Chapter XXXVI.
Edomite Genealogies, etc.
(partly Priestly-Code).

The chapter consists of seven (or eight) sections: I. Esau’s wives and children, ^1–5; II. His migration to Mount Seir, ^6–8; III. A list of Esau’s descendants, ^9–14; IV. An enumeration of clans or clan-chiefs of Esau, ^15–19; V. Two Ḥorite lists: a genealogy, ^20–28, and a list of clans, ^29. 30; VI. The kings of Edom, ^31–39; VII. A second list of clans of Esau, ^40–43.—The lists are repeated with variations in 1 Chronicles 1^35–54.

The chapter evidently embodies authentic information regarding the history and ethnology of Edom. Whether the statistics were compiled by Israelite writers from oral tradition, or are the scanty remains of a native Edomite literature, it is naturally impossible to determine; the early development of political institutions in Edom makes the latter hypothesis at least credible (see Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 329, 383 f.).

Analysis.—A section headed ואלה תלדות would, if homogeneous, be unhesitatingly ascribed to Priestly-Code; but the repetition of the formula (verse ⁹) throws doubt on its unity, and betrays the hand of a redactor. The phraseology of Priestly-Code is most apparent in II. and VII., but can be detected occasionally elsewhere (^{2a. 5b. 10a. 12b. 13b. 30b}: i.e. in I., III., and V.). The crucial difficulty is the contradiction as to Esau’s wives between I. and 26³⁴ 28⁹ (see on verses ^1–5). On this point I., III., and IV. hang together; and if these sections are excluded, there remains nothing that can be plausibly assigned to Priestly-Code except II. and VII. (so Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). The argument for reducing Priestly-Code’s share in the chapter to this minimum rests, however, on the assumption that the Code is the compilation of a single writer, who cannot be supposed to lapse into self-contradiction. The facts seem to point to a redactional process and a divergence of tradition within the Priestly school; and I am inclined to think that in I. (?), III., and IV. we have excerpts from the book of Tôledôth incorporated in Priestly-Code, whose main narrative will have included 26³⁴ 28⁹, and in which 35²⁹ 36^6–8 37¹ may have read continuously. VII. must then be rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the Tôledôth is successfully imitated (so Meyer).—As regards V. and VI. little can be said. The former might well have been part of the Tôledôth; the latter is unique in Genesis, and there are no positive reasons for assigning it to Yahwist (so most) or any other source.

According to 26³⁴ 28⁹ (Priestly-Code), the three wives are (a) Yĕhûdîth bath-Bĕ’ērî, the Hittite; (b) Bāsĕmath bath-’Ēlôn, the Ḥittite (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXXᴬ, Peshiṭtå Ḥivvite); (c) Maḥălath bath-Yišmā‛ēl, sister of Nĕbayôth. Here they are (a) ‛Ādā bath-’Elôn, the Ḥittite; (b) ’Ohŏlîbāmāh bath-‛Ănāh, the Ḥorite; (c) Bāsĕmath bath-Yišmā‛ēl, sister of Nĕbāyôth. The confusion is too great to be accounted for naturally by textual corruption, though that may have played a part. We can only conjecture vaguely that verses ^9–14 represent a different tradition from 26³⁴ 28⁹; and that in ^2–5a a clumsy and half-hearted attempt has been made to establish some points of contact between them. If we accept the החוי of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, etc., in 26³⁴, the two traditions agree in the main ethnological point, that the Edomite people was composed of Ḥittite (? Canaanite), Ḥivvite (? Ḥorite), and Ishmaelite elements.

On the Names.—(a) עדה is the name of one of Lamech’s wives: see on 4¹⁹.—(b) אהליבמה (Ὀλιβεμά, Ἐλιβεμά, etc.). Somewhat similar compounds with אהל are found in Phœnician (אהלבעל, אהלמלך) and Sabbatian (אהלעֹתתר, אהלאל) as well as in Hebrew (אהליאב, Exodus 31⁶; אהליבה, Ezekiel 23^4 ff.) (see Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 246¹). The first component is presumably Arabic and Sabbatian ’ahl, ‘family’; the second ought by analogy to be a divine name, though none such is known. It is philologically probable that names of this type were originally clan-names; and אה׳ is taken from the old list of Ḥorite clans (verse ²⁵, compare ⁴¹).—(c) בשמת (for which The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch always reads מחלת, 28⁹), if from √ בשם, ‘smell sweetly,’ is likely to have been a favourite woman’s name, but recurs only 1 Kings 4¹⁵ of a daughter of Solomon. On ענה and צבעון, see on verse ²⁰: the obvious connexion with that verse makes it practically certain that חִוִּי in verse ² is a mistake for חֹרִי.—On the sons, see below.—It is pointed out by Holzinger (187) that both in ^9–14 and ^15–19 the ’Oholibamah branch holds a somewhat exceptional position. This may mean that it represents hybrid clans, whereas the other two are of pure Edomite stock: that it is a later insertion in the lists ♦is less likely.

