1Ch 7 | KD | STEP | Sons and families of Issachar. - . Instead of ולבני, we must certainly read בּני, as in , , or וּבני, as in ; , and elsewhere. The לבני has come into the text only by the recollection of the copyist having dwelt on the so frequently recurring לבני in , , cf. , , , for it is not possible to take ל as the ל of introduction, because the names of the sons follow immediately. The names of the four sons are given as in ., while in the second is written פּוּה, and the third יוב; vide on Gen. loc. cit.

1 Chronicles 7

Sons and families of Issachar. - 1Ch 7:1. Instead of ולבני, we must certainly read בּני, as in 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:30, or וּבני, as in 1Ch 7:20; 1Ch 5:11, and elsewhere. The לבני has come into the text only by the recollection of the copyist having dwelt on the so frequently recurring לבני in 1Ch 6:42, 1Ch 6:46-47, cf. 1Ch 6:48, 1Ch 6:56, 1Ch 6:62, for it is not possible to take ל as the ל of introduction, because the names of the sons follow immediately. The names of the four sons are given as in Num 26:23., while in Gen 46:13 the second is written פּוּה, and the third יוב; vide on Gen. loc. cit.

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 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.

(Note: 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.)

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.

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.

The families of Ephraim. - 1Ch 7:20. Among the Ephraimites, the descendants of Shuthelah, the founder of one of the chief families of this tribe, Num 26:35, are traced down through six generations to a later Shuthelah. The names ואלעד ועזר which follow בּנו שׁוּתלח, "And his son Shuthelah," after which בּנו is wanting, are not to be considered descendants of the second Shuthelah, but are heads of a family co-ordinate with that of Shuthelah, or of two fathers'-houses intimately connected with each other. These names are to be taken as a continuation of the list of the sons of Ephraim, which commenced with שׁוּתלח. The suffix in והרגוּם refers to both these names: "The men of Gath, that were born in the land, smote Ezer and Elead." These "men born in the land" Ewald and Bertheau take to be the Avvites, the aboriginal inhabitants of that district of country, who had been extirpated by the Philistines emigrating from Caphtor (Deu 2:23). But there is no sufficient ground for this supposition; for no proof can be brought forward that the Avvaeans (Avvites) had ever spread so far as Gath; and the Philistines had taken possession of the south-west part of Canaan as early as the time of Abraham, and consequently long before Ephraim's birth. "The men of Gath who were born in the land" are rather the Canaanite or Philistine inhabitants of Gath, as distinguished from the Israelites, who had settled in Canaan only under Joshua. "For they (Ezer and Elead) had come down to take away their cattle" (to plunder). The older commentators assign this event to the time that Israel dwelt in Egypt (Ewald, Gesch. i. S. 490), or even to the pre-Egyptian time. But Bertheau has, in opposition to this, justly remarked that the narratives of Genesis know nothing of a stay of the progenitors of the tribe of Ephraim in the land of Palestine before the migration of Israel into Egypt, for Ephraim was born in Egypt (Gen 46:20). It would be more feasible to refer it to the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, as it is not impossible that the Israelites may have undertaken predatory expeditions against Canaan from Goshen; but even this supposition is not at all probable. Certainly, if in 1Ch 7:23-27 it were said, as Ewald thinks, that Ephraim, after the mourning over the sons thus slain, became by his wife the father of three other sons, from the last named of whom Joshua was descended in the seventh generation, we should be compelled to refer the expedition to the pre-Egyptian period. But the opinion that Rephah and Resheph, 1Ch 7:25, were begotten only after that misfortune has no foundation. Moreover, the statement that Ephraim, after he was comforted for the loss of his slain sons, went in unto his wife and begat a son, to whom he gave the name Beriah, because he was born in misfortune in his house, does not at all presuppose that the patriarch Ephraim was still alive when Ezer and Elead were slain. Were that the case, the necessary result would of course be, that this event could only be referred to the time when the Israelites dwelt in Egypt. In opposition to this, Bertheau's remark that the event in that case would be per se enigmatical, as we would rightly have great hesitation in accepting the supposition of a war, or rather a plundering expedition to seize upon cattle carried out by the Ephraimites whilst they dwelt in Egypt, against the inhabitants of the Philistine city of Gath, is certainly not all decisive, for we know far too little about those times to be able to judge of the possibility or probability of such an expedition.

