Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament · 1 Chronicles Глава 4

1 Chronicles 4:1 is evidently intended to be a superscription to the genealogical fragments which follow. Five names are mentioned as sons of Judah, of whom only Pharez was his son (1 Chronicles 2:4); the others are grandchildren or still more distant descendants. Nothing is said as to the genealogical relationship in which they stood to each other; that is supposed to be already known from the genealogies in 1 Chron 2. Hezron is the son of Pharez, and consequently grandson of Judah, 1 Chronicles 2:8. Carmi, a descendant of Zerah, the brother of Pharez, see on 1 Chronicles 2:6-7. Hur is a son of Caleb, the son of Hezron, by Ephratah (see on 1 Chronicles 2:19 and 1 Chronicles 2:50); and Shobal is the son of Hur, who has just been mentioned (1 Chronicles 2:50). These five names do not denote here, any more than in 1 Chron 2, “families of the tribe of Judah” (Berth.), but signify persons who originated or were heads of families. The only conceivable ground for these five being called “sons of Judah,” is that the families registered in the following lists traced their origin to them, although in the enumeration which follows the genealogical connection of the various groups is not clearly brought out. The enumeration begins,

return to '

1 Chronicles 4:2, with the descendants of Shobal. As to Reaiah the son of Shobal, see 1 Chronicles 2:52. He begat Jahath, a name often occurring in Levite families, cf. 1 Chronicles 6:5, 1 Chronicles 6:28; 1 Chronicles 23:10., 1 Chronicles 24:22, 2 Chronicles 34:12; but of the descendant of David who bore this name nothing further is known. His sons Ahumai and Lahad founded the families of the Zorathites, i.e., the inhabitants of Zora, who also, according to 1 Chronicles 2:53, were descended from sons of Shobal. Our verse therefore gives more detailed information regarding the lineage of these families.

return to '

The first wife, Helah, bore three sons, Zereth, Jezoar, and Ethnan, who are not elsewhere met with. For the Kethibh יצחר there is in the Keri וצחר , the name of a son of Simeon (Genesis 46:10), and of a Hittite chief in the time of the patriarchs (Genesis 23:8), with whom the son of Helah has nothing to do.

return to '

Of Iru, Elah, and Naam, the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh (cf. on 1 Chronicles 4:13), nothing more is known. To connect Elah with the Edomite chief of that name (1 Chronicles 1:52) is arbitrary. Of Elah's sons only “and Kenaz” is mentioned; the ו copul. before קנז shows clearly that a name has been dropped out before it.

return to '

“These are the potters and the inhabitants of Netaim and Gedera.” It is doubtful whether המּה refers to all the descendants of Shelah, or only to those named in 1 Chronicles 4:22. Bertheau holds the latter to be the more probable reference; “for as those named in 1 Chronicles 4:21 have already been denominated Byssus-workers, it appears fitting that those in 1 Chronicles 4:22 should be regarded as the potters, etc.” But all those mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4:22 are by no means called Byssus-weavers, but only the families of Ashbea. What the descendants of Er and Laadan were is not said. The המּה may consequently very probably refer to all the sons of Shelah enumerated in 1 Chronicles 4:21 and 1 Chronicles 4:22, with the exception of the families designated Byssus-weavers, who are, of course, understood to be excepted. נטעים signifies “plantings;” but since גּדרה is probably the name of a city Gedera in the lowlands of Judah (cf. Joshua 15:36; and for the situation, see on 1 Chronicles 12:4), Netaim also will most likely denote a village where there were royal plantations, and about which these descendants of Shelah were employed, as the words “with the king in his business to dwell there” expressly state. המּלך is not an individual king of Judah, for we know not merely “of King Uzziah that he had country lands, 2 Chronicles 26:10” (Berth.); but we learn from 1 Chronicles 27:25-31 that David also possessed great estates and country lands, which were managed by regularly appointed officers.

We may therefore with certainty assume that all the kings of Judah had domains on which not only agriculture and the rearing of cattle, but also trades, were carried on.

