THE FIRST BOOK OF
THE CHRONICLES
Chapters I.–IX. GENEALOGIES.
Chapter I.
The Genealogies of the Peoples.
The historical narrative of the books of Chronicles commences in chapter x. with the record of the defeat and death of King Saul on Mt Gilboa.
The first nine chapters are occupied almost entirely by a series of genealogical lists. Starting from the primeval age, the line is traced from Adam to the origin of Israel, showing its place among the nations of the ancient world. Attention is then confined to the descendants of Israel, amongst whom the genealogies of Judah (particularly, the line of David), of Levi, and of Benjamin, are given prominence. Finally the ancestry of Saul, and a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem is recorded.
The modern reader is inclined to regard these statistics as the least important section of the book, but the fact that the bare lists of names are so foreign to our taste should serve at least as a valuable warning of the difference between our outlook and that of the Chronicler. It is in the highest degree important to understand the motives which caused the Chronicler to give these lists of names as the fitting introduction to the history, since the same motives operate throughout the book and determine the standpoint from which the entire history is considered.
(1) In the first place the genealogies were not recorded by the Chronicler simply for the archaeological interest they possess. They served a most practical purpose, in that they helped to determine for the Jewish community of the Chronicler’s time what families were of proper Levitical descent and might claim a share in the privileges pertaining thereto, and—on a wider scale—what families might justly be considered to be the pure blood of Israel. How serious the consequences entailed by the absence of a name from such lists might be is well illustrated by Ezra ii. 61–63 (= Nehemiah vii. 63–65), “the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz ... sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put away from the priesthood.” On the other hand the Jew who could successfully trace his ancestry in the great lists knew himself indubitably a member of the chosen people and was confident of his part in the covenantal grace and in all those hopes which the faith of Israel inspired and sustained.
(2) The practical aspect of these lists was thus essentially connected with high religious sentiment. They were an expression of the continuity of Israel, a declaration that the Present was one with the Past, a witness and an assurance of the unfailing grace of Israel’s God. The genealogies therefore are in perfect harmony with the spirit and purpose of the Chronicler’s work—see the Introduction § 6.
(3) Finally, in the lists of place-names and genealogies of inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, various facts of great historical interest are preserved—see Introduction § 7, pp. xlvii f. and (e.g.) ii. 42 note.
Chapter i. contains the genealogies of the earliest age, showing the origin of the nations. It concludes with a list of the chiefs of Edom. The names are those given in the genealogies of Genesis i.–xxxvi., but the lists are abbreviated to the utmost by the omission of statements of relationship. Evidently the Chronicler was able to assume that the connection between the names was a matter of common knowledge.
1–4 (compare Genesis v. 3–32).
A Genealogy from Adam to the
Sons of Noah.
¹ADAM, Seth, Enosh; ²Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared;
1. Seth ... Noah] This genealogy of ten antediluvian patriarchs follows Genesis v. 3–32 (P), the “Sethite” line as compared with Genesis iv. 17–24 (J) where the descent is traced through Cain. There is some ancient connection between the list and the Babylonian tradition of ten kings before the Flood (see Ryle, Genesis, pp. 88 ff. in this series). For the symbols J and P, see the Introduction p. xx.
Enosh] A poetical word which, like Adam in prose writings, was used as a generic term for “man.”
³Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; ⁴Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
3. Enoch] Hebrew Ḥanôkh. In verse 33 the same name is more correctly rendered Hanoch, but the Revised Version not unwisely has here retained the famous name in the form (derived through the Vulgate from the LXX.) with which the Authorized Version has made us familiar; compare Genesis iv. 17, and v. 21.
5–23.
The Genealogy of the Nations.
The table which follows is taken from Genesis x. 2–29. It is geographical rather than ethnological, i.e. neighbouring nations are regarded as having the same descent. The world as then known is divided into three areas of which that in the north and west is assigned to the Sons of Japheth (5–7), the southern to the Sons of Ham, and the middle and eastern to the Sons of Shem (17–23). Had the arrangement been according to actual descent the Semitic Zidonians, for instance, would not be described as the offspring of Ham (verse 13).
