T. and T. Claris Publications. 
 
 In One thick Volume, Demy 8vo, price 14s., 
 
 Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. By 
 
 HERMANN CREMER, Professor of Theology in the University of Greifswald. 
 
 Translated from the German by D. W. SIMON, Ph.D., and WILLIAM 
 
 URWICK, M.A. 
 
 4 A close inspection of many of the terms which are representative of the leading doc- 
 trines of the New Testament, enables us to offer the assurance that Professor Cremer's 
 Lexicon may both safely and with high advantage be employed by students of theology 
 for the formation of their doctrinal views, as well as for the other and more common uses 
 of a New Testament dictionary. ... It is distinguished by critical ability and ex- 
 haustive research.' Record. 
 
 'The peculiar excellency of the work lies in its careful reference to (1) Classical, 
 but (2), and chiefly, Old Testament usage, and in its clear making out of the genealogy 
 (so to call it) of the special New Testament use.' Guardian. 
 
 ' The work is admirably done throughout, with a completeness that is simply wonder- 
 ful, when one remembers that Cremer is the first mariner who has burst into this un- 
 known sea.' Nonconformist. 
 
 In One thick Volume, Demy Svo, price 15s., 
 
 A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, re- 
 garded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. WINER. 
 Translated from the German, with large Additions and full Indices, "by 
 Rev. W. F. MOULTON, M.A., Classical Tutor, Wesleyan Theological College, 
 Richmond, and Prizeman in Hebrew and New Testament Greek in the 
 University of London. 
 
 4 This is the standard classical work on the Grammar of the New Testament, and it is 
 of course indispensable to every one who would prosecute intelligently the critical study 
 of the most important portion of the inspired record. It is a great service to render 
 such a work accessible to the English reader.' British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 ' I trust and believe it will have an extensive sale.' The Right Rev. Dr. ELLICOTT, 
 Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 
 
 'I have seen enough already to judge of its merits, and shall have great pleasure in 
 recommending it to my pupils.' Professor LIGHTFOOT. 
 
 ' It is a treat to open a book that has been completed in so thorough and scholarly a 
 manner.' Professor PLUMPTRE. 
 
 In One handsome Volume, Demy 8vo, price 12s., Second Edition, Revised, 
 
 A History of the Christian Councils, from the Original Docu- 
 ments, to the Close of the Council of Niceea, A.D. 325. By CHARLES 
 JOSEPH HEFELE, D.D., Bishop of Rottenberg, formerly Professor of 
 Theology in the University of Tubingen. Translated from the German and 
 Edited by WILLIAM R. CLARK, M.A. Oxon., Prebendary of Wells and 
 Vicar of Taunton. 
 
 1 Dr. Hefele is well known as the first scholar in the German episcopate. . . . His 
 work has supplied a want not only in German but in modern literature generally ; and 
 his English translator does him no more than justice in saying that he is so fair in his 
 statement of facts that every reader can easily draw his own conclusions. . . . The 
 book will be of great value.' Saturday Review. 
 
 ' Dr. Hefele is too well known as a profound and original ecclesiastical scholar, and 
 his name has been of late too prominently before the world in connection with the 
 recent Vatican dogma, to need many words to introduce his book to English readers. 
 With one exception (that of the theory of papal supremacy), it is undoubtedly a 
 thorough and a fair compendium, put in the most accessible and intelligible form, and 
 based on a re-examination of the original documents, with all their later editions and 
 rectifications, of the canons and the history of the Church Councils.' Guardian. 
 1 A
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 In One handsomely bound Volume, crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d., 
 
 The Footsteps of Christ. Translated from the German of A. 
 
 CASPEBS by A. E. RODHAM. 1. Christ for us ; 2. Christ in us ; 3. Christ 
 before us; 4. Christ through us. 
 
 ' It is a work of solid thought and solid learning, and should find a considerable public 
 in its EngU>h dress.' Nonconformist. 
 
 ' The sentences are short and antithetical, and the translation is so idiomatic and good 
 that you never have occasion in reading to notice that it is a translation at all. The 
 papers are short, but not too short for a profitable devout meditation in the closet. They 
 are admirably fitted for that purpose ; indeed, that is their sole aim and end. We close 
 by simply recommending any and every reader, who may be in search of a really fresh 
 devotional volume, to stop here at this one.' Weekly Review. 
 
 ' The volume is entirely devotional, and contains much that will have interest for de- 
 vout and intelligent English readers. ... It ought'to find a welcome.' Freeman. 
 
 ' There is much deeply experimental truth and precious spiritual lore in Gaspers' book. 
 I do not always agree with his theology, but I own myself much profited by his devout 
 utterances.' Rev. C. H. SPURGEON. 
 
 4 A very interesting and instructive book. Its style is quaint and antithetic ; it abounds 
 iu bright thoughts, presents striking views of Scripture facts and doctrines, and altogether 
 is eminently fitted to refresh and edify believers.' Family Treasury. 
 
 In Crown 8vo, Second Edition, price 6s., 
 
 Apologetic Lectures on the Saving Truths of Christianity. 
 
 By C. E. LUTHARDT, D.D., Leipsic. The Nature of Christianity ; Sin ; 
 Grace; The God-Man; the Work of Jesus Christ; The Trinity; The 
 Church ; Holy Scripture ; the Means of Grace ; The Last Things. 
 
 ' These lectures contain a resume of the doctrines of the Christian faith. The author 
 is a profound thinker, a skilled theologian, a man of wide and varied culture, who knows 
 how to express clearly and sharply what he believes. The principles of the gospel are 
 expounded with singular force, truth, and gracefulness of diction.' Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 1 We doubt not that these lectures, which are popular in Germany, will be adequately 
 appreciated in England.' Standard. 
 
 ' We commend hie lectures as very able. His scholarship is adequate, his spirit evan- 
 gelical and devout, and he speaks lucidly, pointedly, and tersely.' British Quarterly 
 Review. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 In One Volume, Crown 8vo, Second Edition, price 6s^ 
 
 The Fundamental Truths of Christianity. The Antagonistic 
 
 Views of the World in their Historical Development ; The Anomalies of 
 Existence ; The Personal God ; The Creation of the World ; Man ; Reli- 
 gion ; Revelation ; History of Revelation Heathenism and Judaism ; 
 Christianity in History ; the Person of Jesus Christ. 
 
 1 Luthardt is the very man to help those entangled in the thickets of modern rationalism ; 
 we do not know just such another book as this ; it is devout, scholarly, clear, forcible, 
 penetrating, comprehensive, satisfactory, admirable.' Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 ' We have never met with a volume better adapted to set forth the evidences of 
 Christianity in a form suited to the wants of our day. The whole of the vast argument 
 is illustrated by various and profound learning; there ia no obscurity in the thoughts or 
 in the style; the language is simple, the ideas clear, and the argument logical, and 
 generally, to onr mind, conclusive.' Guardian. 
 
 The Tripartite Nature of Man, Spirit, Soul, and Body, applied 
 
 to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrine of Original Sin, the New Birth, the 
 Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body. By the Rev. J. B. HEARD. 
 ' The author has got a striking and consistent theory. Whether agreeing or disagree- 
 ing with that theory, it is a book which any student of the Bible may read with pleasure.' 
 Guardian. 
 
 ' His speculations are marked by great power, and are well deserving of the careful 
 study of the reader.' English Independent. 
 
 4 An elaborate, ingenious, and very able book.' London Quarterly Review. 
 1 The subject is discussed with much ability and learning, and the style is sprightly 
 and readable. It is candid in its tone, and original both in thought and illustration.' 
 Wesleyan Methoditt Magazine. 
 2
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 In Two Volumes, Demy8vo, Fifth Edition, price 21s., 
 
 The Typology of Scripture, viewed in Connection with the 
 
 whole Series of the Divine Dispensations. By the Rev. PATRICK FAIR- 
 BAIRN, D.D., Principal and Professor of Divinity, Free Church College, 
 Glasgow. 
 
 ' As the product of the labours of an original thinker and of a sound theologian, who 
 has at the same time scarcely left unexamined one previous writer on the subject, ancient 
 or modern, this work will be a most valuable accession to the library of the theological 
 student. As a whole, we believe it may with strictest truth be pronounced the best 
 work on the subject that has yet been published.' Record. 
 
 ' A work fresh and comprehensive, learned and sensible, and full of practical religious 
 feeling.' British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 In One Volume, Demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., 
 
 The Revelation of Law in Scripture, considered with respect 
 
 both to its own Nature and to its Relative Place in Successive Dispensa- 
 tions. (The Third Series of the l Cunningham Lectures.') 
 ' One of the most scientific productions of Scottish theology.' Academy. 
 'Dr. Fairbairn is well known as a learned and painstaking writer, and these lectures 
 bear out his reputation.' Guardian. 
 
 ' The theme is one of the grandest that can engage the attention of the most exalted 
 intelligences ; and few of our readers, we presume, will be satisfied without reading for 
 themselves this masterly and eloquent contribution to our theological literature.' British 
 and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 In One handsome Volume, Demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., 
 
 The Training of the Twelve ; or, An Exposition of Passages 
 
 in the Gospels exhibiting the Twelve Disciples of Jesus under Discipline 
 for the Apostleship. By the Rev. ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE. 
 
 ' Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive subject ; and 
 it must be a matter of congratulation among all theological readers that a subject so im- 
 portant has fallen into the hands of one thoroughly qualified to do it justice. Certainly 
 we can name no work, either in our own or any other language, in which we find a 
 clearer conception of the principles of the Christian religion, and of the adaptation of 
 these to all that is deepest in human nature. . . . It is one of those rare books which 
 ring in our ears as the utterance of a true man, who speaks because his heart and mind 
 are free.' British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 'Mr. Bruce has not spared pains. . . . He deserves much praise for the ability with 
 which he has carried out his design, as well as for its originality. . . . The general 
 tone of the book is commendable and in good taste.' Spectator. 
 
 In One Volume, Demy 8vo, Second Edition, price 10s. 6d., 
 
 The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by Christ Himself; 
 
 or, The Sayings of Jesus on the Atonement Exegetically Expounded and 
 Classified. By GEORGE SMEATON, D.D., Professor of Exegetical Theology, 
 New College, Edinburgh. 
 
 'We attach very great value to this seasonable and scholarly production. The idea of 
 the work is most happy, and the execution of it worthy of the idea. On a scheme of truly 
 Baconian exegetical induction, he presents us with a complete view of the various posi- 
 tions or propositions which a full and sound doctrine of the atonement embraces.' British 
 and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 ' The plan of the book is admirable. A monograph and exegesis of our Lord's own 
 payings on this greatest of subjects concerning Himself must needs be valuable to all 
 theologians. And the execution is thorough and painstaking exhaustive, as far as the 
 completeness of range over these sayings is concerned.' Contemporary Review. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 In One Volume, Demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., 
 
 The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by the Apostles ; 
 
 or, The Sayings of the Apostles Exegetically Expounded. 
 
 ' We cannot too highly commend the conception and general execution of this really 
 great theological work. Professor Smeaton may claim the honour of having inaugurated, 
 at any rate in Scotland, a novum organum of theology. . . . His book is a great and noble 
 work a credit to British biblical scholarship, and a great service to doctrinal theology.' 
 British Quarterly Review. 
 3
 
 NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 38, GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH, 
 November 1872. 
 