1. הוא אדום] probably a gloss (compare verse ^8. 19); but the persistency with which the equivalence is asserted is itself instructive. Esau and Edom are really distinct names (see page 359 f.), and Priestly-Code has no legendary identification of them, such as 25³⁰. Hence the connexion is established in two ways: Esau = Edom (^1. 8. 19); and Esau the father of Edom (^9. 43).—2. עשו לקח] ‘had taken,’ as already recorded (26³⁴ 28⁹).—בת צבעון] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå בן־צ׳; deleted by Holzinger and Gunkel as a gloss. But in clan names gender is not always carefully distinguished; and the writer probably took ענה as feminine. In verse ²⁵ ’Oholibamah is herself one of the sons of ‛Anah.—החוי] Read הַחֹרִי, v.s.—5. יעישׁ] Kethîb as verse ¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 7¹⁰; Qrê יְעוּשׁ, as verse ¹⁸, 1 Chronicles 1³⁵ 8³⁹ 23^10 f., 2 Chronicles 11¹⁹†.

6–8. Esau’s migration to Se‛ir.—6. Compare 12⁵ (34²³).—and his daughters] None are mentioned in ^2–5.—to the land of Sĕ‛îr] So we must read with Peshiṭtå.—7. The motive for the separation is the same as that which led to the parting of Abraham and Lot (13^6a), implying that Esau had lived at Hebron after Jacob’s return; contrast Yahwist, 32⁴ 33^14. 16.—8. the mountain of Sē‛îr] the mountainous country East of the Arabah, the southern part of which is now called eš-Šera‛ and the northern Ǧebāl (Buhl, Geschichte der Edomiter 28 ff.). The land Se‛ir includes the whole Edomite territory as far West as Ḳadesh (Numbers 20¹⁶). See on 14⁶ 27^39 f., and below on verse ²⁰.

6. אל־ארץ gives no sense, and to insert אַחֶרֶת (Targum^{Onkelos-Jonathan}, Vulgate) is inadmissible without a change of text. The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX מארץ כנען is possible; but it is simplest to follow Peshiṭtå אל־ארץ שעי͏ר.—מפני] ‘on account of,’ as 6¹³ 27⁴ etc.

9–14. The genealogy of Esau.—9, 10. For the double heading וא׳ תלדות followed by וא׳ שמות, compare 25^12 f..—Esau the father of Edom] see footnote on verse ¹. It is strange that except in these glosses Edom is never the eponymus of the nation, although it appears to have been the name of a god (עבד אדם, 2 Samuel 6¹⁰).—11 ff. The total number of the tribes, excluding the bastard ‛Amālēḳ, is 12, as in the cases of Israel and Ishmael (25^12–16). The sons of ’Oholibamah are, however, put on a level with the grandsons of the other two wives (so verse ¹⁸). The list may be tabulated thus:

The Names.—(a) אליפז] Known otherwise only as the name of the oldest and wisest of Job’s friends (Job 2¹¹ etc.), probably borrowed from this list.—(1) תימן (Θαιμάν)] Frequently mentioned as a district of Edom (Jeremiah 49^7. 20, Ezekiel 25¹³, Amos 1¹², Obadiah ⁹, Habakkuk 3³), famous for its wisdom, the home of Eliphaz (Job 2¹¹) and of the third king of Edom (verse ³⁴). A village bearing the Greek name, 15 Roman miles from Petra, is mentioned in Onomastica Sacra, 260; but the site is now lost.—(2) אומר (Ὠμάρ, Ὠμάν), (3) צפו (Σωφαρ, 1 Chronicles צפי), (4) געתם (Γοθομ, etc.) are quite unknown, unless Σωφαρ be the original of Job’s third friend.—(5) קנז] the eponym of the Ḳenizzites, the group to which Kaleb (the ‘dog’-tribe, settled in Ḥebron) and Othniel belonged (Numbers 32¹², Joshua 14^6. 14 15¹⁷, Judges 1¹³ 3^9. 11). The incorporation of these families in Judah is a typical example of the unstable political relations of the southern tribes between Israel and Edom, a fact abundantly illustrated from the lists before us.—The once powerful people of עמלק (see on 14⁷) is here described as descended from תמנע, a Ḥorite clan absorbed in Edom (verses ^22. 40), of which nothing else is known. The reference may be to an offshoot of the old Amalekites who had found protection from the Edomites.—(b) רעואל (Ῥαγουήλ)] ‘Friend of God’ (?) is one of the names of Moses’ father-in-law (a Midianite) (Exodus 2¹⁸, Numbers 10²⁹), also that of a Gadite (Numbers 1¹⁴ 2¹⁴) and of a Benjamite (1 Chronicles 9⁸).—(6) נחת (Ναχοθ, Ναχομ)] compare 2 Chronicles 31¹³.—(7) זרח (Ζαρε)] (compare verse ³³). Also a clan of Judah (38³⁰); compare Numbers 26¹³ (Simeonite), 1 Chronicles 6^6. 26 (Levite).—(8) שמה (Σομε)] compare 1 Samuel 16⁹ (David’s brother), 2 Samuel 23¹¹ (one of his heroes); also שֶׂמַּי in Yeraḥmeel (1 Chronicles 2^28. 32) and Kaleb (2^44 f.).—(9) מזה (Μοζε, Ὁμοζε, etc.)] only here. It is pointed out that the four names form a doggerel sentence: ‘descent and rising, there and here’ (Kautzsch-Socin An. 178); but three of them are sufficiently authenticated; and the fact does not prove them to be inventions of an idle fancy.—(10) יעישׁ (Ἰε[ο]υς, Ἰεουλ, etc.)] v.i. on verse ⁵. As an Israelite name, 1 Chronicles 7¹⁰ 8³⁹ (Benjamite), 23^10 f. (Levite), 2 Chronicles 11¹⁹ (son of Rehoboam). The name is thought by some to be identical with that of an Arabian lion-god Yaġūṯ (though LXX must have pronounced ﻋ not ﻏ), meaning ‘helper,’ whose antiquity is vouched for by inscriptions of Thamud (William Robertson Smith Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 254; Wellhausen Reste arabischen Heidentums² 19, 146; Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 168; Fischer, ib. lviii. 869; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 351 f.; on the other side, Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xlv. 595; Dillmann 384; Buhl, Geschichte der Edomiter 48 f.).—(11) יעלם (Ἰεγλομ, etc.)] possibly an animal name from יָעֵל = ‘ibex’; but see Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 90⁵; compare יָעֵל, Judges 4^17 ff. 5²⁴, and יַעְלָה, Ezra 2⁵⁶.—(12) קרח (Κορε)] a son of Ḥebron, and therefore a Kalebite clan in 1 Chronicles 2⁴³. Meyer (352⁵) traces to this Edomite-Kalebite family the origin of the Ḳoraḥite singers and subordinate officials of the second Temple, who were afterwards admitted to the ranks of the Levites, and received an artificial genealogy (Exodus 6^21. 24, Numbers 26⁵⁸, 1 Chronicles 6^7. 22 etc.).

