Chapter VI.
1–81 (= v. 27–vi. 66
according to the Hebrew division).
Genealogies and Settlements of Levi.
1–15.
The Sons of Levi, and the High-Priests
to the Captivity.
The identity of interests and standpoint between the Chronicler and the Levitical order has been noted in the Introduction § 6 ad fin. It follows that the contents of the present chapter were to him of primary importance, and doubtless these lists represent not his own view only but the developed and accepted opinion of the Levitical and priestly classes as a whole, who believed that their institution, duties, and privileges generally were of Mosaic origin, whilst to David they ascribed the particular arrangements in connection with the Temple and especially the development of the choral services. The attempt to express their faith in concrete genealogical form was inevitable and indeed commendable. But the actual facts regarding the growth of the Levitical system (see the Additional Note at the end of this chapter, pp. 51 f.) were so very different from this theory that the artificiality of the lists is apparent to modern analysis, despite the zeal and ingenuity with which they have been compiled. Some points which indicate the unhistorical nature of the genealogies, together with questions raised by the internal structure of the chapter, will be indicated in the head-notes to the several sections. It must not be thought that such inconsistencies were equally (if at all) present to the mind of the Chronicler. For him the actual existence of the pedigree uniting the priests and Levites of his day with Aaron and finally with Levi was an axiom of thought; the one problem was to trace it out: and he was not restrained in his search by the spirit of scientific caution which is second nature to us. Thus in the ancestry of the singers (verses 34–47), where the lack of information to supply the necessary links in the genealogy was acutely felt, Curtis (p. 135) points out that current genealogical matter seems to have been naïvely pressed into this particular service on the ground of the identity of even a single name! Great allowance must be made for the Chronicler and his contemporaries. Even if part of the lists was consciously fabricated, that proves no more than that he was a man of his age and under the dominance of a theory. As Torrey remarks (Ezra Studies, p. 65), “he was not writing history for us but for the good of his people.” There is no case for a charge of religious insincerity. Rather the opposite is true, and his failings as a historian constantly reveal the measure of his faith as a religious man. He was so profoundly sure of the truth of the doctrine that its presuppositions, if not discoverable in historical records, might (he felt) legitimately be conjectured. For further information showing how natural and how free was the manipulation of genealogies in ancient times reference may be made to the Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹, s.v. Genealogy, or to MᶜLennan, Studies in Ancient History (2nd series, 1896), chapter ix.
1–15. In the finished system of the Jewish hierarchy, the Levitical order is found to be in three main divisions, “families,” who in the prevailing fashion, believed themselves to be descended from the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. In verses 1–3 this view is expressed, and the connection is traced from Levi to Aaron, the first of the traditional line of high-priests, which in verses 4–15 is given through Zadok down to the time of the Captivity. (1) The intention of the list in verses 4–15 is clear. It is given to declare the legitimacy of Jehozadak the high-priest who went into exile at the fall of Jerusalem and was accounted the father of Jeshua the high-priest of the Return (see Ezra iii. 2, etc.; Nehemiah xii. 26; Haggai i. 1; Zechariah vi. 11). Thus upon Jehozadak’s legitimacy depended the legitimacy of the post-exilic priesthood of Jerusalem. (2) The mechanical nature of the list is very evident when it is considered chronologically. Allowing the standard 40 years for each of the twenty-three priests in the list we get 40 × 12 + 40 × 11 = 920 years. This is in agreement with the unhistorical but beautifully regular chronology of the Priestly conception of the history, which allowed 480 years from the Exodus (Aaron) to Solomon’s Temple, and again 480 years to the foundation of the second Temple (Jeshua)—the Captivity (Jehozadak) being reckoned as taking place in the eleventh generation of the second period. (3) The list presents some noteworthy features. The line of high-priests from Eli to Abiathar is ignored, but this is natural, since the ascendancy of the Zadokite line was ascribed to the Divine anger against the house of Eli (1 Samuel iii. 12–14; 1 Kings ii. 27). It is curious, however, that this list of the high-priests omits Jehoiada (mentioned in 2 Kings xi. 9; 2 Chronicles xxii. 11) and Urijah (2 Kings xvi. 11 ff.) and an Azariah in the reign of Uzziah (2 Chronicles xxvi. 20) who should come between Amariah of Jehoshaphat’s reign and Hilkiah in the time of Josiah. (4) Finally note that the list of high-priests as far as the reign of David is repeated in verses 50–53. It is a very difficult problem to determine the relation between the two lists (see the head-note to verse 50).