 MESSRS. CLARK have pleasure in publishing, as the second 
 issue of the FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY for 1872 
 
 KEIL ON CHRONICLES, and 
 
 HENGSTENBERG'S HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD, Vol. 11. 
 (with a Biographical Sketch of the Author), completing the 
 Work. 
 
 The first issue for 1873 will be 
 
 KEIL ON EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND ESTHER ;' 
 and probably the first vol. of 
 
 KEIL'S COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH. 
 
 They thank their Subscribers for the long-continued support 
 with which they have been favoured. 
 
 4 
 
 An early remittance of the subscriptifor 1873 W M oblige. 
 
 I 
 r Messrs. CLARK are enabled to offer to Subscribers to Foreign 
 
 Theological Library the welljmown Work of Dr. ALEXANDER, of 
 Princeton : 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH, 
 
 Edited by Professor EADIE, in Two Volumes 8vo, at the subscrip- 
 tion price of IDS. 6d. 
 
 Early application is requested.
 
 CLARK'S 
 
 FOREIGN 
 
 THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 
 
 FOUKTH SERIES, 
 VOL, XXXV. 
 
 ftetl on t$c Boohs of tljc Chronicles. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. 
 
 MDCCCLXXII.
 
 PRINTED BY MUKRAY AND GIBB, 
 FOR 
 
 T. k T. CLA11K, EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO., 
 DUBLIN, .... JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 NEW YORK, . . . C. SCRIBNER AND CO.
 
 BIBLICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 BY 
 
 C, F. KEIL, D.D., AND F. DELITZSCH, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSORS OF THEOLOGY. 
 
 THE BOOKS OF THE CHEONICLES. 
 
 BY 
 
 C. F. KEIL. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN 
 
 BY ANDEEW HAEPEE, B.D. 
 
 EDINBUEGH: 
 T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET. 
 
 MDCCCLXXII.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE HAGIOGRAPHIC HISTORICAL 
 
 BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 1 
 
 THE BOOKS OF THE CHEONICLES. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1. NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM OF THE CHRONICLES, . . 9 
 
 2. AGE AND AUTHOR OF THE CHRONICLES, 22 
 
 3. THE SOURCES OF THE CHRONICLES, 28 
 
 4. THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE CHRONICLES, ... 38 
 
 THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. 
 
 I. GENEALOGIES, WITH HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTES 
 
 (Chap. i.-ix.), 47 
 
 The Families of Primeval Time, and of the Antiquity of 
 
 Israel (Chap, i.), . . . . . . . .50 
 
 The Twelve Sons of Israel and the Families of Judah (Chap. 
 
 ii.-iv. 23), 57 
 
 Fragments of the Genealogies of Descendants and Families of 
 
 Judah (Chap. iv. 1-23), 85 
 
 The Families and the Dwelling-places of the Tribe of Simeon 
 
 (Chap. iv. 24-43), 95 
 
 The Families of Reuben, Gad, and the Half Tribe of Manasseh 
 
 beyond Jordan (Chap. v. 1-26), 103 
 
 The Families of Levi, and their Cities (Chap. v. 27-vi. 66), . 112 
 Families of Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Half Manasseh, 
 
 Ephraim, and Asher (Chap, vii.), . . . . .131 
 
 Families of Benjamin, and Genealogy of the House of Saul 
 
 (Chap, viii.), 144 
 
 The former Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the Family of Saul 
 
 (Chap, ix.), 152
 
 VI CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 II. THE HISTORY OF DAVID'S KINGSHIP (Chap, x.-xxix.), . . .169 
 The Ruin of Saul and of his House (Chap, x.), .... 171 
 The Anointing of David to be King in Hebron, and the Conquest 
 
 of Jerusalem. A List of David's Heroes (Chap, xi.), . . 173 
 Registers of the Valiant Men who helped David to the Kingdom 
 
 (Chap, xii.), 181 
 
 The Removal of the Ark from Kirjath-jearim. David's building, 
 
 his Wives and Children, and his Victories over the Philistines. 
 
 The bringing in of the Ark. into the City of David, and the 
 
 Arrangement of the Worship in Mount Zion (Chap, xiii.-xvi.), 195 
 David's Design to build a Temple, and the Confirmation of his 
 
 Kingdom (Chap, xvii.), "221 
 
 David's Wars and Victories ; his Public Officials : some Heroic 
 
 Deeds done in the Philistine Wars (Chap, xviii.-xx.), . . 227 
 The Numbering of the People, the Pestilence, and the Deter- 
 mination of the Site for the Temple (Chap, xxi.-xxii. 1), . 233 
 David's Preparations for the building of the Temple (Chap. xxii. 
 
 2-19), 242 
 
 Enumeration and Arrangement of the Levites according to their 
 
 Divisions and Employments (Chap, xxiii.-xxvi.), . . . 251 
 Division of the Army. Tribal Princes, Administrators of the 
 
 Domains, and Councillors of State (Chap, xxvii.), . . 283 
 
 David's last Directions, and his Death (Chap, xxviii. and xxix.), 289 
 
 THE SECOND BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. 
 
 III. HISTORY OF SOLOMON'S KINGSHIP (Chap, i.-ix.), .... 303 
 
 Solomon's Sacrifice, and the Theophany at Gibeon. Chariots, 
 
 Horses, and Riches of Solomon (Chap. i. 1-17), . . . 304 
 Solomon's Preparations for the building of the Temple (Chap. i. 
 
 18-ii. 17), '. 1 . 307 
 
 The Building of the Temple (Chap, iii.-v. 1), . . . 313 
 
 The Dedication of the Temple (Chap. v. 2-vii. 22), . . .323 
 Solomon's City-Building, Statute Labour, Arrangement of 
 
 Public Worship, and Nautical Undertakings (Chap, viii.), . 333 
 Visit of the Queen of Sheba. Solomon's Riches, and Royal 
 
 Power and Glory ; his Death (Chap, ix.), . . . .337 
 
 IV. THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH UNTIL ITS FALL (Chap. 
 
 x.-xxxvi.), . > :... . , . . .339 
 Revolt of the Ten Tribes from Rehoboam and the House of 
 
 David (Chap, x.), ".'. ...... . . . .340 
 
 Rehoboam's Reign (Chap. xi. and xii.), . . . . 340 
 
 The Reign of Abijah (Chap, xiii.), 349
 
 CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 PACK 
 
 Asa's Reign (Chap, xiv.-xvi.), 356 
 
 Jehoshaphat's Reign (Chap, xvii.-xx.), 371 
 
 Jehoshaphat's Death, and the Reign of his Son Joram (Chap. 
 
 xxi.), 394 
 
 The Reigns of Ahaziah and the impious Athaliah (Chap, xxii.), 403 
 The FaE of Athaliah. and the Coronation and Reign of Joash 
 
 (Chap, xxiii. and xxiv.), ....... 407 
 
 The Reign of Amaziah (Chap, xxv.), 420 
 
 The Reign of Uzziah (Azariah), (Chap, xxvi.), . . . 425 
 
 The Reign of Jotham (Chap, xxvii.), 430 
 
 The Reign of Ahaz (Chap, xxviii.), 432 
 
 The Reign of Hezekiah (Chap, xxix.-xxxii.), .... 445 
 
 The Reigns of Manasseh and Amon (Chap, xxxiii.), . . . 479 
 
 Reign of Josiah (Chap, xxxiv. and xxxv.), .... 488 
 The last Kings of Judah ; The Destruction of Jerusalem ; Judah 
 
 led away captive ; and the Babylonian Exile (Chap, xxxvi.), 507
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 HAGIOGRAPHIC HISTORICAL BOOKS OF 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 E SIDES the prophetico-historic writings Joshua, 
 Judges, Samuel, and Kings which describe from a 
 prophetic point of view the development of the king- 
 dom of God established by means of the mediatorial 
 office of Moses, from the time of the bringing of the tribes of 
 Israel into the land promised to the fathers till the Babylonian 
 exile, the Old Testament contains five historical books, Ruth, 
 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. These latter stand in 
 the Hebrew canon among the D^VD, i.e. in the hagiography, 
 and are at once distinguished from the above-mentioned pro- 
 phetico-historic writings by this characteristic, that they treat 
 only of single parts of the history of the covenant people 
 from individual points of view. The book of Ruth gives a 
 charming historical picture from the life of the ancestors of 
 King David. The Chronicles, indeed, extend over a very long 
 period of the historical development of the Israelite kingdom 
 of God, embrace the history from the death of King Saul till 
 the Babylonian exile, and go back in the genealogies which 
 precede the narrative of the history to Adam, the father of the 
 human race ; yet neither in the genealogical part do they give a 
 perfect review of the genealogical ramifications of the twelve 
 tribes of the covenant people, nor in their historical portion 
 contain the history of the whole people from the death of Saul 
 till the exile. Besides the tables of the first progenitors of 
 
 A
 
 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE HAGIOGRAPHIC HISTORICAL 
 
 humanity and the tribal ancestors of the people of Israel, bor- 
 rowed from Genesis, the genealogical part contains only a col- 
 lection of genealogical and topographical fragments differing in 
 plan, execution, and extent, relating to the chief families of the 
 most prominent tribes and their dwelling-places. The historical 
 part contains, certainly, historical sketches from the history of 
 all Israel during the reigns of the kings David and Solomon ; 
 but from the division of the kingdom, after the death of Solomon, 
 they contain only the history of the kingdom of Judah, with 
 special reference to the Levitical worship, to the exclusion of the 
 history of the kingdom of the ten tribes. From a comparison of 
 the manner of representing the history in the Chronicles with 
 that in the books of Samuel and the Kings, we can clearly see 
 that the chronicler did not purpose to portray the development 
 of the Israelitic theocracy in general, nor the facts and events 
 which conditioned and constituted that development objectively, 
 according to their general course. He has, on the contrary, so 
 connected the historical facts with the attitude of the kings and 
 the people to the Lord, and to His law, that they teach how the 
 Lord rewarded fidelity to His covenant with blessing and success 
 both to people and kingdom, but punished with calamity and 
 judgments every faithless revolt from His covenant ordinances. 
 Now since Israel, as the people and congregation of Jahve, could 
 openly show its adherence to the covenant only by faithful ob- 
 servance of the covenant laws, particularly of the ordinances for 
 worship, the author of the Chronicles has kept this side of the 
 life of the people especially in view, in order that he might hold 
 up before his contemporaries as a mirror the attitude of the 
 fathers to the God-appointed dwelling-place of His gracious 
 presence in the holy place of the congregation. He does this, 
 that they might behold how the faithful maintenance of com- 
 munion with the covenant God in His temple would assure to 
 them the fulfilment of the gracious promises of the covenant, 
 and Low falling away into idolatry, on the contrary, would bring 
 misfortune and destruction. This special reference to the worship 
 meets us also in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which describe 
 the deliverance of the Jews from exile, and their restoration as 
 the covenant people in the land of their fathers. The book of 
 Ezra narrates, on the one hand, the return out of the Babylonian 
 exile into the land of their fathers of a great part of the Jews 
 who had been led away by Nebuchadnezzar, partly in the first
 
 BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 3 
 
 year of the reign of Cyrus over Babylon, with Zerubbabel, a prince 
 of the royal race of David, and Joshua the high priest as leaders ; 
 partly at a later period with the scribe Ezra, under Artaxerxes. 
 On the other hand, it relates the restoration of the altar of 
 burnt-offering, and of the divine service; together with the 
 re-erection of the temple, and the effort of Ezra to regulate the 
 affairs of the community according to the precepts of the Mosaic 
 law, by doing away with the illegal marriages with heathen 
 women. And Nehemiah describes in his book what he had 
 accomplished in the direction of giving a firm foundation to 
 the civil welfare of the newly-founded community in Judah : in 
 the first place, by building the walls of Jerusalem so as to defend 
 the city and holy place against the attacks and surprises of the 
 hostile peoples in the neighbourhood ; and secondly, by various 
 measures for the strengthening of the capital by increasing the 
 number of its inhabitants, and for the more exact modelling of 
 the civil, moral, and religious life of the community on the pre- 
 cepts of the law of Moses, in order to lay enduring foundations 
 for the prosperous development of the covenant people. In the 
 book of Esther, finally, it is recounted how the Jewish inhabitants 
 of the various parts of the great Persian kingdom were delivered 
 by the Jewess Esther (who had been raised to the position of 
 queen by a peculiar concatenation of circumstances) from the 
 destruction which the Grand Vizier Haman, in the reign of 
 King Ahashverosh (i.e. Xerxes), had determined upon, on 
 account of the refusal of adoration by the Jew Mordecai. 
 