The Names.—(a) לוטן is plausibly connected with לוֹט (also a cave-dweller, 19³⁰), who may have been originally an ancestral deity worshipped in these regions.—Philologically it is interesting to observe the frequency of the endings -ān, -ōn in this list, pointing to a primitive nunation, as ♦contrasted with sporadic cases of mimation in the Edomite names.—חרי (verse ²²)] The occurrence of the national name (verse ²⁰) as a subdivision of itself is surprising. Meyer (339) suspects confusion with another genealogy in which Lôṭan figured as ancestor of the whole Ḥorite race.—הימם (1 Chronicles הוֹמָם, LXX Αἱμάν)] compare הֵימָן, 1 Kings 5¹¹, 1 Chronicles 2⁶, Psalms 89¹.—תמנע, strangely introduced as the ‘sister’ of Lôṭan, is the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (verse ¹²): probably interpolated in both places.—(b) שׁובל (Σωβάλ)] also a Kalebite tribe settled in Ḳiryath-Ye‛arim, incorporated in Judah (1 Chronicles 2^50. 52 4^1 f.). The name was connected by William Robertson Smith with Arabic šibl, ‘young lion.’ Arabic ش ought to be שׂ in Hebrew; but the objection is perhaps not final in a borrowed name (but see Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 168; Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 109).—עלון (1 Chronicles עלין, LXX Γωλών, Γωλάμ, etc.)] compare עלוה, verse ⁴⁰; otherwise unknown.—מנחת] It cannot be accidental that in 1 Chronicles 2⁵² the ‘half of Manaḥat’ is again represented as descended from Šôbāl. These Manaḥathites are further connected with צָרְעָה (verse ^53 f.), a notice which Wellhausen (Bleek⁴, 197) has ingeniously combined with Judges 13², where מָנוֹחַ, the father of Samson, is a native of Ẓor‛ah. It seems to follow, not only that מנוח is originally the eponymus of מנחת, but that this Ḥorite clan lived in early times in Ẓor‛ah and was included in the mixed tribe of Dan (Meyer 340).—עיבל (Γαιβηλ)] Meyer identifies with the well-known mountain East of Shechem, originally a Ḥorite settlement (?).—שׁפו (1 Chronicles שׁפי, LXX Σωφάρ, Σωφάν, Σωφ, etc.)] unknown.—אונם (Ὠμαν, Ὠναν)] A Yeraḥmeelite name, 1 Chronicles 2^26. 28. The name of Judah’s son אונן (Genesis 38^4 ff.) may also be compared.—(c) צבעון (Σεβεγών)] Possibly a hyæna-tribe (ḍabu‛, (‡ Syriac word), New Hebrew, צבוע) (Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 254; Gray, 95).—איה] ‘falcon’ (Leviticus 11¹⁴, Deuteronomy 14¹³, Job 28⁷); compare the personal name, 2 Samuel 3⁷ 21^8 ff..—ענה] unknown.—דישון, דישן (Δησων, Δαισων)] = ‘mountain-goat’ (Deuteronomy 14⁵).—חמדן (Chronicles חַמְרָן) and אשבן are not known.—יתרן] Derived from a widely diffused personal name (Hebrew, Babylonian, Sabbatian, Nabatean), best known in Old Testament as that of Moses’s father-in-law (Exodus 3¹ etc.); also a son of Gideon (Judges 8²⁰), and the Ishmaelite father of Amasa (2 Samuel 17²⁵ etc.).—כרן (Χαρράν)] only here.—(d) אצר] unknown.—בלהן] can scarcely be dissociated from Rachel’s handmaid בלהה, whose Ḥorite origin would be somewhat more intelligible if Ḥorite clans were amalgamated in one of her subdivisions (Dan; see on Manaḥat above).—זעון (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch זוען, LXX Ζουκάμ, Ζαυάν = זוּעָן)] unknown.—עקן (better יעקן, as 1 Chronicles 1⁴²)] The tribe is doubtless to be identified with the בְּנֵי יַֽעֲקָן mentioned in Numbers 33^31 f., Deuteronomy 10⁶ as the owners of some wells South of Ḳadesh.—(e) דישן (LXX Ρ[ε]ισων)] Read רִישֹׁן or רִישָׁן, to avoid concurrence with the דישן of verse ^25 f..—עוץ (Ὤς)] see on 10²³ 22²¹.—ארן] Perhaps connected with the Yeraḥmeelite אֹרֶן, 1 Chronicles 2²⁵. The reading ארם (Hebew MSS, LXX, Vulgate, Targum^Jonathan) is probably a mistake caused by the proximity of עוץ.

20. ישבי] LXX singular.—24b. הַיֵּמִם] The word is utterly obscure. LXX, Theodotion τὸν Ἰαμείν; Aquila τοὺς ἠμίν [ἰμειμ] (see Field); The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch האימים (Deuteronomy 2¹⁰: so Targum^Onkelos גבריא); Targum^Jonathan ‘wild-asses’ and ‘mules’; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (‡ Syriac word) (הַמַּיִם ?); Vulgate aquæ callidæ. If Vulgate be right (and it is certainly the most plausible conjecture for sense), ^24b is a fragment of an old well-legend, claiming the proprietorship of these hot springs for the tribe of ‛Anah (compare Judges 1^14 ff.). See, further, Haupt, in Ball, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament, 118.—30b is in the style of Priestly-Code.—שעיר] LXX Ἐδώμ.