The passage, when analysed, divides as follows: 5–9 (a general table of the descendants of Japheth and Ham), 10–16 (an appendix to the descendants of Ham), 17 (a general table of the descendants of Shem), 18–23 (an appendix to the descendants of Shem). Of these four sections, the general tables, verses 5–9 and 17, belong to the “Priestly” narrative of the Hexateuch, whilst the two appendices, verses 10–16, 18–23, are from the earlier narrative known as J. For a full examination of the many interesting questions raised by this account of the origin of the nations known to the Israelites the reader must be referred to the commentaries on Genesis where such discussion is appropriate (see Ryle, Genesis, in this series; or more fully Skinner, Genesis, pp. 188 ff.). Here a few remarks of a general character must suffice.
With the exception of Nimrod the names are those of nations and tribes (e.g. Madai [Medes], Javan [Greeks]) or countries (e.g. Mizraim [Egypt]) or cities (Zidon). The names are eponymous: that is to say “each nation is represented by an imaginary personage bearing its name, who is called into existence for the purpose of expressing its unity, but is at the same time conceived as its real progenitor”; and the relations existing or supposed to exist between the various races and ethnic groups are then set forth under the scheme of a family relationship between the eponymous ancestors. This procedure may seem strange to us but it was both natural and convenient for a period when men had not at their disposal our scientific methods of classification. It must have been specially easy for Semites, like Israel, who in everyday life were accustomed to call a population the “sons of” the district or town which they inhabited. But in truth the practice was widespread in antiquity, and, if a parallel is desired, an excellent one may be found in the Greek traditions respecting the origins of the several branches of the Hellenic race. Whether the ancients believed that these eponymous ancestors really had lived is somewhat uncertain. Probably they did, although such names as Rodanim (verse 7) and Ludim (verse 11) where the name is actually left in a plural form (as we might say “Londoners”) makes it difficult to doubt that in some cases the convention was conscious and deliberate. The notion that the chief nations of antiquity were differentiated from one another within some three generations of descent from a common ancestor, Noah, is plainly inaccurate. Equally untenable is the primary conception assumed in this table that the great races of mankind have come into being simply through the expansion and subdivision of single families.
It must not be imagined that these facts in any way destroy the value of the table. Historically, it is a document of great importance as a systematic record of the racial and geographical beliefs of the Hebrews. Its value would be increased could we determine precisely the period when it was originally drawn up, but unfortunately it is not possible to do so with certainty. Arguments based on the resemblance between this table and the nations mentioned in the books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are inconclusive; nor does the fact that the general tables (verses 5–9, 17) now form part of P, the “Priestly” document, help us greatly, for we cannot argue from the date of the document as a whole to the date of its component laws or traditions, which of course may be much earlier. Religiously, the worth of this table is to be seen in the conviction of the fundamental unity of the human race, which is here expressed. The significance of this may best be felt if we contrast the Greek traditions which display a keen interest in the origins of their own peoples but none at all in that of the barbarians. Ancient society in general was vitiated by failure to recognise the moral obligation involved in our common humanity. Even Israel did not wholly transcend this danger, and its sense of spiritual pre-eminence may have taken an unworthy form in Jewish particularism; but at least, as we here see, there lay beneath the surface the instinct that ultimately the families of the earth are one, and their God one.
5–7 (= Genesis x. 2–4).
The Sons of Japheth.
⁵The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
5. The sons of Japheth] The writer begins with the northern peoples.
Gomer] to be identified with the Gimirrai of the Assyrian monuments, the Κιμμέριοι of the Greeks, who migrated from South Russia into Asia Minor (Pontus and Cappadocia) under the pressure of the Scythians (Herodotus I. 103; IV. 11, 12; compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, Revised Version).
Magog] In Ezekiel xxxviii. 2 (Revised Version) judgement is denounced on “Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” who is represented as accompanied in his migration by the “hordes” of Gomer and Togarmah (verse 6), “all of them riding upon horses” (verse 15). Magog represents therefore one of several tribes of northern nomads, possibly the Scythians.
Madai] i.e. Media or the Medes. Of the many allusions in the Old Testament to this famous people, the first is found in 2 Kings xvii. 6; compare also Isaiah xiii. 17; Jeremiah xxv. 25; Esther i. 3; Daniel i. 9. The Median Empire dates from the 7th century B.C., but the Medes are referred to by Assyrian inscriptions of the 9th century, at which time they seem to occupy the mountainous regions to the south and south-west of the Caspian Sea. They were the first Aryan race to play an important part in Semitic history.