 Now, if we look somewhat more narrowly at the relation of 
 these five historical books to the prophetico-historic writings, 
 more especially in the first place in reference to their contents, 
 we see that the books of Ruth and the Chronicles furnish us 
 with not unimportant additions to the books of Samuel and 
 Kings. The book of Ruth introduces us into the family life of 
 the ancestors of King David, and shows the life-spring from 
 which proceeded the man after God's own heart, whom God 
 called from being a shepherd of sheep to be the shepherd of His 
 people, that He might deliver Israel out of the power of his 
 enemies, and found a kingdom, which received the promise of 
 eternal duration, and which was to be established to all eternity 
 through Christ the Son of David and the Son of God. The 
 Chronicles supplement the history of the covenant people, prin- 
 cipally during the period of the kings, by detailed accounts of
 
 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE HAGIOGRAPHIC HISTORICAL 
 
 the form of the public worship of the congregation ; from which 
 we see how, in spite of the continual inclination of the people to 
 idolatry, and to the worship of heathen gods, the service in the 
 temple, according to the law, was the spiritual centre about which 
 the pious in Israel crowded, to worship the Lord their God, and to 
 serve Him by sacrifice. We see, too, how this holy place formed 
 throughout a lengthened period a mighty bulwark, which pre- 
 vented moral and religious decay from gaining the upper hand, 
 until at length, through the godless conduct of the kings Asa 
 and Manasseh, the holy place itself was profaned by the idola- 
 trous abomination, and judgment broke in upon the incorrigible 
 race in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the 
 driving out of Judah from the presence of the Lord. But the 
 books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther are the only historical 
 writings we possess concerning the times of the restoration of 
 the covenant people after their emancipation from the captivity, 
 and their return into the promised land ; and even in this respect 
 they are very valuable component parts of the Old Testament 
 canon. The first two show how God the Lord fulfilled His 
 promise, that He would again receive His people into favour, 
 and collect them out of their dispersion among the heathen, if 
 they should, in their misery under the oppression of the heathen, 
 come to a knowledge of their sins, and turn unto Him; and 
 how, after the expiry of the seventy years of the Babylonian exile 
 which had been prophesied, He opened up to them, through 
 Cyrus the king of Persia, their return into the land of their 
 fathers, and restored Jerusalem and the temple, that He might 
 preserve inviolate, and thereafter perfect, by the appearance of 
 the promised David who was to come, that gracious covenant 
 which He had entered into with their fathers. But the provi- 
 dence of God ruled also over the members of the covenant 
 people who had remained behind in heathen lands, to preserve 
 them from the ruin which had been prepared for them by the 
 heathen, in order that from among them also a remnant might 
 be saved, and become partakers of the salvation promised in 
 Christ. To show this by a great historical example is the aim 
 of the book of Esther, and the meaning of its reception into the 
 canon of the Holy Scriptures of the old covenant. 
 
 If, finally, we consider the style of historical writing found in 
 these five books, we can scarcely characterize it in its relation to 
 the prophetic books by a fitting word. The manner of writing
 
 BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 5 
 
 history which is prevalent in the hagiography has been, it is 
 true, called the national (volksthumlicli) or annalistic, but by 
 this name the peculiarity of it has in no respect been correctly 
 expressed. The narrative bears a national impress only in the 
 book of Esther, and relatively also in the book of Ruth ; but 
 even between these two writings a great difference exists. The 
 narrative in Ruth ends with the genealogy of the ancestors of 
 King David ; whereas in the book of Esther all reference to the 
 theocratic relation, nay, even the religious contemplation of the 
 events, is wholly wanting. But the books of the Chronicles, 
 Ezra, and Nehemiah, have no national impress ; in them, on the 
 contrary, the Levitico-priestly manner of viewing history prevails. 
 Still less can the hagiographic histories be called annalistic. The 
 books of Ruth and Esther follow definite aims, which clearly 
 appear towards the end. Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah con- 
 tain, it is true, in the genealogical, geographical, and historical 
 registers, a mass of annalistic material ; but we find this also in 
 the prophetico-historic works, and even in the books of Moses. 
 The only thing which is common to and characteristic of the 
 whole of the hagiographic historical books, is that the prophetic 
 contemplation of the course of history according to the divine 
 plan of salvation which unfolds itself in the events, either falls 
 into the background or is wanting altogether ; while in its place 
 individual points of view appear which show themselves in the 
 pursuit of paraenetico-didactic aims, which have acted as a deter- 
 mining influence on the selection and treatment of the historical 
 
 O 
 
 facts, as the introduction to the individual writings will show.
 
 THE BOOKS OF THE CHRONICLES.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1. NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM OF THE CHRONICLES. 
 
 ]HE two books of the Chronicles originally formed one 
 work, as their plan at once makes manifest, and were 
 received into the Hebrew canon as such. Not only 
 were they reckoned as one in the enumeration of the 
 books of the Old Testament (cf . 'Joseph, c. Apion, i. 8 ; Origen, 
 in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25 ; and Hieronym. Prolog, galeat.), but 
 they were also regarded by the Masorites as one single work, 
 as we learn from a remark of the Masora at the end of the 
 Chronicle, that the verse 1 Chron. xxvii. 25 is the middle of the 
 book. The division into two books originated with the Alexan- 
 drian translators (LXX.), and has been transmitted by the Latin 
 translation of Hieronymus (Vulgata) not only to all the later 
 translations of the Bible, but also, along with the division into 
 chapters, into our versions of the Hebrew Bible. The first book 
 closes, chap. xxix. 29 f., with the end of the reign of David, 
 which formed a fitting epoch for the division of the work into 
 two books. The Hebrew name of this book in our Bible, by 
 which it was known even by Hieronymus, is D^n ^"m, verba, or 
 more correctly res gestce dierum, events of the days, before which 
 "ISO is to be supplied (cf. e.g. 1 Kings xiv. 19, 29, xv. 7, 23). 
 
 Its full title therefore is, Book of the Events of the Time 
 (Zeitereignisse), corresponding to the annalistic work so often 
 quoted in our canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, the 
 Book of the Events of the Time (Chronicle) of the Kings of 
 Israel and Judah. Instead of this the LXX. have chosen the 
 name Ilapa^etTropeva, in order to mark more exactly the relation 
 of our work to the earlier historical books of the Old Testament, 
 as containing much historical information which is not to be 
 found in them. But the name is not used in the sense of sup- 
 plementa, " fragments of other historical works," as Movers, 
 die Bill. Chron. S. 95, interprets it, but in the signification 
 "prastermissa;" because, according to the explanation in the 
 
 9
 
 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Synopsis script, sacr. in Athanasli Opera, ii. p. 84, 
 r jro\\a ev rat? /3cun\eiai<i (i.e. in the books of Samuel and 
 Kings) TrepLe^erai, ev royrot?, " many things passed over in the 
 Kings are contained in these." Likewise Isidorus, lib. vi. 
 Origin, c. i. p. 45 : Paralipomenon grace dicitur, quod prceter- 
 missorum vel reliquorum rtos dicere possumus, quia ea quce in lege 
 vel in Regum libris vel omissa vel non plene relata sunt, in isto 
 summatim et breviter explicantur. This interpretation of the word 
 n-apaXeitro/jieva is confirmed by Hieronymus, who, in his Epist. ad 
 Paulin. (Opp. t. i. ed. Vallars, p. 279), says : Paralipomenon liber, 
 id est instruments veteris epitome tantus et tails est, ut absque illo, 
 si quis scientiam scripturarum sibi voluerit arrogare, seipsum irri- 
 deat ; per singula quippe nomina juncturasque verborum et prceter- 
 missce in Regum libris tanguntur histories et innumerdbiles expli- 
 cantur Evangelii qucsstiones. He himself, however, suggested 
 the name Chronicon, in order more clearly to characterize both 
 the contents of the work and at the same its relation to the 
 historical books from Gen. i. to 2 Kings xxv. ; as he says in 
 Prolog, galeat. : D^CTt I| "I3"T, i.e. verba dierum, quod significantius 
 chronicon totius divince histories possumus appellare, qui liber apud 
 nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur. Through 
 Hieronymus the name Chronicles came into use, and became the 
 prevailing title. 
 