(Note: From the arrangement of the names in vv. 2-20, in which Bertheau finds just twelve families grouped together, he concludes, S. 44f., that the division of the tribe of Judah into these twelve families did actually exist at some time or other, and had been established by a new reckoning of the families which the heads of the community found themselves compelled to make after deep and wide alterations had taken place in the circumstances of the tribe. He then attempts to determine this time more accurately by the character of the names. For since only a very few names in these verses are known to us from the historical books, from Genesis to 2 Kings, and the few thus known refer to the original divisions of the tribe, which may have maintained themselves till post-exilic times, while, on the contrary, a great number of the other names recur in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; and since localities which in the earliest period after the exile were important for the new community are frequently met with in our verses, while such as were constantly being mentioned in prae-exilic times are nowhere to be found, - Bertheau supposes that a division of the tribe of Judah is here spoken of, which actually existed at some time in the period between Zerubbabel and Ezra. This hypothesis has, however, no solid foundation. The assumption even that the names in vv. 2-20 belong to just twelve families is very questionable; for this number can only be arrived at by separating the descendants of Caleb, 1 Chronicles 4:15, from the descendants of Kenaz, 1 Chronicles 4:13 and 1 Chronicles 4:14, of whom Caleb himself was one, and reckoning them separately. But the circumstance that in this reckoning only the names in 1 Chronicles 4:12-20 are taken into consideration, which no notice is taken of the descendants of Shelah the son of Judah, enumerated in 1 Chronicles 4:21-23, is much more important . Bertheau considers this verse to be merely a supplementary addition, but without reason, as we have pointed out on 1 Chronicles 4:21. For if the descendants of Shelah form a second line of families descended from Judah, co-ordinate with the descendants of Pharez and Zerah, the tribe of Judah could not, either before or after the exile, have been divided into the twelve families supposed by Bertheau; for we have no reason to suppose, on behalf of this hypothesis, that all the descendants of Shelah had died out towards the end of the exile, and that from the time of Zerubbabel only families descended from Pharez and Zerah existed. But besides this, the hypothesis is decisively excluded by the fact that in the enumeration, vv. 2-20, no trace can be discovered of a division of the tribe of Judah into twelve families; for not only are the families mentioned not ranger according to the order of the sons and grandsons of Judah mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4:1, but also the connection of many families with Judah is not even hinted at. An enumeration of families which rested upon a division either made or already existing at any particular time, would be very differently planned and ordered. But if we must hold the supposition of a division of the tribe of Judah into twelve families to be unsubstantiated, since it appears irreconcilable with the present state of these genealogies, we must also believe the opinion that this division actually existed at any time between Zerubbabel and Ezra to be erroneous, and to rest upon no tenable grounds. The relation of the names met with in these verses to the names in the books from Genesis to 2 Kings on the one hand, and to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah on the other, is not really that which Bertheau represents it to be. If we turn our attention in the first place to the names of places, we find that, except a few quite unknown villages or towns, the localities mentioned in vv. 2-20 occur also in the book of Joshua, and many of them even here and there throughout Genesis, in the book of Judges, and in the books of Samuel and Kings. In these latter they are somewhat more rarely met with, but only because they played no great part in history. The fact of a disproportionate number of these towns occurring also in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is connected with the peculiar character of the contents of these books, containing as they do a number of registers of the families of Judah which had returned out of exile. Then if we consider the names of persons in vv. 2-20, we find that not a few of them occur in the historical narratives of the books of Samuel and Kings. Others certainly are found only in the family registers of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, while others again are peculiar to our verses. This phenomenon also is completely accounted for by the contents of the various historical books of the Old Testament. For example, had Nehemiah not received into his book the registers of all the families who had returned from Babylon, and who took part in the building of the walls of Jerusalem, no more names would be met with in his book than are found in the books of Samuel and Kings. Bertheau attempts to find support for his hypothesis in the way in which the names are enumerated, and their loose connection with each other, inasmuch as the disconnected statements abruptly and intermittently following one another, which to us bring enigma after enigma, must have been intended for readers who could bring a key to the understanding of the whole from an accurate knowledge of the relations which are here only hinted at; but the strength of this argument depends upon the assumption that complete family registers were at the command of the author of the Chronicle, from which he excerpted unconnected and obscure fragments, without any regard to order. But such an assumption cannot be justified. The character of that which is communicated would rather lead us to believe that only fragments were in the hands of the chronicler, which he has given to us as he found them. We must therefore pronounce this attempt at an explanation of the contents and form of vv. 2-20 to be an utter failure.)

return to '