Javan] the Ionians, a branch of the Greek peoples. They were already settled in the Aegean islands and on the west coast of Asia Minor at the dawn of Greek history. Being a seafaring nation and having a slave-trade with Tyre (Ezekiel xxvii. 13; Joel iii. 6 [Hebrew iv. 6 “Grecians”]), they became known to Israel at an early date. In some late passages of the Old Testament (e.g. Zechariah ix. 13; Daniel viii. 21, xi. 2) Javan denotes the world-power of the Greeks, established by the conquests of Alexander the Great and maintained in part by his successors, in particular the Seleucid kings of Syria.
Tubal, and Meshech] compare Isaiah lxvi. 19; Psalms cxx. 5. They are mentioned together Ezekiel xxvii. 13, xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix. 1; and are to be identified with the Τιβαρηνοί and Μοσχοί of Herodotus III. 94, who are the “Tabali” and “Muski” of the monuments. In the time of the later Assyrian Empire they lived as neighbours in the country north-east of Cilicia, but at a later period the Τιβαρηνοί (Tubal) lived in Pontus, and the Μοσχοί (Meshech) further East towards the Caspian. (The Meshech of this verse is to be distinguished from the Meshech son of Shem mentioned in verse 17.)
Tiras] Not the Thracians (so Josephus Antiquities of the Jews I. 6), but most probably the Tyrseni, a piratical people frequenting the coasts and islands of the north Aegean. They are mentioned among the seafarers who assailed Egypt in the reign of Merenptah.
⁶And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Diphath¹, and Togarmah.
6. Ashkenaz] In Jeremiah li. 27 “the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz” are to be summoned against Babylon. The home of the Ashkenaz is therefore somewhere in the neighbourhood of Ararat (Armenia); and they are apparently the Asguza of the monuments, and perhaps may be identified with the Scythians.
Diphath] The LXX., Vulgate and some Hebrew MSS. have Riphath (so also Genesis x. 3), which is to be preferred. The identity of the place or people is not yet ascertained.
Togarmah] Perhaps in Armenia, but the evidence is inconclusive. That it was a neighbour of Gomer, Tubal, and Meshech appears probable from Ezekiel xxvii. 14, where Togarmah is mentioned as trading with Tyre in horses and mules. Compare also Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, and the note above on Magog.
⁷And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim¹.
7. Elishah] Ezekiel (xxvii. 7) addressing Tyre, “Blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was thine awning.” Elishah has not been identified with certainty. It has been supposed to be Carthage. Another suggestion is Alashiya (of the Tell el-Amarna Letters) which may be a Cilician district, or perhaps rather Cyprus; compare the note on Kittim below.
Tarshish] generally now identified with Tartessus, a Phoenician town in the south of Spain. This is supported by the various references to Tarshish as a Tyrian colony rich in minerals and far from Palestine (see, e.g. Ezekiel xxvii. 12; Jonah i. 3; Psalms lxxii. 10; 2 Chronicles ix. 21). To identify it with Tarsus, the famous town in Cilicia, is in some ways attractive, but is on the whole less probable.
Kittim] The inhabitants of Cyprus are meant, “Kittim” being derived from Kition (modern Larnaca), the name of one of its oldest towns. In later times Kittim (Chittim) is used vaguely of Western islands (Jeremiah ii. 10; Ezekiel xxvii. 6) or nations; “the ships of Kittim” (Daniel xi. 30) are the Roman ships; “the land of Chittim” (Χεττιείμ, 1 Maccabees i. 1) is Macedonia (1 Maccabees viii. 5).
Rodanim] No doubt the Rhodians are meant; their island was celebrated even in the days of Homer. On the spelling Dodanim (Revised Version margin; Genesis x. 4), compare the note on Diphath above. The Hebrew letters r (ר) and d (ד) are easily confused.
8, 9 (= Genesis x. 6, 7).
The Sons of Ham.
⁸The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
8. The sons of Ham] The southern peoples are next enumerated.
Cush] The Hebrew name here transliterated Cush is several times translated “Ethiopia” (e.g. 2 Kings xix. 9; Isaiah xviii. 1) no doubt rightly. On the inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal frequent mention is made of Ku-su (Ku-u-su) “Ethiopia” in connection with Mu-ṣur “Egypt.” The Cushites were not Negroes but a brown race like the modern Nubians (Soudanese). The “sons of Cush,” however, seem to be tribes located mostly on the Arabian side of the Red Sea, verse 9 below.