¹The sons of Levi; Gershon¹, Kohath, and Merari.
1. The sons of Levi] So Genesis xlvi. 11; Exodus vi. 16; Numbers iii. 17, xxvi. 57—all from P.
²And the sons of Kohath; Amram, Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel.
2. the sons of Kohath] So Exodus vi. 18; Numbers iii. 19.
³And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron; Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
3. Aaron, and Moses] The same order in Exodus vi. 20. Aaron was the elder (Exodus vii. 7).
And the sons of Aaron] So Exodus vi. 23. Nadab and Abihu perished childless; Leviticus x. 1 ff.
⁴Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua; ⁵and Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi; ⁶and Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth; ⁷Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub;
4. Phinehas] Numbers xxv. 7 ff., xxxi. 6; Joshua xxii. 13 ff.
⁸and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz;
8. Ahitub begat Zadok] So also xviii. 16, but wrongly. The assertion that Ahitub was father of Zadok was derived by the Chronicler from 2 Samuel viii. 17, but the text of that passage has undoubtedly been altered (see Commentaries ad loc.) and it read originally “and Zadok, and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub.” Actually there were two leading priestly families in David’s day represented respectively by Zadok and Abiathar. Of these Solomon deposed Abiathar (thus fulfilling the curse which was laid on the house of Eli, from whom Abiathar was descended—see 1 Kings ii. 27), and thereafter the line of Zadok became the sole representatives of the supreme priestly office. See also the note on xv. 11.
Ahimaaz] 2 Samuel xv. 27, xvii. 17–21, xviii. 19 ff.
⁹and Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan; ¹⁰and Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest’s office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)
9. Azariah] This Azariah rather than the Azariah of verse 10 would have been contemporary with Solomon, and therefore the notice attached to the name Azariah in verse 10 (he it is that executed the priest’s office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem) belongs to verse 9. Compare 1 Kings iv. 2.
¹¹and Azariah begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub; ¹²and Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Shallum¹;
11. Amariah] apparently the contemporary of Jehoshaphat mentioned in 2 Chronicles xix. 11.
¹³and Shallum begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah;
13. Hilkiah] The high-priest in Josiah’s reign; 2 Kings xxii. 8; 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 14.
¹⁴and Azariah begat Seraiah, and Seraiah begat Jehozadak; ¹⁵and Jehozadak went into captivity, when the Lord carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.
14. Seraiah] slain soon after the capture of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.; 2 Kings xxv. 18–21; Jeremiah lii. 24–27.
Jehozadak] Jozadak in Ezra iii. 2, v. 2. His son Jeshua was the first high-priest after the exile; Haggai i. 1, etc.
16–30 (= vi. 1–15 according to the Hebrew division).
The three Sons of Levi and their
clans.
16–19.
The Sons of Levi.
¹⁶The sons of Levi; Gershom¹, Kohath, and Merari.
16. Gershom] elsewhere Gershon. Gershom was the name of Moses’ son; Exodus ii. 22.
¹⁷And these be the names of the sons of Gershom; Libni and Shimei.
17. Libni and Shimei] Exodus vi. 17; Libni is called Ladan in xxiii. 7, xxvi. 21, and is to be connected with the Judean town Libnah.
¹⁸And the sons of Kohath were Amram, and Izhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel.
18. Amram] through whom the line of high-priests is traced above, verse 2 ff.
¹⁹The sons of Merari; Mahli and Mushi. And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers’ houses.
19. Mahli and Mushi] xxiii. 21, xxiv. 26; Exodus vi. 19. Mushi is probably a derivative of Moses. For discussion of this point and of other evidence (compare verses 16, 17) indicating a relationship between the Levites and clans from south Judah, see Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹, s.v. Levites, vol. xvi. p. 513.
20, 21.
A Pedigree from Gershom.
²⁰Of Gershom; Libni his son, Jahath his son, Zimmah his son; ²¹Joah¹ his son, Iddo² his son, Zerah his son, Jeatherai³ his son.
20, 21. See notes on verses 39–43.