Instead of the five cities, Etam, Ain, Rimmon, Tochen, and Ashan, only four are mentioned in Joshua 19:7, viz., Ain, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan; עתר is written instead of תּוכן , and עיטם is wanting. According to Movers, p. 73, and Berth. in his commentary on the passage, the list of these cities must have been at first as follows: רמּון עין (one city), עתר , תּוכן , and עשׁן ; in Joshua תּוכן must have fallen out by mistake, in our text עתר has been erroneously exchanged for the better known city עיטם in the tribe of Judah, while by reckoning both עין and רמּון the number four has become five. These conjectures are shown to be groundless by the order of the names in our text. For had עתר been exchanged for עיטם , עיטם would not stand in the first place, at the head of the four or five cities, but would have occupied the place of עתר , which is connected with עשׁן in Joshua 19:7 and Joshua 15:43. Then again, the face that in Joshua 15:32 רמּון is separated from עין by the ו cop., and in Joshua 19:7 is reckoned by itself as one city as in our verse, is decisive against taking עין and רמּון together as one name. The want of the conjunction, moreover, between the two names here and in Joshua 19:7, and the uniting of the two words into one name, עין־תּון , Nehemiah 11:29, is explained by the supposition that the towns lay in the immediate neighbourhood of each other, so that they were at a later time united, or at least might be regarded as one city. Rimmon is perhaps the same as the ruin Rum er Rummanim, four hours to the north of Beersheba; and Ain is probably to be identified with a large half-ruined and very ancient well which lies at from thirty to thirty-five minutes distance, cf. on Joshua 15:32. Finally, the assertion that the name עיטם has come into our text by an ex change of the unknown עתר for the name of this better known city of Judah, is founded upon a double geographical error. It rests (1) upon the erroneous assumption that besides the Etam in the high lands of Judah to the south of Bethlehem, there was no other city of this name, and that the Etam mentioned in Judges 15:8, Judges 15:11 is identical with that in the high lands of Judah; and (2) on the mistaken idea that Ether was also situated in the high lands of Judah, whereas it was, according to Joshua 15:42, one of the cities of the Shephelah; and the Simeonites, moreover, had no cities in the high lands of Judah, but had their dwelling-places assigned to them in the Negeb and the Shephelah. The existence of a second Etam, besides that in the neighbourhood of Bethlehem, is placed beyond doubt by Judges 15:8 and Judges 15:11; for mention is there made of an Etam in the plain of Judah, which is to be sought in the neighbourhood of Khuweilife, on the border of the Negeb and the mountainous district: cf. on Judges 15:8. It is this Etam which is spoken of in our verse, and it is rightly grouped with Ain and Rimmon, which were situated in the Negeb, while Tochen and Ashan were in the Shephelah. The statement of Joshua 19:7 and Joshua 15:42 leaves no doubt as to the fact that the תּוכן of our verse is only another name for עתר . Etam must therefore have come into the possession of the Simeonites after Joshua's time, but as to when, or under what circumstances, we have no information.

return to '

Concerning the villages belonging to these cities, cf. on Joshua 19:8, where for בּעל we have the more accurate בּאר בּעלת , and Ramah of the south. The position of these places has not yet been certainly ascertained. “These are their dwelling-places, and their family register was to them;” i.e., although they were only a small tribe and dwelt in the midst of Judah, they yet had their own family register (Berth.). התיחשׂ infin. is used substantively, “the entering in the family register.”

return to '

“These mentioned by their names were princes in their families; whose fathers'-houses had increased to a multitude. And they went,” etc. בשׁמות הבּאים , properly “those who have come with their names,” i.e., those who have been mentioned by name; for בּוא with בּ = to come with, is to bring something in, to introduce: cf. Psalms 71:16. This formula is synonymous with בשׁמות הכּתוּבים , 1 Chronicles 4:41; but we cannot consider it, as J. H. Mich., Berth., and others do, identical in meaning with בשׁמות נקּבוּ אשׁר , 1 Chronicles 12:31; Numbers 1:17, etc. The predicate to אלּה is נשׂיאים , and הבּאים is a relative sentence, more accurately defining the subject אלּה . Princes in their families are not heads of families, but heads of fathers'-houses, into which the families had divided themselves. בּית־אבות is not construed with the plural, as being collective (Berth.), but as the plural of the word בּית־אב : cf. Ew. §270, c.

return to '

The above-mentioned Simeonite princes, with their people, fell upon the peaceful little people of the Hamites in the days of Hezekiah, and smote, i.e., destroyed, their tents, and also the Meunites whom they found there. The Meunites were strangers in this place, and were probably connected with the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of Wady Musa (cf. on 2 Chronicles 20:1 and 2 Chronicles 26:7), who dwelt in tents as nomads, with the Hamites in their richly pastured valley. ויּחרימם , and they destroyed them utterly, as the Vulgate rightly renders it, et deleverunt; and J. H. Mich., ad internecionem usque eos exciderunt . The word החרים , to smite with the curse, having gradually lost its original religious signification, came to be used in a wider sense, to denote complete extirpation, because all accursed persons were slain. Undoubted examples are 2 Chronicles 20:23; 2 Chronicles 32:14; 2 Kings 19:11; Isaiah 37:11; and it is to be so understood here also.

(Note: Bertheau ignores this secondary use of the word, and has drawn from יחרימם the extremely wide inference, that the Simeonites, impelled by holy enthusiasm, arising from the wondrous deliverance of Judah from the attack of the Assyrian power, and the elevation of feeling which it produced in the community, and filled with the thought awakened by the discourses of the great prophets, that the time had come to extend Israel ' s rule, and to bring the conquered peoples under the curse, just as was done in the time of Joshua, had undertaken this war of annexation. But there is unfortunately not a single trace of this enthusiastic thought in the narrative of our verse, for it knows no other motive for the whole undertaking than the purely earthly need to seek and find new pasture lands.)

“Until this day,” i.e., till the composition of the historical work used by the author of the Chronicle, i.e., till the time before the exile.

return to '