Mizraim] is without doubt Egypt. In form the word may be dual, and it is generally said to mean the two Egypts, Upper and Lower.
Put] This people is mentioned among the helpers of Egypt in Jeremiah, in Ezekiel (twice), and in Nahum. In Ezekiel xxvii. 10 it appears among the auxiliary troops of Tyre. Put used therefore to be identified with the Libyans of the north coast of Africa, but more probably it denotes the Punt of the Egyptian monuments, i.e. the African coast of the Red Sea.
Canaan] the eponym of the pre-Israelitish population of Palestine west of Jordan. Actual racial affinities are here disregarded or unperceived, for the Canaanites (except the Philistines and Phoenicians on the strip of coastland) were Semites and spoke a language closely resembling Hebrew. That they are here reckoned as Hamites and made a “brother” of Egypt is due perhaps in part to the frequent dominations of Palestine by Egypt, but more probably to the political and religious antagonism between Israel and the Canaanites, which suggested that they ought to be most closely associated with Egypt, Israel’s traditional oppressor. Note that in Genesis ix. 25–27 (where hostile feeling against Canaan is prominent) “Canaan” is not said to be the son of Ham, but takes Ham’s place as a son of Noah (Ryle, Genesis, p. 127).
⁹And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raama, and Sabteca. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
9. the sons of Cush] According to some authorities Seba and Havilah were tribes or districts on the African coast of the Red Sea, whilst Sabta and Raama and Sabteca were in Arabia. It is somewhat more probable that all (except Seba) were located on the Arabian side of the Red Sea.
Seba] In Isaiah xliii. 3 and xlv. 14 Seba (the Sabeans) is mentioned along with Egypt and Cush, and in Psalms lxxii. 10 along with Sheba. Probably a district on the African side of the Red Sea is meant.
Sheba, and Dedan] Also in verse 32, where see note. Sheba is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (e.g. Jeremiah vi. 20; 1 Kings x. 1 ff. = 2 Chronicles ix. 1 ff.; Isaiah lx. 6) as a distant land, rich in gold, frankincense, and precious stones. It was a flourishing and wealthy state, at one period (circa 700 B.C.) the centre of power and civilisation in south Arabia. Dedan was probably a merchant tribe, specially associated with Sheba (compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 13).
10–16 (= Genesis x. 8–18b).
Appendix. Other Descendants of Ham.
¹⁰And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
10. And Cush begat Nimrod] From the parallel passages in Genesis (x. 10, 11) it is apparent that Nimrod is the name of an individual, the traditional founder of the Babylonian-Assyrian Empire. As Cush is here called the father of Nimrod and in verse 8 is the son of Ham, Hebrew tradition would appear to have regarded Hamites as the founders of the Babylonian power. Possibly the Redactor of Genesis who combined these verses which belong to the tradition of J with verses 5–9 which are from “P” may have thought so. But in the independent “J” narrative it is very probable that Cush, father of Nimrod, represents the third or Kassite dynasty (Κοσσαῖοι) which held sway in Babylon from about 1750–1200 B.C. Even so, the identification of Nimrod himself remains a puzzle, and it is not yet possible to say whether he is a legendary or an historical character, or partly both.
began to be a mighty one in the earth] i.e. was the first grand monarch (for the idiom, compare Genesis ix. 20). In Genesis x. 9, he is further and quaintly described as “a mighty hunter before the Lord.”
¹¹And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
11. Ludim] reckoned in Jeremiah xlvi. 9 and Ezekiel xxx. 5 (Revised Version “Lud”) among the auxiliary troops of Egypt (Mizraim). Probably not the Lydians of Asia Minor are meant, but a people of north Africa not yet known. Both this word and Lehabim may be variants for the Libyans, tribes west of Cyrene (compare 2 Chronicles xii. 3, xvi. 8). See also verse 17, note on Lud. Of the Anamim, Naphtuhim, nothing is certainly known.
¹²and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (from whence came the Philistines¹), and Caphtorim.
12. Pathrusim] the inhabitants of Pathros (Isaiah xi. 11), i.e. Upper Egypt.
Casluhim] not identified.
from whence came the Philistines] Elsewhere (Jeremiah xlvii. 4; Amos ix. 7; compare Deuteronomy ii. 23) the Philistines are said to have come from Caphtor. It is natural therefore to think that an accidental transposition has taken place, and that this clause, whence ... Philistines, originally followed Caphtorim. Note, however, that the same order is found in Genesis x. 14.