The decision to which we must come as to this obscure matter depends, in the first place, on how the words וגו ירדוּ כּי are to be understood; whether we are to translate "for they had gone," or "when they had gone down to fetch their cattle," i.e., to plunder. If we take the כּי par partic. ration., for, because, we can only take the sons of Ephraim, Ezer and Elead, for the subject of ירדוּ, and we must understand the words to mean that they had gone down to carry off the cattle of the Gathites. In that case, the event would fall in the time when the Ephraimites dwelt in Canaan, and went down from Mount Ephraim into the low-lying Gath, for a march out of Egypt into Canaan is irreconcilable with the verb ירד. If, on the contrary, we translate ירדוּ כּי "when they had gone down," we might then gather from the words that men of Gath went down to Goshen, there to drive away the cattle of the Ephraimites, in which case the Gathites may have slain the sons of Ephraim when they were feeding their cattle and defending them against the robbers. Many of the old commentators have so understood the words; but we cannot hold this to be the correct interpretation, for it deprives the words "those born in the land," which stand in apposition to גת אנשׁי, of all meaning, since there can be absolutely no thought of men of Gath born in Egypt. We therefore take the words to mean, that the sons of Ephraim who are named in our verse attempted to drive away the cattle of the Gathites, and were by them slain in the attempt. But how can the statement that Ephraim after this unfortunate event begat another son, Beriah, be reconciled with such a supposition, since the patriarch Ephraim was dead long before the Israelites came forth out of Egypt. Bertheau understands the begetting figuratively, of the whole of the tribe of Ephraim, or of a small Ephraimite family, which at first was not numbered with the others, into the number of the famous families of this tribe. But this straining of the words by an allegorical interpretation is not worthy of serious refutation, since it is manifestly only a makeshift to get rid of the difficulty. The words, "And Ephraim went in unto his wife, and she conceived and bare a son," are not to be interpreted allegorically, but must be taken in their proper sense; and the solution of the enigma will be found in the name Ephraim. If this be taken to denote the actual son of Joseph, then the event is incomprehensible; but just as a descendant of Shuthelah in the sixth generation was also called Shuthelah, so also might a descendant of the patriarch Ephraim, living at a much later time, have received the name of the progenitor of the tribe; and if we accept this supposition, the event, with all its issues, is easily explained. If Ezer and Elead went down from Mount Ephraim to Gath, they were not actual sons of Ephraim, but merely later descendants; and their father, who mourned for their death, was not Ephraim the son of Joseph, who was born in Egypt, but an Ephraimite who lived after the Israelites had taken possession of the land of Canaan, and who bore Ephraim's name. He may have mourned for the death of his sons, and after he had been comforted for their loss, may have gone in unto his wife, and have begotten a son with her, to whom he gave the name Beriah, "because it was in misfortune in his house," i.e., because this son was born when misfortune was in his house.

"And his daughter Sherah," the daughter of the above-mentioned Ephraim, "built Beth-horon the nether and the upper," the present Beit-Ur-Fok and Tachta (see on Jos 10:10), "and Uzzen-sherah," a place not elsewhere referred to, which she probably founded, and which was called after her. The building of the two Beth-horons is merely an enlarging and fortifying of these towns. Sherah was probably an heiress, who had received these places as her inheritance, and caused them to be enlarged by her family. In 1Ch 7:25-27 the ancestors of Joshua the son of Nun, who brought Israel into the land of Canaan, are enumerated. As the word בּנו is wanting after רשׁף, we must hold Rephah and Resheph to be brothers, but we are not informed from which of the four Ephraimite stocks enumerated in Num 26:35. they were descended. "Telah his son," Bertheau holds to be a son of Rephah. The name Tahan occurs in Num 26:35 as that of the founder of one of the families of Ephraim; but he can hardly be identical with our Tahan, who was probably a son of that Tahan from whom an Ephraimite family descended. If this conjecture be correct, Joshua would be of the family of Tahan.

Elishama the son of Ammihud was a contemporary of Moses, Num 1:10, and prince of the tribe of Ephraim, Num 7:48; Num 10:22. נון (Non) is so pronounced only in this place; in the Pentateuch and in the book of Joshua it is נוּן (Nun).

