does not presuppose their presence in a relative sentence for “my son, whom alone as in 22:5. The work is רנַעַ וָרָ ְך ”.God hath chosen ,וְּעִֹּמְּ ָך corresponds וְּהִ ּנֵ ה the assembly. With the with thee, i.e., for assistance to thee, in the great, because not for man the palace, scil. is intended, i.e., shall be built, but for Jahve God. ,לְּכָ ל־נָדִ יב before לְּ second half of the verse. The ,the citadel, the palace; a later word ,הַבִ ירָ ה “are all freely willing with wisdom,” in the middle of the sentence introducing the subject generally used of the residence of the Persian is strange; Bertheau would therefore strike it king (Esth. 1:2, 5; 2:3; Neh. 1:1), only in Neh. 2:8 of the citadel by the temple; here transferred to goes immediately לכל out, thinking that, as the temple as the glorious palace of Jahve, the before, and follows immediately afterwards הַ זָהָ ב .God-king of Israel. With v. 2a, cf. 22:14 .כל here may easily be an error for לכל ,twice the gold for the golden, etc., i.e., for the ,לַזָהָ ב וגו׳ is very לְּ This is certainly possible; but since this אַבְּ נֵי .vessels and ornaments of gold, cf. 28:14 frequently used in the Chronicle, it is a question as in Ex. 25:7; 35:9, precious stones שֹׁהַ םּומִלּואִ ים ,whether it should not be regarded as authentic probably ,שֹׁהַ ם .serving to bring into emphatic prominence the for the ephod and choshen“ ,stones of filling, that is ,אַבְּ נֵי ֹּמִלּואִ ים .with thee is for each beryl :כל נדיב idea of the business, what regards each willing person, for אַבְּ נֵי .precious stones which are put in settings = נָדִ יב .also all willing persons;” cf. Ew. § 310, a ,stones of pigment, i.e., ornament ,פּוְך