22–28.
The Sons of Kohath to Samuel.
22–28. See notes on verses 33–38.
²²The sons of Kohath; Amminadab¹ his son, Korah his son, Assir his son;
22. Amminadab] In Exodus vi. 23, the father-in-law of Aaron. Perhaps an error here for Izhar (LXX.ᴬ), through whom the line is traced in verse 38, as in Numbers xvi. 1.
²³Elkanah his son, and Ebiasaph his son, and Assir his son;
23. Assir his son; Elkanah] perhaps redundant here, or omitted in verse 37, where Ebiasaph is the son of Korah.
²⁴Tahath his son, Uriel¹ his son, Uzziah his son, and Shaul his son. ²⁵And the sons of Elkanah; Amasai, and Ahimoth.
24. Shaul] apparently corresponds with Joel, verse 36. The difference in Hebrew is slight, and might easily arise in transcription. Shaul is to be taken as father of Elkanah (compare verse 36), although the connection is strangely omitted.
²⁶As for Elkanah: the sons of Elkanah; Zophai¹ his son, and Nahath² his son;
26. As for Elkanah: the sons of Elkanah; Zophai his son] Read simply, following LXX., Elkanah his son; Zophai his son.
Zophai] From Zophai to Samuel’s sons the list can be compared not only with verses 33–35 but with 1 Samuel i. 1 and with viii. 2. Such differences as appear in corresponding names are doubtless due to transcriptional errors.
²⁷Eliab¹ his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son.
27. Elkanah his son] add probably, Samuel his son.
²⁸And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Joel¹, and the second Abijah.
28. the firstborn Joel, and the second Abijah] See the marginal note above. In the Hebrew text the name Joel has been accidentally omitted, and Vashni is merely a corruption of the Hebrew for and the second: an interesting example of error in textual transmission.
29, 30.
Sons of Merari.
²⁹The sons of Merari; Mahli, Libni his son, Shimei his son, Uzzah his son; ³⁰Shimea his son, Haggiah his son, Asaiah his son.
29, 30. See notes on verses 44–47.
29. Libni and Shimei are given above (verse 17) as sons of Gershom.
31–47 (= 16–32 in the Hebrew division).
The Singers appointed by David,
and their ancestry.
31–47. The three singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (= Jeduthun elsewhere except xv. 17 ff.) were the reputed founders of the three choral guilds of the post-exilic period. That these guilds were very gradually formed and in the form known to the Chronicler were a late post-exilic development is certain, but the precise stages of their growth are obscure, see Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible IV. 36 end–37. Possibly the singers for a considerable time were not necessarily Levites, but eventually they all claimed Levitical origin, and the pedigrees here given are the supposed justification of the claim. As the elaborated system of the Temple service (xxiii. ff.) was thought to have been instituted by David, the genealogies of the three singers are so arranged as to make them contemporaries of David. Comparing these verses with verses 4–15, it is evident that the genealogy from Korah has been used for constructing the pedigree of Heman (33–38), that of Gershom (20–22) for Asaph (39–43), and to a less extent that of Merari (29, 30) for Ethan (44–47). But in the line of Gershom and in that of Merari further names were required, five in the former and eight in the latter case, in order to make the genealogies sufficiently long to reach down to the time of David and thus make Asaph and Ethan his contemporaries. When these further names are examined they are found to be of a definitely post-exilic character; and it is evident that the Chronicler or whoever constructed the pedigrees utilised recent genealogies of the singers, which for some reason seemed to him suitable. The identity of a single name in the two lists was apparently deemed sufficient cause for making the connection (see note on verses 44–47).
³¹And these are they whom David set over the service of song in the house of the Lord, after that the ark had rest.
31. the ark had rest] i.e. was brought into the city of David for a permanent resting-place, compare Psalms cxxxii. 8, 14.
³²And they ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of the Lord in Jerusalem: and they waited¹ on their office according to their order.
32. they waited ... order] a phrase characteristic of the Chronicler. For waited render rather, as margin, stood (compare Psalms cxxxv. 2): i.e. Heman the leader stood in the central position, Asaph on his right hand (verse 39) and Ethan on his left (verse 44).
33–38.
The descent of Heman, David’s singer,
through Kohath from Levi.