31–39. The kings of Edom.—31. before there reigned a king of the Israelites (v.i.)] This may mean either before the institution of the monarchy in Israel, or before any Israelitish sovereign ruled over Edom. The natural terminus ad quem is, of course, the overthrow of Edomite independence by David (page 437 below).—The document bears every mark of authenticity, and may be presumed to give a complete list of Edomite kings. Unfortunately the chronology is wanting. An average reign of 20 years for the eight kings (Meyer) is perhaps a reasonable allowance in early unsettled times; and the foundation of the Edomite monarchy may be dated approximately from 150 to 200 years before the time of David.—The monarchy was obviously not hereditary, none of the kings being the son of his predecessor; that it was elective (Tuch, Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver, al.) is more than we have a right to assume. Frazer (Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the history of Oriental Religion, 11³) finds here an illustration of his theory of female succession, the crown passing to men of other families who married the hereditary princesses; but verse ³⁹ is fatal to this view. The fact that the kings reigned in different cities supports an opinion (Winckler, Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, i. 192; Cheyne 429) that they were analogous to the Hebrew Judges, i.e. local chiefs who held supreme power during their life, but were unable to establish a dynasty. A beginning of the recognition of the hereditary principle may be traced in the story of Hadad ‘of the seed royal’ (1 Kings 11^14 ff.), who is regarded as heir-presumptive to the throne (Meyer).

32. בלע בן־בעור (LXX Βάλακ υἱὸς τοῦ Βεώρ)] The name of the first king bears a striking resemblance to בלעם בן־בעור, the soothsayer whom the king of Moab hired to curse Israel (Numbers 22 ff.), and who afterwards died fighting for Midian (Numbers 31⁸ [Priestly-Code]). The identity of the two personages is recognised by (amongst others) Knobel-Dillmann, Nöldeke (Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament 87), Hommel (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 153, 222¹), Sayce (The Early History of the Hebrews, 224, 229), Cheyne, al., though the legend which places his home at Pethor on the Euphrates (Elohist) is hardly consistent with this notice.—דנהבה (Δενναβα), his city, is not known; according to Jerome, Onomastica Sacra, page 115¹, it is Dannaia, between Ar Moab and the Arnon, or Dannaba near Heshbon (compare Eusebius Onomastica Sacra, 114³¹, [page 249]); Hommel and Sayce suggest Dunip, somewhere in North Syria.—33. יובב (Ἰω[α]βάβ, Ἰώβ, etc.)] identified by LXX (Job 42¹⁸) with the patriarch Job.—בצרה] A chief city of Edom (Isaiah 34⁶ 63¹, Jeremiah 48²⁴ 49^13. 22, Amos 1¹²), now el-Buṣaireh, 20 miles South-east of the Dead Sea.—34. חשׁם (Ἁσόμ, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) = חָשׁוּם)].—the land of the Temanite] see on verse ¹¹.—35. הדד bears the well-known name of an Aramæan deity, whose worship must have prevailed widely in Edom (see verse ³⁹, 1 Kings 11^14 ff.).—who smote Midian, etc.] The solitary historical notice in the list. It is a tempting suggestion of Ewald (History of Israel, ii. 336), that the battle was an incident of the great Midianite raid under which Israel suffered so severely, so that this king was contemporary with Gideon (compare Meyer, 381 f.).—עוית] LXX Γεθθαίμ = עִתַּיִם, on which reading Marquart (Fundamente israelitischer und jüdischer Geschichte, 11) bases an ingenious explanation of the mysterious name כושן רשעתים in Judges 3^8 ff. (חוּשָׁם רֹאשׁ עִתַּיִם,—a confusion of the third and fourth kings in our list).—36. שמלה] LXX שלמה, perhaps the same name as Solomon.—משרקה] A place of this name (Μασρικά) is mentioned in Onomastica Sacra, 137¹⁰ (page 277), in Gebalene, the northern part of Mount Seir.—37. שאול] The name of the first king of Israel.—רחבות הנהר] so called to distinguish it from other places of the same name (compare 26²²), is probably the Ῥοωβώθ of Onomastica Sacra, 145¹⁵ (page 286), a military post in Gebalene. The river is, therefore, not the Euphrates (although a place Rahaba has been discovered on its West side), but some perennial stream in the North of Edom, defined by the city on its banks (compare 2 Kings 5¹²).—38. בעל חנן] ‘Baal is gracious.’ The name of the seventh king is the only existing trace of Baal-worship in Edom.—עכבור] ‘jerboa’ (Arabic ‛akbar): see William Robertson Smith Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia², 235¹. Here it is probably a clan-name, but appears as personal in Old Testament (2 Kings 22¹⁴, Jeremiah 26²² 36¹²).—39. הדר] To be read ה͏͏דד (Hebrew MSS, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå, LXX partly, and 1 Chronicles 1⁵⁰).—For פעו (1 Chronicles פעי), LXX has Φόγωρ, i.e. פְּעוֹר, the mountain in Moab (Numbers 23²⁸ etc.).—Why the wife of Hadad II. is named we cannot tell. מהיטבאל (‘God does good’) is a man’s name in Nehemiah 6¹⁰.—For בת מי זהב it would be better to read בן מ׳ (LXX, Peshiṭtå). But מי זהב (gold-water) is more likely to be the name of a place than of a person; hence Marquart’s emendation מן מ׳ (l.c. 10) is very plausible, as is his identification of מי זהב with the miswritten די זהב of Deuteronomy 1¹.

