1Ch 7:6-18 | KD | STEP | Sons and families of Benjamin. - In only three sons of Benjamin-Bela, Becher, and Jediael - are mentioned; and in their families are registered. Besides these, there are five sons of Benjamin spoken of in , - Bela the first, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth; while in five other בּנים are enumerated, viz., אדּר, גּרא (twice), נעמן, שׁפוּפן, and חוּרם. If we compare here the statements of the Pentateuch as to the genealogy of Benjamin, we find in the following sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi (אחי) and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard (ארדּ); and in Num 26:38-40 seven families, of which five are descended from his sons Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shephupham, and Hupham (חוּפם); and two from his grandsons, the sons of Bela, Ard and Naaman. From this we learn, not only that of the בּנים mentioned in at least two were grandsons, but also that the names אחי and מפּים (Gen.) are only other forms of אחירם and שׁפוּפם (Num.). It is, however, somewhat strange that among the families (in Num.) the names בּכר, גּרא, and ראשׁ are wanting. The explanation which at once suggests itself, that their descendants were not numerous enough to form separate families, and that they on that account were received into the families of the other sons, though it may be accepted in the case of Gera and Rosh, of whom it is nowhere recorded that they had numerous descendants, cannot meet the case of Becher, for in , of our chapter mention is made of nine sons of his, with a posterity of 20,200 men. The supposition that the name of Becher and his family has been dropped from the genealogical register of the families in Num 26, will not appear in the slightest degree probable, when we consider the accuracy of this register in other respects. The only remaining explanation therefore is, that the descendants of Becher were in reality not numerous enough to form a משׁפּחה by themselves, but had afterwards so increased that they numbered nine fathers'-houses, with a total of 20,200 valiant warriors. The numbers in our register point unquestionably to post-Mosaic times; for at the second numbering by Moses, all the families of Benjamin together numbered only 45,600 men (Num 26:41), while the three families mentioned in our verses number together 59,434 (22,034 + 20,200 + 17,200). The tribe of Benjamin, which moreover was entirely destroyed, with the exception of 600 men, in the war which it waged against the other tribes in the earlier part of the period of the judges (Jdg 20:47), could not have increased to such an extent before the times of David and Solomon. The name of the third son of Benjamin, Jediael, occurs only here, and is considered by the older commentators to be another name of Ashbel ( and Num 26:38), which cannot indeed be accepted as a certainty, but is very probable.

‏ 1 Chronicles 7:6-18

1Ch 7:6-11 Sons and families of Benjamin. - In 1Ch 7:6 only three sons of Benjamin-Bela, Becher, and Jediael - are mentioned; and in 1Ch 7:7-11 their families are registered. Besides these, there are five sons of Benjamin spoken of in 1Ch 8:1-2, - Bela the first, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth; while in 1Ch 7:3-5 five other בּנים are enumerated, viz., אדּר, גּרא (twice), נעמן, שׁפוּפן, and חוּרם. If we compare here the statements of the Pentateuch as to the genealogy of Benjamin, we find in Gen 46:21 the following sons of Benjamin: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi (אחי) and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard (ארדּ); and in Num 26:38-40 seven families, of which five are descended from his sons Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shephupham, and Hupham (חוּפם); and two from his grandsons, the sons of Bela, Ard and Naaman. From this we learn, not only that of the בּנים mentioned in Gen 46:21 at least two were grandsons, but also that the names אחי and מפּים (Gen.) are only other forms of אחירם and שׁפוּפם (Num.). It is, however, somewhat strange that among the families (in Num.) the names בּכר, גּרא, and ראשׁ are wanting. The explanation which at once suggests itself, that their descendants were not numerous enough to form separate families, and that they on that account were received into the families of the other sons, though it may be accepted in the case of Gera and Rosh, of whom it is nowhere recorded that they had numerous descendants, cannot meet the case of Becher, for in 1Ch 7:8, 1Ch 7:9 of our chapter mention is made of nine sons of his, with a posterity of 20,200 men. The supposition that the name of Becher and his family has been dropped from the genealogical register of the families in Num 26, will not appear in the slightest degree probable, when we consider the accuracy of this register in other respects. The