³³And these are they that waited¹, and their sons. Of the sons of the Kohathites: Heman the singer, the son of Joel, the son of Samuel; ³⁴the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliel, the son of Toah²; ³⁵the son of Zuph³, the son of Elkanah, the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai; ³⁶the son of Elkanah, the son of Joel⁴, the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah;
33. Heman] the guild of Heman, as the present pedigree indicates, is reckoned (with what measure of historical ground is uncertain) to be of Levitical descent and of the Kohathite family: see also Korah below, verse 37.
³⁷the son of Tahath, the son of Assir, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah;
37. Korah] the sons of Korah figure in the titles of various Psalms (e.g. Psalms 44–49, 84, 85) and probably represent an earlier stage in the development of choral worship of the Temple. With this Korahite guild the guild of Heman evidently was associated, though whether by a process of development or of amalgamation it is impossible to say. It is noteworthy that other references to Korah (compare Genesis xxxvi. 5; 1 Chronicles ii. 43) indicate that the clan was originally of Edomite (Calebite) blood.
³⁸the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel.
38. Izhar] see note on Amminadab, verse 22.
39–43.
The descent of Asaph, David’s singer,
through Gershom from Levi.
³⁹And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand, even Asaph the son of Berechiah, the son of Shimea; ⁴⁰the son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah, the son of Malchijah;
39, 40. Berechiah ... Shimea ... Michael ... Baaseiah ... Malchijah] these are the five additional names inserted to lengthen the pedigree and so make Asaph contemporary with David (see head-note above).
40. Baaseiah] Read, as LXX., Maaseiah.
⁴¹the son of Ethni, the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah; ⁴²the son of Ethan, the son of Zimmah, the son of Shimei; ⁴³the son of Jahath, the son of Gershom, the son of Levi.
41. Ethni] = Jeatherai, verse 21. Here, and in the following names, the divergences from the corresponding names in verses 20, 21 are not nearly so great in Hebrew and can be easily accounted for. The correspondence fails in the case of the son and father of Jahath (compare verse 20 with 43). This however may be due simply to the omission of the names in question, Shimei in 20, Libni in 43; and other explanations could be given.
44–47.
The descent of Ethan, David’s singer,
through Merari from Levi.
⁴⁴And on the left hand their brethren the sons of Merari: Ethan¹ the son of Kishi², the son of Abdi, the son of Malluch; ⁴⁵the son of Hashabiah, the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah; ⁴⁶the son of Amzi, the son of Bani, the son of Shemer;
44–47. Only the first three names of the table of Merari in verse 29 are used by the compiler of Ethan’s pedigree. In place of the last four names he utilised a late list of nine names, the point of connection being found in the first, Shemer (verse 46), which was identified with the Shimei of verse 29.
Ethan] = Jeduthun: see note on xvi. 41.
⁴⁷the son of Mahli, the son of Mushi, the son of Merari, the son of Levi.
47. Mahli, the son of Mushi] According to xxiii. 23, xxiv. 30, Mushi had a son Mahli, named after Mahli, his brother (verse 19); and the natural conclusion is that the names in these verses (44–47) are the line of descent from Merari through Mushi, as those in verses 29, 30 are through Mahli. Against this simple explanation is the late character of several names from Kishi to Bani (44–46), and therefore the more complex statement made in the previous note may be correct.
48, 49 (= 33, 34 according to the Hebrew division).
The distinction between Levites
and Aaronites.
⁴⁸And their brethren the Levites were appointed¹ for all the service of the tabernacle of the house of God.
48. their brethren the Levites] i.e. other Levites, who were neither singers nor priests.
appointed] Hebrew, as margin, given, in allusion to Numbers iii. 9, xviii. 6.
⁴⁹But Aaron and his sons offered¹ upon the altar of burnt offering, and upon the altar of incense, for all the work of the most holy place, and to make atonement for Israel, according to all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.
49. Aaron and his sons] i.e. the priests as opposed to the Levites, in accordance with the distinction characteristic of the later legislation. See the Additional Note, pp. 51, 52.
the altar of burnt offering] Exodus xxvii. 1–8.
the altar of incense] Exodus xxx. 1–10.
to make atonement] compare Leviticus iv. 31, xvi.; 2 Chronicles xxix. 24.
50–53 (= 35–38 according to the Hebrew division).