 Contents. The Chronicles begin with genealogical registers 
 of primeval times, and of the tribes of Israel (1 Chron. i.-ix.) ; 
 then follow the history of the reign of King David (chap. 
 x.-xxix.) and of King Solomon (2 Chron. i.-ix.) ; the nar- 
 rative of the revolt of the ten tribes from the kingdom of the 
 house of David (chap, x.) ; the history of the kingdom of Judah 
 from Rehoboam to the ruin of the kingdom, its inhabitants being 
 led away into exile to Babylon (chap, xi.-xxxvi. 21) ; and at 
 the close we find the edict of Cyrus, which allowed the Jews 
 to return into their country (xxxvi. 22, 23). Each of the two 
 books, therefore, falls into two, and the whole work into four 
 divisions. If we examine these divisions more minutely, six 
 groups can be without difficulty recognised in the genealogical 
 part (1 Cliron. i.-ix.). These are : (1) The families of pri- 
 meval and ancient times, from Adam to the patriarchs Abraham, 
 Isaac, and his sons Edom and Israel, together with the posterity 
 of Edom (chap, i.) ; (2) the sons of Israel and the families of 
 Judah, with the sons and posterity of David (ii.-iv. 23) ; (3)
 
 NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 11 
 
 the families of the tribe of Simeon, whose inheritance lay within 
 the tribal domain of Judah, and those of the trans-Jordanic 
 tribes Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (iv. 24- 
 v. 26) ; (4) the families of Levi, or of the priests and Levites, 
 with an account of the dwelling-places assigned to them (v. 27- 
 vi. 66) ; (5) the families of the remaining tribes, viz. Issachar, 
 Benjamin, Naphtali, the half-tribe of Manasseh, Ephraim, and 
 Asher (only Dan and Zebulun being omitted), with the genealogy 
 of the house of Saul (vii. viii.) ; and (6) a register of the former 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem (ix. 1-34), and a second enumeration of 
 the family of Saul, preparing us for the transition to the history of 
 the kingdom of Israel (ix, 35-44). The history of David's king- 
 ship which follows is introduced by an account of the ruin of Saul 
 and his house (chap, x.), and then the narrative falls into two 
 sections. (1) In the first we have David's election to be king 
 over all Israel, and the taking of the Jebusite fort in Jerusalem, 
 which was built upon Mount Zion (xi. 1-9) ; then a list of 
 David's heroes, and the valiant men out of all the tribes who 
 made him king (xi. 10-xii. 40) ; the removal of the ark to Jeru- 
 salem, the founding of his house, and the establishment of the 
 Levitical worship before the ark in Zion (xiii.-xvi.) ; David's 
 design to build a temple to the Lord (xvii.) ; then his wars (xviii. 
 xx.) ; the numbering of the people, the pestilence which followed, 
 and the fixing of the place for the future temple (xxi.). (2) In 
 the second section are related David's preparations for the build- 
 ing of the temple (xxii.) ; the numbering of the Levites, and the 
 arrangement of their service (xxiii. xxvi.) ; the arrangement of 
 the military service (xxvii.) ; David's surrender of the kingdom 
 to his son, and the close of his life (xxviii. and xxix.). The 
 history of the reign 'of Solomon begins with his solemn sacrifice 
 at Gibeon, and some remarks on his wealth (2 Chron. i.) ; then 
 follows the building of the temple, with the consecration of the 
 completed holy place (chap, ii.-vii.). To these are added short 
 aphoristic accounts of the cities which Solomon built, the statute 
 labour which he exacted, the arrangement of the public worship, 
 the voyage to Ophir, the visit of the queen of Sheba, and of the 
 might and glory of his kingdom, closing with remarks on the 
 length of his reign, and an account of his death (viii.-ix.). The 
 history of the kingdom of Judah begins with the narrative of the 
 revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam (chap, x.), and then in 
 chap, xi.-xxxvi. it flows on according to the succession of the
 
 12 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 kings of Judali from Rehoboam to Zedekiah, the reigns of tho 
 individual kings forming the sections of the narrative. 
 
 Plan and Aim. From this general sketch of the contents of 
 our history, it will be already apparent that the author had not 
 in view a general history of the covenant people from the time 
 of David to the Babylonian exile, but purposed only to give an 
 outline of the history of the kingship of David and his successors, 
 Solomon and the kings of the kingdom of Judali to its fall. If, 
 however, in order to define more clearly the plan and purpose of 
 the historical parts of our book in the first place, we compare 
 them with the representation given us of the history of Israel in 
 those times in the books of Samuel and Kings, we can see that 
 the chronicler has passed over much of the history. (a) He has 
 omitted, in the history of David, not only his seven years' reign 
 at Hebron over the tribe of Judah, and his conduct to the fallen 
 King Saul and to his house, especially towards Ishbosheth, Saul's 
 son, who had been set up as rival king by Abner (2 Sam. i.-iv. and 
 ix.), but in general has passed over all the events referring to and 
 connected with David's family relations. He makes no mention, for 
 instance, of the scene between David and Michal (2 Sam. vi. 20 
 23) ; the adultery with Bathsheba, with its immediate and more 
 distant results (2 Sam. xi. 2-12) ; Amnon's outrage upon Tamar, 
 the slaying of Amnon by Absalom and his flight to the king of 
 Geshur, his return to Jerusalem, his rising against David, with 
 its issues, and the tumult of Sheba (2 Sam. xiii.-xx.) ; and, finally, 
 also omits the thanksgiving psalm and the last words of David 
 (2 Sam. xxii. 1-xxiii. 7). Then (6) in the history of Solomon 
 there have been left unrecorded the attempt of Adonijah to usurp 
 the throne, with the anointing of Solomon at Gihon, which it 
 brought about; David's last command in reference to Joab and 
 Shimei; the punishment of these men and of Adonijah; Solomon's 
 marriage with Pharaoh's daughter (1 Kings i. 1-iii. 3) ; his wise 
 judgment, the catalogue of his officials, the description of his 
 royal magnificence and glory, and of his wisdom (1 Kings iii. 16- 
 v. 14) ; the building of the royal palace (1 Kings vii. 1-12) ; and 
 Solomon's polygamy and idolatry, with their immediate results 
 (1 Kings xi. 1-40). Finally, (c) there is no reference to the 
 history of the kingdom of Israel founded by Jeroboam, or to the 
 lives of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, which are related in such 
 detail in the books of Kings, while mention is made of the kings 
 of the kingdom of the ten tribes only in so far as they came into
 
 NAME. CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 13 
 
 hostile struggle or friendly union with the kingdom of Judah. 
 But, in compensation for these omissions, the author of the 
 Chronicle has brought together in his work a considerable 
 number of facts and events which are omitted in the books of 
 Samuel and the Kings. For example, in the history of David, 
 he gives us the list of the valiant men out of all the tribes who, 
 partly before and partly after the death of Saul, went over to 
 David to help him in his struggle with Saul and his house, and 
 to bring the royal honour to him (1 Chron. xii.) ; the detailed 
 account of the participation of the Levites in the transfer of the 
 ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, and of the arrangements made 
 by David for worship around this sanctuary (chap. xv. and xvi.) ; 
 and the whole section concerning David's preparations for the 
 building of the temple, his arrangements for public worship, the 
 regulation of the army, and his last commands (chap, xxii.-xxix.). 
 Further, the history of the kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam 
 to Joram is narrated throughout at greater length than in the 
 books of Kings, and is considerably supplemented by detailed 
 accounts, not only of the work of the prophets in Judah, of 
 Shemaiah under Rehoboam (chap. xii. 5-8), of Azariah and 
 Hanani under Asa (xv. 1-8, xvi. 7-9), of Jehu son of Hanani, 
 Jehaziel, and Ebenezer son of Dodava, under Jehoshaphat (xix. 
 1-3, xx. 14-20 and 37), and concerning Elijah's letter under 
 Joram (xxi. 12-15); but also of the efforts of Rehoboam (xi. 
 5-17), Asa (xiv. 5-7), and Jehoshaphat (xvii. 2, 12-19) to fortify 
 the kingdom, of Asa to raise and vivify the Jahve-worship (xv. 
 9-15), of Jehoshaphat to purify the administration of justice and 
 increase the knowledge of the law (xvii. 7-9 and xix. 5-11), 
 of the wars of Abijah against Jeroboam, and his victories (xiii. 
 3-20), of Asa's war against the Cushite Zerah (xiv. 8-14), of 
 Jehoshaphat's conquest of the Ammonites and Moabites (xx. 
 1-30), and, finally, also of the family relations of Rehoboam 
 (xi. 18-22), the wives and children of Abijah (xiii. 21), and 
 Joram's brothers and his sickness (xxi. 2-4 and 18 f.). Of the 
 succeeding kings also various undertakings are reported which 
 are not found in the books of Kings. In this way we are in- 
 formed of Joash's defection from the Lord, and his fall into 
 idolatry after the death of the high priest Jehoiada (xxiv. 15-22) ; 
 how Amaziah increased his military power (xxv. 5-10), and wor- 
 shipped idols (xxv. 14 16); of Uzziah's victorious wars against 
 the Philistines and Arabs, and his fortress-building, etc. (xxvi.
 
 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 6-15) ; of Jotham's fortress-building, and his victory over the 
 Ammonites (xxvii. 4-6) ; of the increase of Hezekiah's riches 
 (xxxii. 27-30) ; of Manasseh's capture and removal to Babylon, 
 and his return out of captivity (xxxiii. 11-17). But the history 
 of Hezekiah and Josiah more especially is rendered more com- 
 plete by special accounts of reforms in worship, and of celebra- 
 tions of the passover (xxix. 331, 21, and xxxv. 215) ; while we 
 have only summary notices of the godless conduct of Ahaz (chap, 
 xxviii.) and Manasseh (xxxiii. 3-10), of the campaign of Sen- 
 nacherib against Jerusalem and Judah, of Hezekiah's sickness 
 and the reception of the Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem (chap, 
 xxxii., cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13-20, xix.) ; as also of the reigns of 
 the last kings, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. From all 
 this, it is clear that the author of the Chronicle, as Bertheau 
 expresses it, " has turned his attention to those times especially 
 in which Israel's religion had showed itself to be a power dominat- 
 ing the people and their leaders, and bringing them prosperity ; 
 and to those men who had endeavoured to give a more enduring 
 form to the arrangements for the service of God, and to restore 
 the true worship of Jahve ; and to those events in the history of 
 the worship so intimately bound up with Jerusalem, which had 
 important bearings." 
 
 This purpose appears much more clearly when we take into 
 consideration the narratives which are common to the Chronicle 
 and the books of Samuel and Kings, and observe the difference 
 which is perceptible in the mode of conception and representa- 
 tion in those parallel sections. For our present purpose, how- 
 ever, those narratives in which the chronicler supplements and 
 completes the accounts given in the books of Samuel and Kings 
 by more exact and detailed information, or shortens them by the 
 omission of unimportant details, come less into consideration. 1 
 For both additions and abridgments show only that the chronicler 
 has not drawn his information from the canonical books of 
 Samuel and Kings, but from other more circumstantial original 
 
 1 Additions are to be found, e.g., in the list of David's heroes, 1 Chron. 
 xiL 42-47 ; in the history of the building and consecration of Solo- 
 mon's temple; in the enumeration of the candlesticks, tables, and courts, 
 2 Chron. iv. 6-9 ; in the notice of the copper platform on which Solomon 
 kneeled at prayer, vi. 12, 13 ; and of the fire which fell from heaven upon 
 the burnt-offering, vii. 1 ff. Also in the histories of the wars they are met 
 with, 1 Chron. xi. 6, 8, 23, cf. 2 Sam. v. 8, 9, xxiii. 21 ; 1 Chron. xviii. 8, 12,
 
 NAME, CONTEXTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 15 
 
 documents \vliich he bad at his command, and has used these 
 sources independently. Much more important for a knowledge 
 of the plan of the Chronicle are the variations in the parallel 
 places between it and the other narrative ; for in them the point 
 of view from which the chronicler regarded, and has described, 
 the events clearly appears. In the number of such passages is 
 to be reckoned the narrative of the transfer of the ark (1 Chron. 
 xiii. and xv., cf. 2 Sam. vi.), where the chronicler presents the 
 fact in its religious import as the beginning of the restoration 
 of the worship of Jahve according to the law, which had fallen 
 into decay ; while the author of the books of Samuel describes 
 it only in its political import, in its bearing on the Davidic king- 
 ship. Of this character also is the narrative of the raising of 
 Joash to the throne (2 Chron. xxiii., cf. 2 Kings xi.), where the 
 share of the Levites in the completion of the work begun by the 
 high priest Jehoiada is prominently brought forward, while in 
 Kings it is not expressly mentioned. The whole account also of 
 the reign of Hezekiah, as well as other passages, belong to this 
 category. Now from these and other descriptions of the part 
 the Levites played in events, and the share they took in assisting 
 the efforts of the pious kings to revivify and maintain the temple 
 worship, the conclusion has been rightly drawn that the chronicler 
 describes with special interest the fostering of the Levitic worship 
 according to the precepts of the law of Moses, and holds it up to 
 his contemporaries for earnest imitation ; yet this has been too 
 often done in such a way as to cause this one element in the 
 plans of the Chronicle to be looked upon as its main object, 
 which has led to a very onesided conception of the character of 
 the book. The chronicler does not desire to bring honour to the 
 Levites and to the temple worship : his object is rather to draw 
 from the history of the kingship in Israel a proof that faithful 
 adherence to the covenant which the Lord had made with 
 Israel brings happiness and blessing ; the forsaking of it, on the 
 contrary, ensures ruin and a curse. But Israel could show its 
 faithfulness to the covenant only by walking according to the 
 
 cf. 2 Sam. viii. 8, 13, etc. More may be found in my Handbook of Introd. 
 139, 5. Abridgments by the rejection of unimportant details are very 
 frequent ; e.g. the omission of the Jebusites' mockery of David's attack on their 
 fortress, 1 Chron. xi. 5, 6, cf . 2 Sam. v. 6, 8 ; of the details of the storming of 
 Rabbah, 1 Chron. xx. 1, 2, cf. 2 Sam. xii. 27-29 ; and of many more, vide my 
 Handbook of Introduction, 139, 8.
 