Caphtorim] i.e. the inhabitants of Caphtor, which has usually been taken to mean the island of Crete, but is also plausibly identified with “Keftiu,” the south-west coastlands of Asia Minor. Compare Macalister, The Philistines, pp. 4 ff.
¹³And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth;
13. Canaan begat] Of the four sons of Ham—viz. Cush, Mizraim, Put, Canaan—note that the sons of Put are omitted. After the sons of Cush (verse 9), and of Mizraim (verse 11), we here pass to the sons of Canaan.
Zidon his firstborn] From the time of David downwards Tyre takes precedence of Zidon in any mention of the Phoenician cities in the Old Testament, but Zidon was the older of the two cities, as is here implied and as the Roman historian Justin (XVIII. 3) asserts. So we find the Phoenicians in the earlier books of the Old Testament called Zidonians, not Tyrians (e.g. Judges iii. 3; 1 Kings v. 6). Homer also refers not to Tyre but to Zidon.
Heth] i.e. the Hittites, a northern non-Semitic race, who from about 1800–700 B.C. were a great power, extending over part of Asia Minor and northern Syria from the Orontes to the Euphrates. The references to them in the Old Testament make it probable that Hittite settlements were to be found in various parts of Palestine. This fact and their dominant influence, circa 1300 B.C., throughout Canaan and Phoenicia probably accounts for their inclusion as a “son” of Canaan.
¹⁴and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite;
14. the Jebusite] the ancient population of Jerusalem, compare Judges i. 21; 2 Samuel v. 6.
the Amorite] compare Numbers xiii. 29, xxi. 21; Judges i. 35. The name (probably a racial one) was frequently used of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Canaan (“Canaanites” being the geographical description). In a more restricted sense it was used to denote the people of Sihon, east of the Jordan.
¹⁵and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite; ¹⁶and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.
15. the Hivite] In Joshua xi. 3, the Hivites are placed in the extreme north of the land, “the Hivite under Hermon,” but the word may be an error for Hittite (see above verse 13). In Joshua ix. 7 and Genesis xxxiv. 2 they are located at Gibeon and Shechem. The Arkite and Sinite lived in Lebanon, the Arvadite (compare Ezekiel xxvii. 8) on the sea-coast north of Gebal (Byblus), the Zemarite a little to the south of the Arvadite, and the Hamathite furthest to the north on the Orontes.
17 (= Genesis x. 22, 23).
The Sons of Shem.
¹⁷The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech¹.
17. The sons of Shem] These occupied the middle geographical “zone.”
Elam] is the name of a land and nation north of the Persian Gulf and east of Babylonia, and is often referred to in the Old Testament. Though settled by Semites at a very early date, it was subsequently, circa 2280 B.C., possessed by a non-Semitic race, who even extended their power over Babylonia itself. The inclusion of Elam among the Semites is doubtless due to its proximity to Asshur, and, though not strictly correct, is very natural.
Asshur] The Assyrians, who are so frequently referred to in the Old Testament, were mainly, if not entirely Semitic: a martial and ruthless people whose conquests in the 14th–7th centuries have made them world-famous.
Arpachshad] a somewhat obscure name. In the last part (chshad) the same consonants occur as in the name “Chasdim,” the “Chaldees” of the Old Testament. Possibly two names have been run together, the second being that of the Chaldees or Chaldeans, a Semitic race who from circa 900 B.C. dominated Babylonia, assimilating with the earlier Semitic inhabitants. This conjecture has some support in the surprising fact that the Chaldeans are not otherwise mentioned in the table; it is opposed by the fact that Arpachshad occurs elsewhere, verse 24; Genesis x. 24, xi. 10 ff.
Lud] the name suggests the Lydians, but how this non-Semitic people situated on the west coast of Asia Minor comes to be included with Asshur and Aram as a son of Shem is a mystery. Possibly therefore a Semitic region, called Lubdu, between Tigris and Euphrates is meant.
Aram] the “Syrians” of the Authorized Version; better called Arameans. They were widely settled in the lands to the north and north-east of Palestine, with important centres in Damascus (Syria proper) and the north of the Euphrates valley (the Aram-Naharaim of the Old Testament). So great and lasting was their influence on Israel that the Aramean dialect eventually superseded Hebrew and was the ordinary language of Palestine in the time of Christ.