1 CHRONICLES Page 175 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study conjecturally precious stones which, from their the officials enumerated in 27:25–31 are see on 28:21. They gave 5000 לְּ meant; on ,פּוְך black colour, were in appearance like stibium, a common eye pigment (see 2 Kings talents of gold (22 1/2 or 11 1/2 millions of stones of variegated colour, pounds), and 1000 arics = 11 1/2 millions of ,אַבְּ נֵי רִ קְּמָ ה .(9:30 prosth. here and in Ezra א with ,אֲדַרְּ כון .pounds , ןאֶבֶ יְּקָרָ ה .i.e., with veins of different colours Ezra 2:69, Neh. 7:70ff., does ,דַרְּ כְּ מון precious stones, according to 2 Chronicles 3:6, 8:27, and .white not correspond to the Greek δραχμή, Arab ,אַבְּ נֵי שַ יִש .for ornamenting the walls marble stones. dirhem, but to the Greek δαρεικός, as the Syrian translation derîkônā’, Ezra 8:27, shows; a 1 Chronicles 29:3. “And moreover, because I Persian gold coin worth about 22s. 6d. See the have pleasure in the house of my God, there is description of these coins, of which several to me a treasure of gold and silver; it have I specimens still exist, in Cavedoni bibl. appointed for the house of my God over and Numismatik, übers. von A. Werlhof, S. 84ff.; J. without the Brandis, das Münz-Mass und Gewishtssystem in כֹׁל with הֲכִ ינותִ י ”… above all that relative, cf. 15:12. Vorderasien (1866), S. 244; and my bibl. 1 Chronicles 29:4. Gold 3000 talents, i.e., about Archäol. § 127, 3. “Our historian uses the words 13 1/2, or, reckoning according to the royal used in his time to designate the current gold shekel, 6 3/4 millions of pounds; 7000 talents coins, without intending to assume that there of silver, circa 2 1/2 or 1 1/4 millions of were darics in use in the time of David, to state pounds: see on 22:14. Gold of Ophir, i.e., the in a way intelligible to his readers the amount finest, best gold, corresponding to the pure of the sum contributed by the princes” to overlay the inner walls of the (Bertheau). This perfectly correct remark does ,לָ טּוחַ .silver not, however, explain why the author of the as in Chronicle has stated the contribution in gold הַבָתִ ים .houses with gold and silver leaf 28:11, the different buildings of the temple. The and that in silver in different values, in talents walls of the holy place and of the most holy, of and in darics, since the second cannot be an the porch and of the upper chambers, were explanation of the first, the two sums being overlaid with gold (cf. 2 Chronicles 3:4–6, 8, 9), different. Probably the sum in darics is the and probably only the inner walls of the side amount which they contributed in gold pieces buildings. received as coins; the talents, on the other for every golden hand, probably represent the weight of the ,לַזָהָ ב לַזָהָ ב .Chronicles 29:5 1 vessels and other articles of gold which they and in general for ,ּולְּכָל־מְּ לָ אכָ ה .thing, etc., cf. v. 2 brought as offerings for the building. The every work to be wrought by the hands of the amount contributed in silver is not large when = expressing it compared with that in gold: 10,000 talents ּו) who then is willing ,ּומִ י .artificer as the consequence). To fill one’s hand to the £3,500,000, or one half that amount. The Lord, means to provide oneself with something contribution in copper also, 18,000 talents, is which one brings to the Lord; see on Ex. 32:29. not very large. Besides these, those who had .occurs also in Ex. 31:5 and stones, i.e., precious stones, also brought them מַ לְּ אות The infinitive that was found with him, for: that ,הַ ּנִמְּצָא אִ ֹּתו .Chronicles 13:9 2 ,מַ לֵ א Dan. 9:4, and along with which he (each one) had of stones they gave. 1 Chronicles 29:6f. The princes follow the is to be taken distributively, and is אִ ֹּתו .The sing example, and willingly respond to David’s call. .cf ;נָתְּ נּו ,consequently carried on in the plural ּולְּׂשָרֵ י .etc ,27:1 ;24:31 ,רָ אשֵ י הָאָ בות = ׂשָרֵ י הָאָ בות נָתַ ן .is accus. of subordination אֲבָ נִים .and as regards the princes of the Ew. § 319, a ,מְּ לֶ אכֶ ת הם׳ ,to give over for administration (Ew. § 282 ,עַ ל יַד ,28:1 ,ׂשָרֵי רְּ כּוש ּומִקְּ הנֶ לַֹּמֶ לֶ ְך work of the king. The