 16 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ordinances of the law given by Moses, and in worshipping 
 Jahve, the God of their fathers, in His holy place in that way 
 which He had established by the ceremonial ordinances. The 
 author of the Chronicle attaches importance to the Levitic 
 worship only because the fidelity of Israel to the covenant mani- 
 fested itself in the careful maintenance of it. 
 
 This point of view appears clearly in the selection and treat- 
 ment of the material drawn by our historian from older histories 
 and prophetic writings. His history begins with the death of 
 Saul and the anointing of David to be king over the whole of 
 Israel, and confines itself, after the division of the kingdom, to 
 the history of the kingdom of Judah. In the time of the judges 
 especially, the Levitic worship had fallen more and more into 
 decay; and even Samuel had done nothing for it, or perhaps 
 could do nothing, and the ark remained during that whole period 
 at a distance from the tabernacle. Still less was done under 
 Saul for the restoration of the worship in the tabernacle ; for 
 " Saul died," as we read in 1 Chron. x. 13 f., " for his trans- 
 gression which he had transgressed against the Lord ; . . . and 
 because he inquired not of the Lord, therefore He slew him, 
 and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." After 
 the death of Saul the elders of all Israel came to David with the 
 confession, "Jahve thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed 
 my people Israel ; and thou shalt be ruler over my people 
 Israel" (1 Chron. xi. 2). David's first care, after he had as king 
 over all Israel conquered the Jebusite hold on Mount Zion, and 
 made Jerusalem the capital of the kingdom, was to bring the 
 ark from its obscurity into the city of David, and to establish 
 the sacrificial worship according to the law near that sanctuary 
 (1 Chron. xiii. 15, 16). Shortly afterwards he formed the re- 
 solution of building for the Lord a permanent house (a temple), 
 that He might dwell among His people, for which he received 
 from the Lord the promise of the establishment of his kingdom 
 for ever, although the execution of his design was denied to him, 
 and was committed to his son (chap. xvii.). Only after all this 
 has been related do we find narratives of David's wars and his 
 victories over all hostile peoples (chap, xviii.-xx.), of the num- 
 bering of the people, and the pestilence, which, in consequence 
 of the repentant resignation of David to the will of the Lord, 
 gave occasion to the determination of the place for the erection 
 of the temple (chap. xxi.). The second section of the history of
 
 NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 17 
 
 the Davidic kingship contains the preparations for the building 
 of the temple, and the laying down of more permanent regula- 
 tions for the ordering of the worship ; and that which David had 
 prepared for, and so earnestly impressed upon his son Solomon 
 at the transfer of the crown, Solomon carried out. Immediately 
 after the throne had been secured to him, he took in hand the 
 building of the temple ; and the account of this work fills the 
 greater part of the history of his reign, while the description 
 of his kingly power and splendour and wisdom, and of all the 
 other undertakings which he carried out, is of the shortest. 
 When ten tribes revolted from the house of David after his 
 death, Rehoboam's design of bringing the rebellious people 
 again under his dominion by force of arms was checked by the 
 prophet Shemaiah with the words, " Thus saith the Lord, Ye 
 shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing 
 is done of me" (2 Chron. xi. 4). But in their revolt from the 
 house of David, which Jeroboam sought to perpetuate by the 
 establishment of an idolatrous national worship, Israel of the ten 
 tribes had departed from the covenant communion with Jahve ; 
 and on this ground, and on this account, the history of that 
 kingdom is no further noticed by the chronicler. The priests 
 and Levites came out of the whole Israelite dominion to Judah 
 and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his sons expelled them 
 from the priesthood. After them, from all the tribes of Israel 
 came those who gave their hearts to seek Jahve the God of 
 Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to Jahve the God of their 
 fathers (2 Chron. xi. 13-16), for " Jerusalem is the city which 
 Jahve has chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put His name 
 there" (xii. 13). The priests, Levites, and pious people who 
 went over from Israel made the kingdom of Judah strong, and 
 confirmed Rehoboam's power, for they walked in the ways of 
 David and Solomon (xi. 17). But when the kingdom of Reho- 
 boam had been firmly established, he forsook the law of Jahve, 
 and all Israel with him (xii. 1). Then the Egyptian king 
 Shishak came up against Jerusalem, " because they had trans- 
 gressed against the Lord" (xii. 2). The prophet Shemaiah pro- 
 claimed the word of the Lord : " Ye have forsaken me, and 
 therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak" (xii. 5). 
 Yet when Rehoboam and the princes of Israel humbled them- 
 selves, the anger of the Lord turned from him, that He would 
 not destroy him altogether (xii. 6, 12). King Abijah reproaches 
 
 B
 
 18 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Jeroboam in his speech with his defection from Jahve, and con- 
 cludes with the words, " O children of Israel, fight not ye against 
 the Lord God of your fathers, for ye shall not prosper" (xiii. 12) ; 
 and when the men of Judah cried unto the Lord in the battle, and 
 the priests blew the trumpets, then did God smite Jeroboam and 
 all Israel (xiii. 15). "Thus the children of Israel were brought 
 under at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because 
 they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers" (xiii. 18). 
 King Asa commanded his subjects to seek Jahve the God of 
 their fathers, and to do the law and the commandments (xiv. 3). 
 In the war against the Cushites, he cried unto Jahve his God, 
 "Help us, for we rest on Thee;" and Jahve smote the Cushites 
 before Judah (xiv. 10). After this victory Asa and Judah sacri- 
 ficed unto the Lord of their spoil, and entered into a covenant 
 to seek Jahve the God of their fathers with all their heart, and 
 with all their soul. And the Lord was found of them, and the 
 Lord gave them rest round about (xv. 11 ff.). But when Asa 
 afterwards, in the war against Baasha of Israel, made an alliance 
 with the Syrian king Benhadad, the prophet Hanani censured 
 this act in the words, " Because thou hast relied on the king of 
 Syria, and hast not relied on Jahve thy God, therefore has the 
 host of the king of Syria escaped out of thy hand. . . . Herein 
 thou hast done foolishly," etc. (xvi. 79). Jehoshaphat became 
 mighty against Israel, and Jahve was with him ; for he walked in 
 the ways of his father David, and sought not unto the Baals, but 
 sought the God of his father, and walked in His commandments, 
 and not after the doings of Israel. And Jahve established his 
 kingdom in his hand, and he attained to riches and great 
 splendour (xvii. 1-5). 
 
 After this fashion does the chronicler show how God blessed 
 the reigns and prospered all the undertakings of all the kings of 
 Judah who sought the Lord and walked in His commandments ; 
 but at the same time also, how every defection from the Lord 
 brought with it misfortune and chastisement. Under Joram of 
 Judah, Edom and Libnah freed themselves from the supremacy 
 of Judah, ll because Joram had forsaken Jahve the God of his 
 fathers " (xxi. 10). Because Joram had walked in the ways of 
 the kings of Israel, and had seduced the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 to whoredom (i.e. idolatry), and had slain his brothers, God 
 punished him in the invasion of Judah by the Philistines and 
 Arabs, who stormed Jerusalem, took away with them all the fur-
 
 NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 19 
 
 niture of the royal palace, and took captive his sons and wives, while 
 He smote him besides with incurable disease (xxi. 11 ff., 16-18). 
 Because of the visit which Ahaziah made to Joram of Israel, 
 when he lay sick of his wound at Jezreel, the judgment was 
 (xxii. 7) pronounced : " The destruction of Ahaziah was of God 
 by his coming to Joram." When Amaziah, after his victory 
 over the Edomites, brought back the gods of Sei" and set them 
 up for himself as gods, before whom he worshipped, the anger of 
 Jahve was kindled against him. In spite of the warning of the 
 prophets, he sought a quarrel with King Joash of Israel, who 
 likewise advised him to abandon his design. " But Amaziah 
 would not hear ; for it was of God, that He might deliver them 
 over, because they had sought the gods of Edom " (xxv. 20). 
 With this compare ver. 27 : " After the time that Amaziah 
 turned away from following Jahve, they made a conspiracy 
 against him in Jerusalem." Of Uzziah it is said (xxvi. 5), so 
 long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper, so that 
 he conquered his enemies and became very mighty. But when 
 he was strong his heart was lifted up, so that he transgressed 
 against Jahve his God, by forcing his way into the temple to 
 offer incense; and for this he was smitten with leprosy. Of 
 Jotham it is said, in xxvii. 6, " He became mighty, because he 
 established his w r ays before Jahve his God." 
 