It remains to state briefly the more important historical results yielded by study of these Edomite lists. (1) At the earliest period of which we have any knowledge, the country of Se‛ir was peopled by a supposed aboriginal race called Ḥorites. Though remnants of this population survived only in Se‛ir, there are a few traces of its former existence in Palestine; and it is possible that it had once been coextensive with the wide region known to the Egyptians as Ḥaru (page 433).—(2) Within historic times the country was occupied by a body of nomads closely akin to the southern tribes of Judah, who amalgamated with the Ḥorites and formed the nation of Edom.—(3) The date of this invasion cannot be determined. Se‛irites and Edomites appear almost contemporaneously in Egyptian documents, the former under Ramses III. as a nomadic people whom the king attacked and plundered; and the latter about 50 years earlier under Merneptah, as a band of Bedouin who were granted admission to the pastures of Wādī Ṭumīlāt within the Egyptian frontier (Papyrus Harris and Anastasi: see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 135 f.; compare Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 337 f.). Since both are described as Bedouin, it would seem that the Edomites were still an unsettled people at the beginning of the 12th century. The land of Šêri, however, is mentioned in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 201) more than two centuries earlier.—(4) The list of kings shows that Edom attained a political organisation much sooner than Israel: hence in the legends Esau is the elder brother of Jacob. The interval between Ramses III. and David is sufficient for a line of eight kings; but the institution of the monarchy must have followed within a few decades the expedition of Ramses referred to above. It is probable (though not certain) that the last king Hadad II. was the one subdued by David, and that the Hadad who fled to Egypt and afterwards returned to trouble Solomon (1 Kings 11^14 ff.) was of his family.—(5) The genealogies furnish evidence of the consanguinity of Edomite and Judæan tribes. In several instances we have found the same name amongst the descendants of Esau or Se‛ir and amongst those of Judah (see the notes passim). This might be explained by assuming that a clan had been split up, one part adhering to Edom, and another attaching itself to Judah; but a consideration of the actual circumstances suggests a more comprehensive theory. The consolidation of the tribe of Judah was a process of political segregation: the desert tribes that had pushed their way northwards towards the Judæan highlands, were welded together by the strong hand of the Davidic monarchy, and were reckoned as constituents of the dominant southern tribe. Thus it would happen that a Ḥorite or Edomite clan which had belonged to the empire of Edom was drawn into Judah, and had to find a place in the artificial genealogies which expressed the political unity resulting from the incorporation of diverse ethnological groups in the tribal system. If Meyer be right in holding that the genealogies of the Chronicler reflect the conditions of the late post-Exilic age, when a wholesale conversion of Kalebite and Yeraḥmeelite families to Judaism had taken place (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 300 f.; Die Entstehung des Judenthums 114 ff., 130 ff.), a comparison with Genesis 36 yields a striking testimony to the persistency of the minor clan-groups of the early Ḥorites through all vicissitudes of political and religious condition.

40. למקמתם] Peshiṭtå לתלדותם.—בשמתם] LXX בארצתם ובגויהם (10^20. 31).—43. למשבתם] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch למשפחותם (verse ⁴⁰).—הוא עשו] see on verse ¹.