The Line of Aaron to Ahimaaz.
⁵⁰And these are the sons of Aaron; Eleazar his son, Phinehas his son, Abishua his son; ⁵¹Bukki his son, Uzzi his son, Zerahiah his son; ⁵²Meraioth his son, Amariah his son, Ahitub his son; ⁵³Zadok his son, Ahimaaz his son.
This is a fragment, slightly changed in wording, of the genealogy given in verses 4–14. It goes as far as the reign of David. Some writers maintain that verses 4–14 are an interpolation in the text of Chronicles, and that the present passage is the primary list of high-priests. But the arguments in favour of that view seem to the present writer outweighed by the two considerations adduced by Curtis, Chronicles, p. 127: (1) “that a list of high-priests thus inserted between verse 49 (the duties of all the sons of Aaron) and verses 54 ff. (the cities of all the Aaronidae), seems out of place,” as it breaks the thread of the Chronicler’s arrangement of the material; and (2) that its insertion might well be due to a scribe who “expected a list of the sons of Aaron after the verse describing their duties—just as the list of Levites precedes the verse detailing their duties.”
54–81 (= 39–66 according to the Hebrew division).
The forty-eight Levitic cities.
This section has been adopted with some rearrangement from the parallel passage in Joshua. In Joshua the number of cities taken from each group of tribes and given to its respective division of the Levites is first stated, no city being named; and next the names of the cities are given under each division of the Levites and under the name of the tribe from which the cities were taken. In Chronicles the cities given to the Aaronites are first mentioned by name and reckoned to be thirteen in number (verses 55–60); next the cities given to each remaining division of the Levites are reckoned shortly by number only (verses 61–63); lastly, these cities are separately reckoned at length by name only (verses 66–81). This rearrangement is not happy; perhaps the Chronicler originally intended to give the Aaronite cities only by name as well as number, and so verses 66–81 (containing the names of the non-Aaronite cities) may be a supplement to the original text. Notice that no names of cities taken from Simeon are given; but this apparently arises through the Chronicler’s rearrangement of the parallel passage in Joshua; for verse 65, which here follows the list of Aaronite cities, mentions Simeon, and in the original context (Joshua xxi. 9) it precedes the list.
(Critical Note on 54–81.)
The text of the passage has suffered in transcription. In verses 55–60 eleven names are given, but thirteen are reckoned (verse 60), the explanation being that the names Juttah and Gibeon (Joshua xxi. 16, 17) have fallen out. In verse 61, after or before Manasseh, the names of Ephraim and Dan have fallen out (compare verse 66 and Joshua xxi. 5); Manasseh contributed only two out of the ten cities. Before verse 69 we must restore from Joshua xxi. 23 the words, And out of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh with her suburbs, Gibbethon with her suburbs. In verse 77 or immediately before verse 78 two names of cities of Zebulun have fallen out; compare verse 63 (“twelve cities”) with verses 77–81 (ten cities only are named).
54–60 (= Joshua xxi. 10–19).
The [thirteen] cities of the
Aaronites.
⁵⁴Now these are their dwelling places according to their encampments in their borders: to the sons of Aaron, of the families of the Kohathites, for theirs was the first lot,
54. Now these ... borders] the words are supplied by the Chronicler. Owing to his rearrangement of the material, the original introduction (i.e. Joshua xxi. 9) appears in this chapter as verse 65 (where see note).
encampments] Properly, the circular encampments of a nomadic tribe; here used more freely = habitations.
⁵⁵to them they gave Hebron in the land of Judah, and the suburbs thereof round about it;
55. suburbs] compare xiii. 2, note.
⁵⁶but the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
56. to Caleb] Joshua xxi. 12; Judges i. 20.
⁵⁷And to the sons of Aaron they gave the cities of refuge, Hebron; Libnah also with her suburbs, and Jattir, and Eshtemoa with her suburbs;
57. the cities of refuge, Hebron] Read, the city of refuge, Hebron (compare Joshua xxi. 13), Hebron being the only city of refuge here mentioned (Joshua xx. 7).
Libnah] in the south-west of Judah, Joshua x. 29; 2 Kings viii. 22, xix. 8.
Eshtemoa] the modern es-Semu‘a, south of Hebron. Compare iv. 17.