 From these and similar passages, which might easily be mul- 
 tiplied, we clearly see that the chronicler had in view not only the 
 Levitic worship, but also and mainly the attitude of the people 
 and their princes to the Lord and to His law ; and that it is from 
 this point of view that he has regarded and written the history 
 of his people before the exile. But it is also not less clear, from 
 the quotations we have made, in so far as they contain practical 
 remarks of the historian, that it was his purpose to hold up to 
 his contemporaries as a mirror the history of the past, in which 
 they might see the consequences of their own conduct towards 
 the God of their fathers. He does not wish, as the author of 
 the books of Kings does, to narrate the events and facts objec- 
 tively, according to the course of history ; but he connects the facts 
 and events with the conduct of the kings and people towards the 
 Lord, and strives to put the historical facts in such a light as to 
 teach that God rewards fidelity to His covenant with happiness 
 and blessing, and avenges faithless defection from it with punitive 
 judgments. Owing to this peculiarity, the historical narrative
 
 20 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 acquires a hortative character, which gives occasion for the employ- 
 ment of a highly rhetorical style. The hortative-rhetorical charac- 
 ter impressed upon his narrative shows itself not only in many of 
 the speeches of the actors in the history which are interwoven with 
 it, but also in many of the historical parts. For example, the 
 account given in 2 Chron. xxi. 16 of the punitive judgments 
 which broke in upon Joram for his wickedness is rhetorically 
 arranged, so that the judgments correspond to the threatenings 
 contained in the letter of Elijah, vers. 12-15. But this may be 
 much more plainly seen in the description of the impious con- 
 duct of King Ahaz, and of the punishments which were inflicted 
 upon him and the kingdom of Judah (chap, xxviii.) ; as also in 
 the descriptions of the crime of Manasseh (chap, xxxiii. 3-13 ; 
 cf. especially vers. 7 and 8), and of the reign of Zedekiah, and 
 the ruin of the kingdom of Judah (chap, xxxvi. 12-21). Now 
 the greater part of the differences between the chronicler's 
 account and the parallel narrative in the books of Samuel and 
 Kings, together with the omission of unimportant circum- 
 stances, and the careful manner in which the descriptions of the 
 arrangements for worship and the celebration of feasts are 
 wrought out, can be accounted for by this hortatory tendency so 
 manifest in his writing, and by his subjective, reflective manner 
 of regarding history. For all these peculiarities clearly have it 
 for their object to raise in the souls of the readers pleasure and 
 delight in the splendid worship of the Lord, and to confirm their 
 hearts in fidelity to the Lord and to His law. 
 
 With this plan and object, the first part of our history 
 (1 Chron. i.-ix.), which contains genealogies, with geographical 
 sketches and isolated historical remarks, is in perfect harmony. 
 The genealogies are intended to exhibit, on the one hand, the con- 
 nection of the people of Israel with the whole human race ; on 
 the other, the descent and genealogical ramifications of the tribes 
 and families of Israel, with the extent to which they had spread 
 themselves abroad in the land received as a heritage from the 
 Lord. In both of these respects they are the necessary founda- 
 tion for the f ollowing history of the chosen people, which the author 
 designed to trace from the time of the foundation of the promised 
 kingdom till the people were driven away into exile because of 
 their revolt from their God. And it is not to be considered as a 
 result of the custom prevalent among the later Arabian histo- 
 rians, of beginning their histories and chronicles ab ovo with
 
 NAME, CONTENTS, PLAN, AND AIM. 21 
 
 Adam, that our author goes back in this introduction to Adam 
 and the beginnings of the human race ; for not only is this 
 custom far too modern to allow of any inference being drawn 
 from it with reference to the Chronicle, but it has itself origi- 
 nated, beyond a doubt, in an imitation of our history. The 
 reason for going back to the beginnings of the human race is to 
 be sought in the importance for the history of the world of the 
 people of Israel, whose progenitor Abraham had been chosen 
 and separated from all the peoples of the earth by God, that his 
 posterity might become a blessing to all the families of the earth. 
 But in order to see more perfectly the plan and object of the 
 historian in his selection and treatment of the historical material 
 at his command, we must still keep in view the age in which he 
 lived, and for which he wrote. In respect to this, so much in 
 general is admitted, viz. that the Chronicle was composed after 
 the Babylonian exile. With their release from exile, and their 
 return into the land of their fathers, Israel did not receive again 
 its former political importance. That part of the nation which 
 had returned remained under Persian supremacy, and was ruled 
 by Persian governors ; and the descendants of the royal' race of 
 David remained subject to this governor, or at least to the kings 
 of Persia. They were only allowed to restore the temple, and 
 to arrange the divine service according to the precepts of the 
 Mosaic law ; and in this they were favoured by Cyrus and his 
 successors. In such circumstances, the efforts and struggles of 
 the returned Jews must have been mainly directed to the re- 
 establishment and permanent ordering of the worship, in order 
 to maintain communion with the Lord their God, and by that 
 means to prove their fidelity to the God of their fathers, so that 
 the Lord might fulfil His covenant promises to them, and com- 
 plete the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. By this fact, 
 therefore, may we account for the setting forth in our history of 
 the religious and ecclesiastical side of the life of the Israelitish 
 community in such relief, and for the author's supposed " fond- 
 ness " for the Levitic worship. If the author of the Chronicle 
 wished to strengthen his contemporaries in their fidelity to 
 Jahve, and to encourage them to fulfil their covenant duties by 
 a description of the earlier history of the covenant people, he 
 could not hope to accomplish his purpose more effectively than 
 by so presenting the history as to bring accurately before them 
 the ordinances and arrangements of the worship, the blessings of
 
 22 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 fidelity to the covenant, and the fatal fruits of defection from 
 the Lord. 
 
 The chronicler's supposed predilection for genealogical lists 
 arose also from the circumstances of his time. From Ezra ii. 60 
 ff. we learu that some of the sons of priests who returned with 
 Zerubbabel sought their family registers, but could not find 
 them, and were consequently removed from the priesthood ; 
 besides this, the inheritance of the land was bound up with the 
 families of Israel. On this account the family registers had, for 
 those who had returned from the exile, an increased importance, 
 as the means of again obtaining possession of the heritage of their 
 fathers ; and perhaps it was the value thus given to the genealo- 
 gical lists which induced the author of the Chronicle to include in 
 his book all the old registers of this sort which had been received 
 from antiquity. 
 
 2. AGE AND AUTHOR OF THE CHRONICLES. 
 
 The Chronicle cannot have been composed before the time of 
 Ezra, for it closes with the intelligence that Cyrus, by an edict 
 in the first year of his reign, allowed the Jews to return to their 
 country (2. xxxvi. 22 f.), and it brings down the genealogical 
 tree of Zerubbabel to his grandchildren (1. iii. 19-21). The 
 opinion brought into acceptance by de Wette and Ewald, that 
 the genealogy (1. iii. 19-24) enumerates six or seven other gene- 
 rations after Zerubbabel, and so reaches down to the times of 
 Alexander the Great or yet later, is founded on the undemon- 
 strable assumption that the twenty-one names which in this 
 passage (ver. 216) follow rrsn '33 are the names of direct 
 descendants of Zerubbabel. But no exegetical justification can 
 be found for this assumption ; since the list of names, " the 
 sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah," etc. 
 (vers. 216-24), is connected neither in form nor in subject-matter 
 with the grandsons of Zerubbabel, who have been already enu- 
 merated, but forms a genealogical fragment, the connection of 
 which with Zerubbabel's grandchildren is merely asserted, but 
 can neither be proved nor even rendered probable. (Vide the 
 commentary on these verses.) Other grounds for the accept- 
 ance of so late a date for the composition of the Chronicle are 
 entirely wanting ; for the orthography and language of the book
 
 AGE AND AUTHOR. 23 
 
 point only in general to the post-exilic age, and the mention of the 
 Daric, a Persian coin, in 1. xxix. 7, does not bring us further down 
 than the period of the Persian rule over Judaea. On the other 
 hand, the use of the name nn^zi (1. xxix. 1, 19) for the temple 
 can scarcely be reconciled with the composition of the book in 
 the Macedonian or even the Seleucidian age, since an author 
 who lived after Nehemiah, when Jerusalem, like other Persian 
 cities, had received in the fortress built by him (Neh. ii. 8, vii. 2), 
 and afterwards called Bdpis and Arx Antonia, its own iTY 1 ^ would 
 scarcely have given this name to the temple. 
 
 In reference to the question of the authorship of our book, 
 the matter which most demands consideration is the identity of 
 the end of the Chronicle with the beginning of the book of Ezra. 
 The Chronicle closes with the edict of Cyrus which summons 
 the Jews to return to Jerusalem to build the temple ; the book 
 of Ezra begins with this same edict, but gives it more completely 
 than the Chronicle, which stops somewhat abruptly with the word 
 7JH, " and let him go up," although in this hy\ everything is con- 
 tained that we find in the remaining part of the edict communi- 
 cated in the book of Ezra. From this relation of the Chronicle 
 to the book of Ezra, many Rabbins, Fathers of the church, and 
 older exegetes, have drawn the conclusion that Ezra is also the 
 author of the Chronicle. But of course it is not a very strong 
 proof, since it can be accounted for on the supposition that the 
 author of the book of Ezra has taken over the conclusion of the 
 Chronicle into his work, and set it at the commencement, so as 
 to attach his book to the Chronicle as a continuation. In support 
 of this supposition, moreover, the further fact may be adduced, 
 that it was just as important for the Chronicle to communicate 
 the terms of Cyrus' edict as it was for the book of Ezra. It 
 was a fitting conclusion of the former, to show that the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem and the leading away of the inhabitants of 
 Judah to Babylon, was not the final destiny of Judah and Jeru- 
 salem, but that, after the dark night of exile, the day of the 
 restoration of the people of God had dawned under Cyrus ; and 
 for the latter it was an indispensable foundation and point of 
 departure for the history of the new immigration of the exiles 
 into Jerusalem and Judah. Yet it still remains more probable 
 that one author produced both writings, yet not as a single book, 
 which has been divided at some later time by another hand. 
 For no reason can be perceived for any such later division,
 
 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 especially such a division as would make it necessary to repeat 
 the edict of Cyrus. 1 The introduction of this edict with the 
 words, " And it came to pass in the first year of Cyrus, king of 
 Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might 
 be accomplished" connects it so closely with the end of the account 
 of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away into Baby- 
 lon, contained in the words, " And they were servants to him, and 
 his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfil the 
 word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, ... to fulfil 
 the seventy years" (ver. 20 f.), that it cannot be separated 
 from what precedes. Kather it is clear, that the author who 
 Avrote verses 20 and 21, representing the seventy years' exile as 
 the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, must be the same 
 who mentions the edict of Cyrus, and sets it forth in its connec- 
 tion with the utterances of the same prophet. This connecting 
 of the edict with the prophecy gives us an irrefragable proof that 
 the verses which contain the edict form an integral part of the 
 Chronicle. But, at the same time, the way in which the edict is 
 broken off in the Chronicle with 7JM, makes it likely that the 
 author of the Chronicle did not give the contents of the edict in 
 their entirety, only because he intended to treat further of the 
 edict, and the fulfilment of it by the return of the Jews from 
 Babylon, in a second work. A later editor would certainly have 
 given the entire edict in both writings (the Chronicle and the book 
 
 1 What Bertheau (p. xxi.) says in this connection (following Ewald, Gcscli. 
 des V. Isr. i. S. 264, der 2 Aufl.), viz., that " perhaps at first only that part 
 of the great historical work which contains the history of the new community 
 itself, to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the history of these its two 
 heroes, was added to the books of the Old Testament, because it seemed 
 unnecessary to add our present Chronicle, on account of its agreement in 
 great part with the contents of the books of Samuel and Kings," is a sup- 
 position which merely evades giving a reason for the division of the work into 
 two, by holding the division to have been made before the book came into 
 the canon. But unless the division had been made before, no one would 
 ever have thought of considering the first half of this book, i. e. our present 
 Chronicle, unworthy of a place in the canon, since it contains, in great 
 part, new information not found in the books of Samuel and Kings, and 
 supplements in a variety of ways even the narratives which are contained in 
 these books. And even supposing that the Chronicle was received into the 
 canon as a supplement, after the books of Ezra and Nehemiah had already 
 received a definite place in it, the verses 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 f . could scarcely 
 have been added to the Chronicle from the book of Ezra, to call attention to 
 the fact that the Chronicle had received an unsuitable place in the canon, as 
 it ought to have stood before the book of Ezra.
 