In 1Ch 7:28 and 1Ch 7:29 the possessions and dwelling-places of the tribe of Ephraim (and as we learn from the superscription, 1Ch 7:29), also those of West Jordan Manasseh, are given, but in a very general way; only the chief places on the four sides being mentioned. Bethel, now Beitin, on the frontier of the tribal domains of Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos 16:2; Jos 18:13), and assigned to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:22), is here mentioned as an Ephraimite city on the southern frontier of the Ephraimite territory, as it belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes; whence we gather that this register was prepared after that kingdom had come into existence. As to its position, see on Jos 7:2. Her daughters are the smaller villages which belonged to Bethel. Naaran, without doubt the same place which is called in Jos 16:7 נערתה (with ה loc.), is the eastern frontier city lying to the north-east of Jericho; see on Jos 16:7. "And westward Gezer," according to Jos 16:3, lying between Beth-horon and the sea (see on Jos 10:33), is the frontier city on the south-west; and Shechem and Avvah (עוּה), with their daughters, are places which mark the boundary on the north-west. As to שׁכם, Shechem, the present Nabulus, see on Jos 17:7. Instead of עוּה, most of the editions of the Bible agree with lxx and Vulg. and Chald. in having עזּה, but not the Philistine Gaza: it is only an error of the transcribers and printers, as all the more accurate MSS and the better printed copies have עוה; see De Rossi, Variae Lectt. ad h. l. The locality עוּה or עיּה is certainly met with nowhere else, but, if we may judge by Jos 16:6 and Jos 17:17, is to be sought not far from Shechem in a north-western direction, perhaps on the site of the there mentioned Michmethah, the position of which has, however, not yet been ascertained.

The sons and several families of Asher. - 1Ch 7:30. The names of the four sons of Asher and that of their sister coincide with the statement of Gen 46:17; but in Num 26:44-47, on the contrary, the name Ishuai does not occur among the families of Asher.

The sons of Beriah, Heber and Malchiel, are also to be found in Gen 46:17 and Num 26:45 as the heads of two families; but the further statement, "he (i.e., Malchiel) the father of Birzavith," is found only here. How ברזות, the Kethibh, is to be pronounced, cannot be with certainty determined. Gesen. in Thes. p. 239 makes it בּרזות, and considers the word to be the name of a woman; Bertheau, on the contrary conjectures that it is a compound of בר = בּאר and זית, "well of the olive-tree," and so the name of a place. In 1Ch 7:32-34 the descendants of Heber are enumerated in three generations, which are mentioned nowhere else. In 1Ch 7:32 we have four sons and one daughter. The name יפלט is not to be connected with יפלטי, Jos 16:3, "because a family of Asher is not to be sought for in the neighbourhood there referred to" (Berth.). In 1Ch 7:33 we have four sons of Japhlet, and in 1Ch 7:34 the sons of his brother Shemer. It is somewhat remarkable that שׁומר, 1Ch 7:32, is called here שׁמר. אחי is not an appellative, but a proper name, as the ו before the following name shows; cf. another Ahi in 1Ch 5:15. For יחבּה we should read וחבּה.

Descendants of Helem-in 1Ch 7:35 sons, in 1Ch 7:36-38 grandsons.

As Helem is called אהיו, "his brother" (i.e., the brother of the Shemer mentioned in 1Ch 7:34), הלם would seem to be the third son of Heber, who is called in 1Ch 7:32 חותם. If so, one of the two names must have resulted from an error in transcription; but it is now impossible to determine which is the original and correct form of the name. Eleven names are introduced as those of the sons of Zophah (1Ch 7:36, 1Ch 7:37); and in 1Ch 7:38 we have, besides, three sons of Jether (יתר), who is called in 1Ch 7:38 יתרן. In 1Ch 7:39 there follow three names, those of the sons of Ulla; on which Bertheau rightly remarks, the whole character of our enumeration would lead us to conjecture that עלּא had already occurred among the preceding names, although we find neither this name nor any similar one, with which it might be identified, in the preceding list.

1Ch 7:40 contains a comprehensive concluding statement as to the descendants of Asher: "All these (those just mentioned by name) were heads of fathers'-houses, chosen valiant heroes (חילים, as in 1Ch 7:5), chief of the princes," Vulg. duces ducum, i.e., probably leaders of the larger divisions of the army, under whom were other נשׂיאים. "And their genealogical register is for service of the host in war," i.e., was prepared with reference to the men capable of bearing arms, and had not, like other registers, reference to the number of inhabitants of the various localities; cf. 1Ch 9:22. It amounted to 26,000 men. According to Num 1:41, Asher numbered 41,500, and according to Num 26:47, 53,000 men. But we must observe that the number given in our verse is only that of the men capable of bearing arms belonging to one of the greater families of Asher, the family of Heber, of which alone a register had been preserved till the time of the chronicler.