⁵⁸and Hilen¹ with her suburbs, Debir with her suburbs;
58. Hilen] In Joshua xxi. 15, Holon.
Debir] identified with modern Dāharījeh, south-west of Hebron. It is called Kiriath-sepher (Judges i. 11) and Kiriath-sannah (Joshua xv. 49).
⁵⁹and Ashan¹ with her suburbs, and Beth-shemesh with her suburbs:
59. Ashan with her suburbs] Joshua xxi. 16 has Ain for Ashan, and adds, and Juttah with her suburbs. Compare the Critical Note above.
Beth-shemesh] Joshua xv. 10; 1 Samuel vi. 9; 2 Kings xiv. 11, 13 (= 2 Chronicles xxv. 21, 23). A town in the north-west of Judah, now ‘Ain Shems, situated at the point at which the hill-country of Judah begins, as one goes by the railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem (Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 14).
⁶⁰and out of the tribe of Benjamin; Geba with her suburbs, and Allemeth³ with her suburbs, and Anathoth with her suburbs. All their cities throughout their families were thirteen cities.
60. of Benjamin; Geba] In Joshua xxi. 17 Gibeon and her suburbs is inserted before Geba. Compare the Critical Note above. Geba was situated by the pass of Michmash, some six miles from Jerusalem; compare 1 Samuel vi. 9 ff.
Allemeth] In Joshua xxi. 18, Almon.
thirteen cities] Compare the Critical Note above.
61–65 (compare Joshua xxi. 26, 33, 40).
Distribution of thirty-five other cities
to the rest of the Levites.
⁶¹And unto the rest of the sons of Kohath were given by lot, out of the family of the tribe, out of the half tribe, the half of Manasseh, ten cities.
61. the rest of the sons of Kohath] i.e. the Kohathites who were not sons of Aaron (verse 54).
out of the family ... Manasseh] read out of the families of the tribe of Ephraim and out of the tribe of Dan and out of the half tribe of Manasseh. See the Critical Note on verses 54–81.
⁶²And to the sons of Gershom, according to their families, out of the tribe of Issachar, and out of the tribe of Asher, and out of the tribe of Naphtali, and out of the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan, thirteen cities.
62. the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan] i.e. the half tribe of Manasseh beyond Jordan.
⁶³Unto the sons of Merari were given by lot, according to their families, out of the tribe of Reuben, and out of the tribe of Gad, and out of the tribe of Zebulun, twelve cities. ⁶⁴And the children of Israel gave to the Levites the cities with their suburbs.
63. twelve cities] The total number of Levitic cities (verse 60 thirteen, verse 61 ten, verse 62 thirteen, verse 63 twelve) was forty-eight (so Joshua xxi. 41), of which the Kohathites, as the largest division (compare xv. 5, note), received twenty-three or nearly half.
⁶⁵And they gave by lot out of the tribe of the children of Judah, and out of the tribe of the children of Simeon, and out of the tribe of the children of Benjamin, these cities which are mentioned by name.
65. by lot] as a means of gaining Divine sanction for the assignment of cities. This verse (= Joshua xxi. 9) is plainly unsuitable in its present context. In Joshua it is the introduction to the list of Aaronic cities (here verses 54–60). The Chronicler, having rearranged the material of his source, nevertheless preferred to transcribe this verse, despite the lack of harmony with the context; or possibly, if verses 66–81 are an addition to the original text of Chronicles (see the head-note on verses 54–81), verse 65 may also be a later insertion intended to help as a connecting link between verses 64 and 66 ff.
66–81.
Cities of the Levites.
66–70 (= Joshua xxi. 20–25).
The [ten] cities of the
non-Aaronite Kohathites.
⁶⁶And some of the families of the sons of Kohath had cities of their borders out of the tribe of Ephraim.
66. of their borders] rather, as Joshua xxi. 20, of their lot (the difference in Hebrew is very slight).
⁶⁷And they gave unto them the cities of refuge, Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim with her suburbs; Gezer also with her suburbs;
67. the cities of refuge, Shechem] Read (a slight change in Hebrew) the city of refuge, Shechem. Compare verse 57, note.
Shechem] Genesis xii. 6, xxxiii. 18; Joshua xxiv. 1; Judges ix. 1; 1 Kings xii. 1. Shechem is the modern Nabulus, situated almost in the middle of Palestine.