 AGE AND AUTHOR. 25 
 
 of Ezra), and would, moreover, hardly have altered ^s (Chron.) 
 into 'B (Ezra), and toy vr6s nirr into toy vn$s W. 
 
 The remaining grounds which are usually urged for the 
 original unity of the two writings, prove nothing more than the 
 possibility or probability that both originated with one author ; 
 certainly they do not prove that they originally formed one work. 
 The long list of phenomena in Bertheau's Commentary, pp. xvi-xx, 
 by which a certainty is supposed to be arrived at that the Chronicle 
 and Ezra originally was one great historical work, compiled from 
 various sources, greatly requires the help of critical bias. 1. 
 " The predilection of the author for genealogical lists, for detailed 
 descriptions of great feasts, which occurred at the most various 
 times, for exact representations of the arrangement of the 
 public worship, and the business of the Levites and priests, with 
 their classifications and ranks," cannot be proved to exist in the 
 book of Ezra. That book contains only one very much abridged 
 genealogy, that of Ezra (vii. 1-5) ; only two lists, those, namely, 
 of the families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and 
 Ezra (chap. ii. and viii.) ; only one account of the celebration of 
 a feast, the by no means detailed description of the consecration 
 of the temple (vi. 16) ; short remarks on the building of the 
 altar, the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and the laying 
 of the foundation-stone of the temple, in chap. iii. ; and it 
 contains nothing whatever as to the divisions and ranks of the 
 priests and Levites. That in these lists and descriptions some 
 expressions should recur, is to be expected from the nature of the 
 case. Yet all that is common to both books is the word K^flfl, 
 the use of t3SU^3 in the signification, " according to the Mosaic 
 law" (1 Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. xxxv. 13, Ezra iii. 4, and 
 Neh. viii. 18), and the liturgical formulae flirt 1 ? Vlin, which occurs 
 also in Isa. xii. 4 and Ps. xxxiii. 2, and ??fl?^ rt"li n ? with the addi- 
 tion, " Jahve is God, and His mercy endureth for ever" (1 Chron. 
 xvi. 34, 41; 2 Chron. vii. 6; Ezra iii. 11). The other expressions 
 enumerated by Bertheau are met with also in other writings : 
 nioB 5 3 iM in Num. i. 17; ntax-rp3 'tftn and ninx ^sn, Ex. vi. 
 14 ft. ; and the formula (nw rninn) rnina avis? or 3WjST*x (1 
 Chron. xvi. 40 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 12, 26; Ezra iii. 2, 4) is just as 
 common in other writings : cf. Josh. i. 8, viii. 31, 34 ; 1 Kings ii. 
 3 ; 2 Kings xiv. 6, xxii. 13, xxiii. 21. Bertheau further remarks: 
 " In those sections in which the regulation of the public worship, 
 the duties, classification, and offices of the priests and Levites
 
 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 are spoken of, the author seizes every opportunity to tell of the 
 musicians and doorkeepers, their duties at the celebration of the 
 great festivals, and their classification. He speaks of the musi- 
 cians, 1 Chron. vi. 16 ff., ix. 14-16, 33, xv. 16-22, 27 f., xvi. 
 4-42, xxiii. 5, xxv. ; 2 Chron. v. 12 f ., vii. 6, viii. 14 f., xx. 19, 
 21, xxiii. 13, 18, xxix. 25-28, 30, xxx. 21 f., xxxi. 2, 11-18, xxxiv. 
 12, xxxv. 15 ; Ezra iii. 10 f. ; Neh. xi. 17, xii. 8, 24, 27-29, 
 45-47, xiii. 5. The doorkeepers are mentioned nearly as often, 
 and not seldom in company with the singers : 1 Chron. ix. 17-29, 
 xv. 18, 23, 24, xvi. 38, xxiii. 5, xxvi. 1, 12-19 ; 2 Chron. viii. 14, 
 xxiii. 4, 19, xxxi. 14, xxxiv. 13, xxxv. 15 ; Ezra ii. 42, 70, vii. 7, 
 x. 24 ; Neh. vii. 1, 45, x. 29, xi. 19, xii. 25, 45, 4-7, xiii. 5. Now 
 if these passages be compared, not only are the same expressions 
 met with (e.g. B^?*? only in Chron., Ezra, and Neh. ; "njPBn and 
 Qfnbisn likewise only in these books, but here very frequently, 
 some twenty-eight times), and also very often in different places 
 the same names (cf. 1 Chron. ix. 17 with Neh. xii. 25); but 
 everywhere also we can easily trace the same view as to the 
 importance of the musicians and doorkeepers for the public 
 worship, and see that all information respecting them rests upon 
 a very well-defined view of their duties and their position." 
 But does it follow from this " well-defined view" of the business 
 of the musicians and doorkeepers, that the Chronicle, Ezra, and 
 Nehemiah form a single book? Is this view an idea peculiar 
 to the author of this book ? In all the historical books of the 
 Old Testament, from Exodus and Leviticus to Nehemiah, we find 
 the idea that the laying of the sacrifice upon the altar is the 
 business of the priest ; but does it follow from that, that all those 
 books were written by one man? But besides this, the repre- 
 sentation given by Bertheau is very one-sided. The fact is, that 
 in the Chronicle, and in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, men- 
 tion is made of the priests just as often as of the Levitical musi- 
 cians, and oftener than the doorkeepers are spoken of, as will be 
 seen from the proofs brought forward in the following remarks ; 
 nor can any trace be discovered of a u fondness" on the part 
 of the chronicler for the musicians and porters. They are 
 mentioned only when the subject demanded that they should be 
 mentioned. 
 
 2. As to the language. Bertheau himself admits, after the 
 enumeration of a long list of linguistic peculiarities of the 
 Chronicle and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, that all these
 
 AGE AND AUTHOR. 27 
 
 phenomena are to be met with separately in other books of the 
 Old Testament, especially the later ones ; only their frequent use 
 can be set down as the linguistic peculiarity of one author. But 
 does the mere numbering of the places where a word or a gram- 
 matical construction occurs in this or that book really serve as a 
 valid proof for the unity of the authorship ? When, for example, 
 the form nja, 2 Chron. xiv. 13, xxviii. 14, Ezra ix. 7, Neh. iii. 
 36, occurs elsewhere only in Esther and Daniel, or /J3 in 1 
 Chron. xii. 18, xxi. 11, 2 Chron. xxix. 16, 22, and Ezra viii. 30, 
 is elsewhere found only in Proverbs once, in Job once, and thrice 
 in Esther, does it follow that the Chronicle and the book of Ezra 
 are the work of one author ? The greater number of the linguistic 
 phenomena enumerated by Bertheau, such as the use of E H n;>x.n for 
 mn 11 ; the frequent use of ?, partly before the infinitive to express 
 shall or must, partly for subordinating or introducing a word ; the 
 multiplication of prepositions, e.g. in fW *W, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 16 ; 
 nx^ ny, 2 Chron. xvi. 14; nW> ny, 2 Chron. xvi. 12, xvii. 12, 
 xxvi. 8, are characteristics not arising from a peculiar use of 
 language by our chronicler, but belonging to the later or post- 
 exilic Hebrew in general. The only words and phrases which 
 are characteristic of and common to the Chronicle and the book 
 of Ezra are: lisa (bowl), 1 Chron. xxviii. 17, Ezra i. 10, viii. 27; 
 the infinitive Hophal IDir^ used of the foundation of the temple, 
 2 Chron. iii. 3, Ezra iii. 11 ; na7S, of the divisions of the Levites, 
 2 Chron. xxxv. 5 and Ezra vi. 18 ; ^Jin, of offerings, 1 Chron. 
 xxix. 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, Ezra i. 6, ii. 68, iii. 5 ; pirrioi "Jy (with 
 three prepositions), 2 Chron. xxvi. 15, Ezra iii. 13; and P^n 
 Bhn^ taa^ 2 Chron. xii. 14, xix. 3, xxx. 19, and Ezra vii. 10. 
 These few words and constructions would per se not prove much ; 
 but in connection with the fact that neither in the language nor 
 in the ideas are any considerable differences or variations to be 
 observed, they may serve to strengthen the probability, arising 
 from the relation of the end of the Chronicle to the beginning 
 of the book of Ezra, that both writings were composed by the 
 priest and scribe Ezra. 1 
 
 1 The opinion first propounded by Ewald, and adopted by Bertheau, 
 Dillmann (art. "Chronik" in Herzog's Realencykl.), and others, that "the 
 author belonged to the guild of musicians settled at the temple in Jerusalem" 
 (Gesch. des V. Isr. i. p. 235), has no tenable ground for its support, and rests 
 merely on the erroneous assumption that the author has not the same sym- 
 pathy with the priests as he shows in speaking of the Levites, more especially
 
 28 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 3. THE SOURCES OF THE CHRONICLES. 
 
 The genealogical list in chap, i., which gives us the origin of 
 the human race and of the nations, and that which contains the 
 names of the sons of Jacob (ii. 1 and 2), are to be found in and 
 have been without doubt extracted from Genesis, to be placed 
 together here. For it is scarcely probable that genealogical lists 
 belonging to primeval time and the earl}' days of Israel should 
 have been preserved till the post-exilic period. But all the genea- 
 logical registers which follow, together with the geographical 
 and historical remarks interwoven with them (chap. ii. 3-viii. 40), 
 have not been derived from the older historical books of the Old 
 Testament : for they contain for the most part merely the names 
 of the originators of those genealogical lines, of the grandsons 
 and some of the great-grandsons of Jacob, and of the ancestors, 
 brothers, and sons of David ; but nowhere do they contain the 
 whole lines. Moreover, in the parallel places the names often 
 differ greatly, so that all the variations cannot be ascribed to 
 errors of transcription. Compare the comparative table of these 
 parallel places in my apolog. Versuch iiber die Chron. S. 159 ff., 
 and in the Handbook of Introduction, 139, 1. All these cata- 
 logues, together with that of the cities of the Levites (chap. vi. 
 39-66), have been derived from other, extra-biblical sources. 
 
 of the singers and doorkeepers (Berth.). If this assertion were true, the 
 author might have been just as well a Levitical doorkeeper as a musician. 
 But it is quite erroneous, as may be seen on a comparison of the passages 
 adduced supra, p. 26, from Bertheau's commentary. In all the passages in 
 which the musicians and doorkeepers are mentioned the priests are also spoken 
 of, and in such a way that to both priests and Levites that is ascribed which 
 belonged to their respective offices : to the priests, the sacrificial service and 
 the blowing of the trumpets ; to the Levites, the external business of the 
 temple, and the execution of the instrumental music and psalm-singing intro- 
 duced by David. From this it is clear that there is no reason why the priest 
 and scribe Ezra might not have composed the Chronicle. The passages sup- 
 porting the assertion that where musicians and doorkeepers are spoken of 
 the priests are also mentioned, are : 1 Chron. vi. 34 ff., ix. 10-13, xv. 24, 
 xvi. 6, 39 f., xxiii. 2, 13, 28, 32, xxiv. f l-19 ; 2 Chron. v. 7, 11-14, vii. 6, 
 viii. 14 f., xiii. 9-12, xvii. 8, xix. 8, 11, xx. 28, xxiii. 4, 6, 18, xxvi. 17, 
 20, xxix. 4, 16, 21-24, 34, xxx. 3, 15, 21, 25, 27, xxxi. 2, 17, 19, xxxiv. 
 30, xxxv. 2, 8, 10, 14, 18; Ezra i. 5, ii. 61, 70, iii. 2, 8, 10-12, vi. 16, 
 18, 20, vii. 7, 24, viii. 15, 24-30, 33 ; Neh. ii. 16, iii. 1, vii. 73, viii. 13, 
 x. 1-9, 29, 35, 39 f., xi. 3, 10 ff., xii. 1 ff., 30, 35, 41, 44, 47, xiii. 30.
 