only remaining explanation therefore is, that the descendants of Becher were in reality not numerous enough to form a משׁפּחה by themselves, but had afterwards so increased that they numbered nine fathers'-houses, with a total of 20,200 valiant warriors. The numbers in our register point unquestionably to post-Mosaic times; for at the second numbering by Moses, all the families of Benjamin together numbered only 45,600 men (Num 26:41), while the three families mentioned in our verses number together 59,434 (22,034 + 20,200 + 17,200). The tribe of Benjamin, which moreover was entirely destroyed, with the exception of 600 men, in the war which it waged against the other tribes in the earlier part of the period of the judges (Jdg 20:47), could not have increased to such an extent before the times of David and Solomon. The name of the third son of Benjamin, Jediael, occurs only here, and is considered by the older commentators to be another name of Ashbel (Gen 46:21 and Num 26:38), which cannot indeed be accepted as a certainty, but is very probable. 1Ch 7:12 1Ch 7:12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, “And Shuppim and Huppim, sons of Ir,” would seem, if we may judge from the ו cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. And besides, (1) the names וחפּים מפּים occur in Gen 46:21 among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Num 26:39, among the families of Benjamin, one called שׁוּפמי from שׁפוּפם, and another חוּפמי from חוּפם, are introduced; we must consequently hold מפּים to be an error for שׁפם or שׁוּפם. And (2) the name עיר is most probably identical with עירי in 1Ch 7:7. The peculiar forms of those names, viz., וחפּם שׁפם, seem to have arisen from an improper comparison of them with וּלשׁפּים לחפּים in 1Ch 7:15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim and Shuppim of 1Ch 7:15 belong to the Manassites. Here, therefore, two other families descended from the Benjamite Ir or Iri would seem to be mentioned, which may easily be reconciled with the purpose (1Ch 7:6) to mention none of the Benjamites but the descendants of Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further statement, “Hushim, sons of Aher,” is utterly enigmatical. The name חשׁים is found in Gen 46:23 as that of Dan’s only son, who, however, is called in Num 26:42 שׁוּחם, and who founded the family of the Shuhami. But as the names חוּשׁים and חשׁים are again met with in 1Ch 8:8, 1Ch 8:11 among the Benjamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our חשּׁם and that family.

The word אהר, alius, is not indeed found elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may notwithstanding be so here; when we might, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction w, take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another Benjamite family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Dan would be omitted from our chapter; but we must not allow that to lead us into arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Dan but also Zebulun is omitted. ^{▼▼Bertheau’s judgment in the matter is different. Starting from the facts that חשׁים (Gen 46:27) is called a son of Dan, and that further, in the enumeration of the tribes in Gen 46 and Num 26, Dan follows after Benjamin; that in Gen 46 Dan stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, and that in our chapter, in 1Ch 7:13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately; and that the closing words of this verse, “sons of Bilhah,” can, according to Gen 46:25, refer only to Dan and Naphtali, and consequently presuppose that Dan or his descendants have been mentioned in our passage, - he thinks there can be no doubt that originally Danites were mentioned in our verse, and that חשׁם was introduced as the son of Dan. Moreover, from the word אהר, “the other,” he draws the further inference that it may have been, according to its meaning, the covert designation of a man whose proper name fear, or dislike of some sort, prevented men from using, and was probably a designation of the tribe of Dan, which set up its own worship, and so separated itself from the congregation of Israel; cf. Judg. 17f. The name is avoided, he says, in our chapter, in 1Ch 6:61 and 1Ch 6:69, and is named only in 1Ch 2:2 among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in 1Ch 12:35. The conjecture, therefore, is forced upon us, that אהר בּן חשּׁם, “Hushim the son of the other,” viz., of the other son of Bilhah, whose name he wished to pass over in silence, stands for חשּׁם דן וּבני. The name Aher, then, had so completely concealed the tribe of Dan, that later readers did not mark the new commencement, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction, and had no scruple in adding the well-known names of the Benjamites, שׁפם and חפם, to the similarly-sounding חשׁם, though