Gezer] Joshua xvi. 3; Judges i. 29; 1 Kings ix. 16. It is the modern Tell Jezer about 18 miles north-west of Jerusalem. The site has recently been excavated with excellent results—see Macalister, The Excavation of Gezer, or Driver, Modern Research Illustrating the Bible (Schweich Lectures, 1908).
⁶⁸and¹ Jokmeam with her suburbs, and Beth-horon with her suburbs;
68. Jokmeam] In Joshua xxi. 22, Kibzaim. The two words resemble one another more closely in Hebrew, and are to be taken as various readings of the same name. Nothing is known of a Kibzaim in Ephraim. A Jokmeam is mentioned 1 Kings iv. 12.
Beth-horon] Joshua x. 10, 11, xvi. 3, 5; 1 Maccabees iii. 24. There were two cities, a lower and an upper Beth-horon, the modern Beitur, “near the head and the foot respectively of the ascent from the Maritime Plain to the plateau of Benjamin.”
⁶⁹and Aijalon with her suburbs, and Gath-rimmon with her suburbs:
69. and Aijalon] Aijalon and Gath-rimmon were in Dan near the Jaffa road some 13 miles from Jerusalem; compare Joshua xxi. 23, 24. See also the Critical Note on verses 54–81.
⁷⁰and out of the half tribe of Manasseh; Aner with her suburbs, and Bileam with her suburbs, for the rest of the family of the sons of Kohath.
70. the half tribe of Manasseh] the western half tribe; the eastern is mentioned verse 71.
Aner] Read probably Taanach, as in vii. 29; Joshua xxi. 25; Judges v. 19. Taanach was situated in the plain of Esdraelon, some four miles south of Megiddo.
Bileam] read Ibleam, compare Judges i. 27; 2 Kings ix. 27. In Joshua xxi. 25, Gath-rimmon, an error of dittography.
for the rest ... Kohath] a fragment of Joshua xxi. 26.
71–76 (= Joshua xxi. 27–32).
The thirteen cities of the sons
of Gershom.
⁷¹Unto the sons of Gershom were given, out of the family of the half tribe of Manasseh, Golan in Bashan with her suburbs, and Ashtaroth with her suburbs:
71. Golan] a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 27. The name of this city is still preserved in Jolan (Jaulan), the name of a district east of Jordan extending from Hermon to the Jarmuk.
Ashtaroth] mentioned with Edrei in Joshua ix. 10 as the capital of Og, king of Bashan. The name testifies to the worship of Ashtoreth.
⁷²and out of the tribe of Issachar; Kedesh with her suburbs, Daberath with her suburbs;
72. Kedesh] Read Kishion with Joshua xxi. 28 (so Joshua xix. 20).
Daberath] the modern Dabūriyeh at the foot of Mount Tabor.
⁷³and Ramoth with her suburbs, and Anem with her suburbs:
73. Ramoth] Jarmuth, Joshua xxi. 29; or perhaps Remeth, Joshua xix. 21.
Anem] Read En-gannim with Joshua xxi. 29. Probably the modern large village of Jenîn on the edge of the plain of Esdraelon.
⁷⁴and out of the tribe of Asher; Mashal with her suburbs, and Abdon with her suburbs;
74. Mashal] Mishal, Joshua xxi. 30 (compare Joshua xix. 26, Revised Version).
⁷⁵and Hukok with her suburbs, and Rehob with her suburbs:
75. Hukok] Read Helkath with Joshua xxi. 31 (compare Joshua xix. 25).
⁷⁶and out of the tribe of Naphtali; Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs, and Hammon with her suburbs, and Kiriathaim with her suburbs.
76. Kedesh in Galilee] called Kedesh-naphtali in Judges iv. 6; it is the modern Kedes, situated on a lofty plateau overlooking the waters of Ḥūleh (Merom). It was a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 32.
Hammon ... Kiriathaim] In Joshua xxi. 32, Hammoth-dor ... Kartan.
77–81 (= Joshua xxi. 34–39).
The [twelve] cities of the sons
of Merari.