1 CHRONICLES Page 176 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

the Levite family of this name which is the dominion, and the raising of oneself to be ,יְּחִיאֵ ל .(b God reveals His מַמְּ לָכָ ה had the oversight of the treasures of the house head over all.” In His is not a מִתְּ נַשֵ א .of God (1 Chronicles 26:21f.). greatness, might, glory, etc thou art,” to be“ ,אַֹּתָ ה Chronicles 29:9. The people and the king participle requiring 1 supplied (Berth.), but an appellative, an ,בְּלֵב שָ לֵ ם .rejoiced over this willingness to give as in 28:9. Aramaic infinitive,—the raising oneself (Ew. § 1 Chronicles 29:10–19. David’s thanksgiving 160, e). prayer.—David gives fitting expression to his 1 Chronicles 29:12. “From Thee came the joy on the success of the deepest wish of his riches and the glory …, and in Thy hand is it (it heart, in a prayer with which he closes the last lies) to make all things great and strong.” parliament of his reign. Since according to the 1 Chronicles 29:13. For this we must thank divine decree, not he, the man of war, but his God, and sing praise to His holy name. By the son, the peace-king Solomon, was to build a confess, praise, the ,הודָ ה from ,מודִ ים .partic temple to the Lord, David had taken it upon himself to prepare as far as possible for the praising of God is characterized as an enduring carrying out of the work. He had also found the praise, always rising anew. princes and chiefs of the people willing to 1 Chronicles 29:14. For man of himself can further it, and to assist his son Solomon in it. In give nothing: “What am I, and what is my this the pious and grey-haired servant of the people, that we should be able to show to hold strength ,עָצַ ר כוחַ ”?Lord saw a special proof of the divine favour, ourselves so liberal for which he must thank God the Lord before together; both to have power to do anything the whole congregation. He praises Jahve, “the (here and 2 Chronicles 2:5; 22:9), and also to God of Israel our father,” v. 10, or, as it is in v. retain strength (2 Chronicles 13:20; Dan. 10:8, 18, “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, 16; 11:6), only found in Daniel and in the ,to show oneself willing ,הִתְּ נַדֵ ב .our fathers.” Jahve had clearly revealed himself Chronicle to David and his people as the God of Israel and refers to the כָ ֹזֹׁאת .of the patriarchs, by fulfilling in so glorious a especially in giving manner to the people of Israel, by David, the contribution to the building of the temple (vv. promises made to the patriarchs. God the Lord 3–8). From Thy hand, i.e., that which is received had not only by David made His people great from Thee, have we given. and powerful, and secured to them the peaceful 1 Chronicles 29:15. For we are strangers (as possession of the good land, by humbling all Ps. 39:13), i.e., in this connection we have no their enemies round about, but He had also property, no enduring possession, since God awakened in the heart of the people such love had only given them the usufruct of the land; to and trust in their God, that the assembled and as of the land, so also of all the property of dignitaries of the kingdom showed themselves man, it is only a gift committed to us by God in perfectly willing to assist in furthering the usufruct. The truth that our life is a pilgrimage building of the house of God. In this God had (Heb. 11:12, 13, 14), is presented to us by the revealed His greatness, power, glory, etc., as brevity of life. As a shadow, so swiftly passing David (in vv. 11, 12) acknowledges with praise: away, are our days upon the earth (cf. Job 8:9, and there is ,וְּ אֵין מִקְּ וֶ ה .(Ps. 90:9f., 102:12; 144:4 ,הַ ּנֵצַ ח .Thine, Jahve, is the greatness,” etc“ according to the Aramaic usage, gloria, no trust, scil. in the continuance of life (cf. Jer. .(yea all, still dependent 148 , יכִ כֹׁל .splendour, honour at the commencement of the sentence, so 1 Chronicles 29:16. All the riches which we לְּ ָך on have prepared for the building of the temple Thine“ .כִ י after לְּ ָך that we do not need to supply