probably at first only in the margin. This hypothesis has no solid foundation. The supposed dislike to mention the name of Dan rests upon an erroneous imagination, as is manifest from the thrice repeated mention of that name, not merely in 1Ch 2:2 and 1Ch 12:35, but also in 1Ch 27:22. The omission of the tribe of Dan in 1Ch 6:61, 1Ch 6:69, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages; for in 1Ch 6:61 the words, “Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan,” and after 1Ch 6:69 a whole verse, have been dropped out in the copying. In neither of these verses can there by any idea of omitting the name Dan because of a dislike to mention it, for in 1Ch 6:61 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in 1Ch 6:69 the names of two cities are also omitted, where even Berth. cannot suppose any “dislike.” When Berth. quotes Jdg 18:30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, where under the Keri מנשׁה the name משׁה is supposed to be concealed, he has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage משׁה has been altered into מנשׁה from a foolish dislike, is one of the rabbinic caprices, which we cannot attribute as a matter of course to the authors of the biblical writings. With this groundless suspicion falls of itself the attempt which he bases upon it “to solve the enigma of our verse.” If the words in question do really contain a remark concerning the family of Dan, we must suppose, with Ewald (Gesch. i. S. 242), that the text has become corrupt, several words having been dropped out. Yet the בּלהה בּני at the end of 1Ch 7:13 is not sufficient to warrant such a supposition. Had the register originally contained not only the sons of Naphtali, but also the sons of Dan, so that בלהה בני would have to be referred to both, the conj. ו could not have been omitted before נפתּלי בּני. The want of this conjunction is, however, in conformity with the whole plan of our register, in which all the tribes follow, one after the other, without a conjunction; cf. 1Ch 7:6, 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:30. ו is found only before אפרים בּני, 1Ch 7:20, because Ephraim and Manasseh are closely connected, both continuing to form the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold נף בני, 1Ch 7:13, without ו cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that בלהה בני includes also the sons of Dan is at once disposed of.} 1Ch 7:13 The sons of Naphtali. - Only the sons of Naphtali are named, the families descended from them being passed over. The names correspond to those in Gen 46:24 and Num 26:48., except that there the first is יחצאל, and the last שׁלּם instead of שׁלּוּם. 1Ch 7:14-19 Families of the half-tribe of Manasseh. - The families of Manasseh which dwelt in Gilead and Bashan have already been mentioned in 1Ch 5:23, 1Ch 5:14. Our verses deal with the families of this tribe which received their inheritance in Canaan, on this side Jordan. These were, according to Num 26:30, Num 26:34, and Jos 17:2, six families, of which, however, only two are here spoken of - Ashriel, 1Ch 7:14, and Shemidah, 1Ch 7:19; or perhaps three, if Abiezer, 1Ch 7:18, be the same person as Jeezer (Num 26:30), who is called Abiezer in Jos 17:2. The statements of 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:15 are very obscure. At the head of the register of the Manassites stands Ashriel, who, according to Num 26:31, belonged to the sons of Gilead the son of Manasseh and the grandson of Joseph (cf. Gen 50:23), and founded one of the six families of the cis-Jordanic Manassites. But the words which follow are obscure; the words are וגו ילרה אשׁר, “whom his Aramaic concubine bore; she bore Machir the father of Gilead.” But since Ashriel, according to this, was the great-grandson of Manasseh, while Machir was his son, the relative clause can refer only to Manasseh, to whom his concubine bore Machir. Movers and Berth. would therefore erase אשׂריאל, as a gloss arising out of a doubling of the following יל אשר. By this expedient the difficultly as to the connection of the relative clause is certainly got rid of, but the obscurities of the following verse (1Ch 7:15) are not thereby removed. The analogy of the other registers in our chapter requires, rather, that immediately after מנשּׁה בּני there should stand the name of a descendant, - a fact which speaks strongly in favour of the authenticity of אשׂריאל. It is therefore a much more probable suggestion, that after the name אשׂריאל, some additional clause, such as בּן־מנשּׁה, has been dropped, or regarded as superfluous by a copyist, and so omitted. To such an omitted מנשׁה בן, the relative sentence, which gives more details as to the descent of Ashriel, would be attacked in a simple and natural manner, since it was known from Num 26:30. that Ashriel was descended from Manasseh through Gilead.