⁷⁷Unto the rest of the Levites, the sons of Merari, were given, out of the tribe of Zebulun, Rimmono with her suburbs, Tabor with her suburbs:
77. Rimmono ... Tabor] Read Rimmon or Rimmonah. Against these two names there are four in Joshua xxi. 34, 35; Jokneam, Kartah, Dimnah and Nahalal. As regards the number of the cities the text of Joshua is certainly right. See Critical Note on verses 54–81.
Tabor] No city, but only a mountain named Tabor is known to us, as having certainly existed in Old Testament times. A city however named Tabor existed on the mountain as early as 218 B.C., and it may have been as old as the times of the Chronicler. Mount Tabor was in Issachar near the border of Zebulun. For Nahalal, the reading in Joshua, compare Joshua xix. 15; Judges i. 30. Compare Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 250.
⁷⁸and beyond the Jordan at Jericho, on the east side of Jordan, were given them, out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer in the wilderness with her suburbs, and Jahzah with her suburbs, ⁷⁹and Kedemoth with her suburbs, and Mephaath with her suburbs:
78. at Jericho] The crossing-place of the Jordan nearest to Reuben was at Jericho. For the phrase Jordan at Jericho compare Joshua xvi. 1.
in the wilderness] further defined by the addition in the table-land (Deuteronomy iv. 43, Revised Version margin). Bezer was among the high pasture lands of Reuben. It was a city of refuge.
Jahzah] also called Jahaz. Compare Judges xi. 20; Isaiah xv. 4.
⁸⁰and out of the tribe of Gad; Ramoth in Gilead with her suburbs, and Mahanaim with her suburbs,
80. Ramoth in Gilead] a city of refuge, Joshua xxi. 38. See 1 Kings xxii. 3; 2 Kings ix. 1.
Mahanaim] Genesis xxxii. 2.
⁸¹and Heshbon with her suburbs, and Jazer with her suburbs.
81. Heshbon] Numbers xxi. 25, 26; Isaiah xv. 4.
Jazer] Numbers xxi. 32 (Revised Version); Isaiah xvi. 8.
Note on the Levites.
The priestly organisation known to the Chronicler represents the latest stage of a system, the development of which can to some extent be traced in the Old Testament records. (1) It appears from the earliest sources that the great “priestly” duty of sacrifice at one period did not require a priest for its due performance but might be, and was, undertaken by any responsible male. For example in Exodus xxiv. 5, an occasion of the deepest solemnity, sacrifices are spoken of as offered by “young men of the children of Israel.” In Exodus xxxiii. 7–11 it is clear that the other great function of early religion, charge of the responses given by the Divine oracle, is regarded as being under the control of Moses. In fact it would seem that in the earlier period there were neither priests nor Levites as a religious order; at any rate, as an order exercising a monopoly in the religious functions which they afterwards claimed the sole right of discharging. (2) In course of time those who administered the oracle and offered sacrifices at the manifold shrines and high places of Palestine gained importance and were recognised as a distinct religious class, priests; and persons claiming descent from Levi were numerous or prominent among them. But the right of offering sacrifices was still by no means confined to these priests of the shrines. The priesthood of the various shrines was often hereditary, passing on from father to son; and, even apart from that fact, it was most natural that members of this religious order, or perhaps one should say “profession,” should be thought of as connected by blood-relationship. Eventually they were all reckoned descendants of Levi. (3) After the exile and the suppression of the local shrines of Judah, the pre-eminence of the priests or Levites of Jerusalem was definitely established, and (as Ezekiel had suggested) such priests of the local shrines as were satisfied to migrate to Jerusalem became subordinate to the original ministers of the Temple there. All were accounted sons of Levi; but only the original Jerusalem priests, who traced their descent through the Levitical family of Aaron, were entitled to rank as priests: the rest were Levites but not priests. Thus there arose a distinction in the ranks of the religious officials. (4) Finally, the functions and privileges of priests as distinct from Levites were carefully discriminated, and the tradition that their origin as a religious order was due to Moses became firmly established, whilst the complex system of their organisation, in particular the subdivisions of the Levites as singers and doorkeepers, was confidently ascribed to David. Chronicles consistently represents this latest stage of development. For a concise statement of the facts see MᶜNeile, Numbers, pp. xiv ff. in the present series; and for further discussion the appropriate articles in the Dictionaries; especially Cook in Encyclopedia Britannica¹¹, s.v. Levites.