Uz] From Genesis x. 23 it appears that in Chronicles the words “And the children of Aram¹” have dropped out, so that “Uz” etc. appear as the immediate descendants of Shem.
Neither Uz nor the three following names have been satisfactorily identified. For “Meshech” Genesis x. 23 (Hebrew but not LXX.) reads “Mash.”
18–23 (= Genesis x. 24–29).
Appendix to the Sons of Shem.
South Arabian Tribes.
¹⁸And Arpachshad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.
18. Eber] The Hebrew word usually means “the land beyond” and may have originated as a personification of the population beyond the Euphrates. It is further possible that Eber is an eponym, not merely of the Hebrews, but of the Habiri, a much wider stock of Semitic nomads, of whom the Hebrews formed an element, and who overran and harassed the settled peoples of Palestine in the fifteenth century B.C.
¹⁹And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.
19. two sons] one (Peleg) representing, roughly speaking, the northern or Mesopotamian Semites; the other (Joktan), the south Arabian tribes.
Peleg] see below on verse 25.
²⁰And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah; ²¹and Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah; ²²and Ebal¹, and Abimael, and Sheba; ²³and Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.
20. Joktan begat Almodad] All the names of the sons of Joktan here given, so far as they have been identified, represent peoples situated in south Arabia or on the west coast of the Red Sea lying over against south Arabia. The only familiar name is that of the unidentified Ophir, which possibly but not certainly may be the “El Dorado” to which Solomon sent his fleet for gold.
24–27.
The Descent of Abraham from Shem.
These verses are compressed within the smallest limits from Genesis xi. 10–26. For another example of this extreme abbreviation compare verses 1–4 (= Genesis v. 3–32).
²⁴Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah; ²⁵Eber, Peleg, Reu; ²⁶Serug, Nahor, Terah; ²⁷Abram (the same is Abraham).
25. Peleg] the name perhaps signifies “Division” (see verse 19), and may refer to some great period of migration among the Semitic tribes.
28–31 (= Genesis xxv. 12–16).
The Descent of the Ishmaelite Tribes from Abraham
²⁸The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.
²⁹These are their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
29. Nebaioth] Compare Isaiah lx. 7.
Kedar] Isaiah xxi. 13–17.
³⁰Mishma, and Dumah, Massa; Hadad, and Tema,
30. Dumah] Isaiah xxi. 11.
Massa] Proverbs xxxi. 1 (Revised Version margin).
Hadad] The name begins with the Hebrew letter Ḥēth and therefore differs from the Hadad of verse 46 and of verse 50 and of 2 Chronicles xvi. 2 in which the first letter is Hē, a softer guttural than Ḥeth.
Tema] Isaiah xxi. 14.
³¹Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.
31. Jetur, Naphish] compare v. 18–22.
32, 33 (= Genesis xxv. 1–4).
The Descent of Arabian Tribes from
Abraham through Keturah
³²And the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
32. Keturah] called a wife of Abraham in Genesis xxv. 1. The Chronicler by calling her a concubine may imply that he considered that the tribes descended from her were not so closely akin to Israel as the Ishmaelites, or possibly he held that Sarah ought to be the only wife of Abraham, and “corrects” his source accordingly.
Medan, Midian] Kindred tribes often bore names only slightly differing in form.
Midian] In Judges viii. 14 the Midianites are reckoned as Ishmaelites.
Sheba, and Dedan] Sheba and Dedan in verse 9 (which belongs to the same source P) are included among the Hamitic peoples. Doubtless the names in the present passage, which comes from J, refer to the same tribes; but J follows a different tradition as to their origin. Possibly there is truth in both views, and the people of Sheba were of mixed African and Arabian descent.
³³And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the sons of Keturah.
33. Ephah] Isaiah lx. 6.
Hanoch] as Genesis xxv. 4. Compare verse 3.
34–37 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 10–14).
The Descent of the Tribes of Edom
from Abraham.
³⁴And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau, and Israel.
³⁵The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jalam, and Korah.
34. Esau] “Esau is Edom,” Genesis xxxvi. 1, 8.
³⁶The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi¹, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. ³⁷The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.
36. Teman] Amos i. 11, 12; Habakkuk iii. 13. The word means South, and is applied in the first passage to Edom itself, in the second to the wilderness of Edom, both being south of Canaan.
Kenaz] Other references (Judges i. 13, iii. 9, 11) show a close connection with Caleb, which in turn implies that the Calebites were closely related to the Edomites (compare iv. 13).