1 CHRONICLES Page 177 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

from which joyous ,שְּ לָמִ ים and the עֹׁלות is הִ יא .come from the hand of God. The Keth .sacrificial meals were prepared .הֶהָ מון corresponds to הּוא neuter, the Keri 1 Chronicles 29:17. Before God, who searches 1 Chronicles 29:22. On this day they made the heart and loves uprightness, David can Solomon king a second time, anointing him king declare that he has willingly given in to the Lord, and Zadok to be priest, i.e., high refers back to 1 Chronicles שֵ נִית uprightness of heart, and that the people also priest. The have, to his joy, shown equal willingness. 23:1, and the first anointing of Solomon not: before ,ליהיה .all the treasures enumerated (vv. 3–8). narrated in 1 Kings 1:32ff ,כָל־אֵ לֶ ה cannot signify, but: “to Jahve,” in לְּ and the Jahve, which ,עַֹּמְּ ָך refers to הַ ּנִמְּצְּ אּו The plural as in 26:28. accordance with His will expressed in His אֲשֶ ר stands for הַ demonstrative choice of Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:4). The לְּ Chronicles 29:18. He prays that God may 1 From the .לִשְּ ֹלמֹׁה is nota accus., as in צָ דוק enable the people ever to retain this frame of before last words we learn that Zadok received the ,לְּ יֵ צֶ ר מח׳ is more closely defined by ֹזֹׁאת .heart viz., the frame of the thoughts of the heart of high-priesthood with the consent of the estates Thy people. “And direct their heart (the of the kingdom. people’s heart) to Thee,” cf. 1 Sam. 7:3. 1 Chronicles 29:23–30. Solomon’s accession 1 Chronicles 29:19. And to Solomon may God and David’s death, with a statement as to the give a whole (undivided) heart, that he may length of his reign and the sources of the keep all the divine commands and do them, and history.—Vv. 23–25. The remarks on Solomon’s accession and reign contained in these verses ,לַעֲ ׂשות הַ כֹׁל .as in v. 9 לֵב שָ לֵ ם .build the temple are necessary to the complete conclusion of a that he may do all, scil. that the commands, history of David’s reign, for they show how see David’s wishes for his son Solomon, whom ,הַבִ ירָ ה testimonies, and statutes require. For v. 1. Jahve chose to be his successor, were fulfilled. .see the commentary on 28:5 עַ ל־כִסֵ א יהוה Chronicles 29:20–22. Close of the public On 1 he was prosperous, corresponds to the ,וַיַצְּלַ ח assembly.—V. 20. At the conclusion of the prayer, David calls upon the whole assembly to hope expressed by David (1 Chronicles 22:13), praise God; which they do, bowing before God which was also fulfilled by the submission of all princes and heroes, and also of all the king’s ,יִקְּ דּווְּיִשְֹּּתַחֲ וּו .and the king, and worshipping connected as in Ex. 4:31, Gen. 43:28, etc. sons, to King Solomon (v. 24). There can hardly, 1 Chronicles 29:21. To seal their confession, however, be in these last words a reference to thus made in word and deed, the assembled the frustrating of Adonijah’s attempted נָתַ ן .(.dignitaries prepared a great sacrificial feast to usurpation of the throne (cf. 1 Kings 1:15ff the Lord on the following day. They sacrificed to submit. But this meaning is not = יָדֹּתַחַ ת to the Lord sacrifices, viz., 1000 bullocks, 1000 rams, and 1000 lambs as burnt-offering, with derived (Rashi) from the custom of taking oaths drink-offerings to correspond, and sacrifices, of fidelity by clasping of hands, for this custom cannot be certainly proved to have existed in multitude for all ,(שְּ לָמִ ים) i.e., thank-offerings among the Israelites; still less can it have arisen Israel, i.e., so that all those present could take from the ancient custom mentioned in Gen. part in the sacrificial meal prepared from these 24:2, 9; 47:29, of laying the hand under the in the first clause is the thigh of the person to whom one swore in ֹזְּבָחִ ים sacrifices. While general designation of the bloody offerings as making promises with oath. The hand, as the distinguished from the meat-offerings, in the instrument of all activity, is here simply a last clause it is restricted by the contrast with symbol of power.

1 CHRONICLES Page 178 By C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch a Grace Notes study

cf. 1 Kings רעֹׁשֶ וְּכָ בוד Chronicles 29:25. Jahve made Solomon very 1 Chronicles 29:28. On 1 great, by giving him the glory of the kingdom, as 3:13, 2 Chronicles 17:5. no king before him had had it. is to be taken Chronicles 29:29. On the authorities cited 1 כֹׁל עִ ם כָל־מַ לְּ כּותו וגו׳ .nullus, and does not presuppose see the Introduction, p. 30ff ,לֹׁא along with the acts of David … are :הִ ּנָ םכְּ תּובִ ים a number of kings before Solomon; it involves goes with only more than one. Before him, Saul, written … together with his whole reign and his Ishbosheth, and David had been kings, and the power, and the times which went over him. kingship of the latter had been covered with the times, with their joys and sorrows, as ,הָעִֹּתִ ים .glory in Ps. 31:16, Job 24:1. The kingdoms of the as in) עַ לכָ ל־יִׂשְּרָ אֵ ל .Chronicles 29:26–30 1 lands (cf. 2 Chronicles 12:8; 17:10; 20:29) are 11:1; 12:38), referring to the fact that David the kingdoms with which the Israelites under had been for a time king only over Judah, but David came into contact,—Philistia, Edom, had been recognised at a later time by all the Moab, Ammon, Aram. tribes of Israel as king. The length of his reign as in 1 Kings 2:11. In Hebron seven years; according to 2 Sam. 5:5, more exactly seven years and six months.