Amalek] the eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites who lived in the south and south-east of Palestine, see iv. 42 f.
38–42 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 20–28).
The Genealogy of the Horite Inhabitants
of Seir.
³⁸And the sons of Seir; Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah, and Dishon and Ezer and Dishan. ³⁹And the sons of Lotan; Hori and Homam¹: and Timna was Lotan’s sister.
38. The sons of Seir] Chronicles omits the further description given in Genesis “the Horite, the inhabitants of the land,” words which show clearly that these “sons of Seir” were not descendants of Esau, but aboriginal inhabitants of the land.
Lotan] perhaps to be connected with Lot, a name anciently associated with the land or people dwelling east of the Jordan (compare Genesis xix. 30).
⁴⁰The sons of Shobal; Alian¹ and Manahath and Ebal, Shephi² and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon; Aiah and Anah. ⁴¹The sons of Anah; Dishon. And the sons of Dishon; Hamran³ and Eshban and Ithran and Cheran. ⁴²The sons of Ezer; Bilhan and Zaavan, Jaakan⁴. The sons of Dishan; Uz and Aran.
40. Aiah and Anah] See Genesis xxxvi. 24.
43–51a (compare Genesis xxxvi. 31–39).
The early Kings of Edom.
⁴³Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor; and the name of his city was Dinhabah. ⁴⁴And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. ⁴⁵And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead.
43. kings] Note that the kings are of different families and localities. They may be compared with the “judges” of early Israel.
in the land of Edom] In early times the mountainous region of Seir, extending from the south-east of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba, but the precise territory of the Edomites is uncertain and of course must have varied from time to time. In the post-exilic period Edomites (Idumeans) pressed up into the south of Judah (compare ii. 42), and Edom (Idumea) continued to play an important and often sinister part in the history of Israel till long after the Chronicler’s lifetime. See (e.g.) 1 Maccabees v. 65; 2 Maccabees x. 14–17. The Herods were of Edomite descent.
before ... Israel] i.e. before Saul; or possibly “before David,” if the phrase means before the reign of the first Israelitish king over Edom. For the use made of this statement in the discussion of the date of the Hexateuch, see Chapman, Introduction to the Pentateuch, p. 40, in this series.
Bela the son of Beor] possibly the same as the familiar Balaam son of Beor, the consonants of the names differing in Hebrew only by the final m. See, however, Gray, Numbers (International Critical Commentary), pp. 315, 324.
⁴⁶And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith. ⁴⁷And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead.
46. smote Midian in the field of Moab] An isolated historical notice, interesting as showing the power of Edom at some period. The Midianites centred round the lands east of the Gulf of Akaba, but bands of them were constantly pushing northwards and harassing the territories of Edom, Moab, and Israel (compare Numbers xxii. 4; Judges vi.; etc.).
⁴⁸And Samlah died, and Shaul of Rehoboth by the River reigned in his stead. ⁴⁹And Shaul died, and Baal-hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead.
48. Rehoboth by the River] not “the River,” par excellence (i.e. the Euphrates), as the Revised Version translators supposed; but either the Wady el-Arish, the stream on the boundary of Egypt or Palestine; or else a river in north Edom, Rehoboth being distinguished from other places of the same name by being the city on its banks.
⁵⁰And Baal-hanan died, and Hadad¹ reigned in his stead; and the name of his city was Pai²: and his wife’s name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Me-zahab.
50. Hadad] As in verse 46; in Genesis xxxvi. 39, “Hadar.” Possibly the king whom David overthrew, 2 Samuel viii. 14, compare 1 Kings xi. 14 (perhaps a son of this Hadad).
⁵¹And Hadad died.
51a. And Hadad died] repeated by a copyist’s error from verse 47; the words are not found in Genesis.
51b–54 (compare Genesis xxxvi. 40–43).
The “Dukes” of Edom.
And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timna, duke Aliah¹, duke Jetheth; ⁵²duke Oholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon; ⁵³duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar; ⁵⁴duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are the dukes of Edom.
51b. dukes] The word means “leader of a thousand.” The list which follows is probably topographical, not chronological. It seems to give the names of the districts into which Edom was divided at the time when the list was drawn up.
duke Timna, etc.] Render, the duke of Timna, etc.
Aliah] In Genesis xxxvi. 40, “Alvah.”