 THEIR SOURCES. 29 
 
 But as Bertheau, S. xxxi, rightly remarks : " We cannot hold 
 the lists to be the result of historical investigation on the part of 
 the author of the Chronicle, in the sense of his having culled the 
 individual names carefully either out of historical works or from 
 traditions of the families, and then brought them into order : for 
 in reference to Gad (chap. v. 12) we are referred to a genea- 
 logical register prepared in the time of Jothani king of Judah 
 and Jeroboam king of Israel ; while as to Issachar (chap. vii. 2) 
 the reference is to the numbering of the people which took place 
 in the time of David; and it is incidentally (?) stated (chap. 
 ix. 1) that registers had been prepared of all Israelites (i.e. the 
 northern tribes)." Besides this, in 1 Chron. xxiii. 3, 27, and xxvi. 
 31, numberings of the Levites, and in 1 Chron. xxvii. 24 the 
 numbering of the people undertaken by Joab at David's com- 
 mand, are mentioned. With regard to the latter, however, it is 
 expressly stated that its results were not incorporated in the 
 D^'n 1 n:n ) i.e. in the book of the chronicles of King David, 
 while it is said that the results of the genealogical registration of 
 the northern tribes of Israel were written in the book of the 
 kings of Israel. According to this, then, it might be thought that 
 the author had taken his genealogical lists from the great his- 
 torical work made use of by him, and often cited, in the history 
 of the kinrrs of Judah " the national annals of Israel and 
 
 o 
 
 Judah." But this can be accepted only with regard to the short 
 lists of the tribes of the northern kingdom in chap. v. and vii., 
 which contain nothing further than the names of families and 
 fathers' -houses, with a statement of the number of males in these 
 fathers'-houses. It is possible that these names and numbers 
 were contained in the national annals; but it is not likely that 
 these registers, which are of a purely genealogical nature, giving 
 the descent of families or famous men in longer or shorter lines 
 of ancestors, were received into the national annals (Reiclis- 
 annalen\ and it does not at all appear from the references to the 
 annals that this was the case. These genealogical lists were 
 most probably in the possession of the heads of the tribes and 
 families and households, from whom the author of the Chronicle 
 would appear to have collected all he could find, and preserved 
 them from destruction by incorporating them in his work. 
 
 In the historical part (1 Chron. x. 2 Chron. xxxvi.), at the 
 death of almost every king, the author refers to writings in which 
 the events and acts of his reign are described. Only in the case
 
 30 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of Joram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, and the later kings Jehoahaz, Jehoia- 
 chiii, and Zedekiah, are such references omitted. The books 
 which are thus named are : (1) For David's reign, Dibre of 
 Samuel the seer, of the prophet Nathan, and of Gad the seer 
 '(1 Chron. xxix. 29) ; (2) as to Solomon, the Dibre of the prophet 
 Nathan, the prophecy (n^Qi) of Abijah the Shilonite, and the 
 visions (nitn) of the seer Iddo against Jeroboam the son of 
 Nebat (2 Chron. ix. 29); (3) for Rehoboam, Dibre of the 
 prophet Shemaiah and the seer Iddo (chap. xii. 15) ; (4) for 
 Abijah's reign, Midrash of the prophet Iddo (xiii. 22) ; (5) for 
 Asa, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (xvi. 11) ; (6) as 
 to Jehoshaphat, Dibre of Jehu the son of Hanani, which had 
 been incorporated with the book of the kings of Israel (xx. 34) ; 
 (7) for the reign of Joash, Midrash-Sepher of the kings (xxiv. 
 27) ; (8) for the reign of Amaziah, the book of the kings of 
 Judah and Israel (xxv. 26) ; (9) in reference to Uzziah, a writ- 
 ing (SO?) of the prophet Isaiah (xxvi. 22) ; (10) as to Jotham, 
 the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (xxvii. 7); (11) for 
 the reign of Ahaz, the book of the kings of Judah and Israel 
 (xxviii. 26) ; (12) for Hezekiah, the vision (|ifn) of the prophet 
 Isaiah, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel (xxxii. 32) ; 
 (13) as to Manasseh, Dibre of the kings of Israel, and Dibre of 
 Hozai (xxxiii. 18 and 19) ; (14) for the reign of Josiah, the 
 book of the kings of Israel and Judah (xxxv. 27) ; and (15) for 
 Jehoiakim, the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (xxxvi. 8). 
 From this summary, it appears that two classes of writings, of 
 historical and prophetic contents respectively, are quoted. The 
 book of the kings of Judah and Israel (No. 5, 8, 11), the book of 
 the kings of Israel and Judah (10, 14, 15), the histories ( v ?.? ! of 
 the kings of Israel (13), and the Midrash-book of kings (7), 
 are all historical. The first three titles are, as is now generally 
 admitted, only variations in the designation of one and the same 
 work, whose complete title, " Book of the Kings of Judah and 
 Israel" (or Israel and Judah), is here and there altered into 
 " Book of the Events (or History) of the Kings of Israel," i.e. 
 of the whole Israelitish people. This work contained the history 
 of the kings of both kingdoms, and must have been essentially 
 the same as to contents with the two annalistic writings cited in 
 the canonical books of Kings : the book of the Chronicles of the 
 Kings of Israel, and the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of 
 Judah. This conclusion is forced upon us by the fact that the
 
 THEIR SOURCES. 31 
 
 extracts from them contained in our canonical books of 
 coincide with the extracts from the books of the kings of Israel 
 and Judah contained in our Chronicle where they narrate the 
 same events, either verbally, or at least in so far that the identity 
 of the sources from which they have been derived cannot but 
 be recognised. The only difference is, that the author of the 
 Chronicle had the two writings which the author of the book of 
 Kings quotes as two separate works, before him as one work, 
 narrating the history of both kingdoms in a single composition. 
 For he cites the book of the kings of Israel even for the history 
 of those kings of Judah who, like Jotham and Hezekiah, had 
 nothing to do with the kingdom of Israel (i.e. the ten tribes), 
 and even after the kingdom of the ten tribes had been already 
 destroyed, for the reigns of Manasseh, Josiah, and Jehoiakim. 
 But \ve are entirely without any means of answering with cer- 
 tainty the question, in how far the merging of the annals of the 
 two kingdoms into one book of the kings of Israel was accom- 
 panied by remoulding and revision. The reasons which Bertheau, 
 in his commentary on Chronicles, p. xli. ff., brings forward, after 
 the example of Thenius and Ewald, for thinking that it under- 
 went so thorough a revision as to become a different book, are 
 without force. The difference in the title is not sufficient, since 
 it is quite plain, from the different names under which the 
 chronicler quotes the work which is used by him, that he did not 
 give much attention to literal accuracy. The character of the 
 parallel places in our books of Kings and the Chronicle, as 
 Bertheau himself admits, forms no decisive criterion for an 
 accurate determination of the relation of the chronicler to his 
 original documents, which is now in question, since neither the 
 author of the books of Samuel and Kings nor the author of the 
 Chronicle intended to copy with verbal exactness : they all, on 
 the contrary, treated the historical material which they had before 
 them with a certain freedom, and wrought it up in their own 
 writings iu accordance with their various aims. 
 
 It is questionable if the work quoted for the reign of Joash, 
 OTttn "ISO BniB (No. 7), is identical with the book of the kings 
 of Israel and Judah, or whether it be not a commentary on it, 
 or perhaps a revision of that book, or of a section of the history 
 of the kings for purposes of edification. The narrative in the 
 Chronicle of the chief events in the reign of Joash, his accession, 
 with the fall of Athaliah, and the repairing of the temple (2
 
 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Chron. xxiii. and xxiv.), agrees with the account of these events 
 in 2 Kings xi. and xii. where the annals of the kings of Judah 
 are quoted, to such an extent, that both the authors seem to 
 have derived their accounts from the same source, each making 
 extracts according to his peculiar point of view. But the 
 Chronicle recounts, besides this, the fall of Joash into idolatry, 
 the censure of this defection by the prophet Zechariah, and the 
 defeat of the numerous army of the Jews by a small Syrian 
 host (xxiv. 15-25) ; from which, in Bertheau's opinion, we may 
 come, without much hesitation, to the conclusion that the con- 
 nection of these events had been already very clearly brought 
 forward in a Midrash of that book of Israel and Judah which is 
 quoted elsewhere. This is certainly possible, but it cannot be 
 shown to be more than a possibility ; for the further remark of 
 Bertheau. that in the references which occur elsewhere it is not 
 so exactly stated as in 2 Chron. xxiv. 27 what the contents of the 
 book referred to are, is shown to be erroneous by the citation 
 in chap, xxxiii. 18 and 19. It cannot, moreover, be denied that 
 the title "ISO Kn*i instead of the simple ISO is surprising, even 
 if, with Ewald, we take t^no in the sense of l( composition" or 
 "writing," and translate it "writing-book" (SchriftbucJi), which 
 gives ground for supposing that an expository writing is here 
 meant. Even taking the title in this sense, it does not follow 
 with any certainty that the Midrash extended over the whole 
 history of the kings, and still less is it proved that this expository 
 writing may have been used by the chronicler here and there in 
 places where it is not quoted. 
 
 So much, however, is certain, that we must not, with Jahn, 
 Movers, Staehelin, and others, hold these annals of the kings of 
 Israel and Judah, which are quoted in the canonical books of 
 Kings and the Chronicle, to be the official records of the acts and 
 undertakings of the kings prepared by the D^aTO. 1 They are 
 
 1 Against this idea Ba'hr also has very justly declared (die Biicher der 
 Konige, in J. P. Lange's theol. homilet. Bibelwerke, S. x. f.), and among 
 other things has rightly remarked, that in the separated kingdom of Israel 
 there is no trace whatever of court or national historians. But he goes much 
 too far when he denies the existence of national annals in general, even in 
 the kingdom of Judah, and under David and Solomon. For even granting 
 that the "PSfC derives his name from this, " that his duty was, as ftvfif&uy, 
 to bring to the recollection of the king all the state affairs which were to 
 be cared for, and give advice in reference to them ; " yet this function is 
 so intimately connected with the recording and preserving of the national
 
 THEIR SOURCES. 33 
 
 rather annalistic national histories composed by prophets, partly 
 from the archives of the kingdom and other public documents, 
 partly from prophetic monographs containing prophecy and his- 
 tory, either composed and continued by various prophets in 
 succession during the existence of both kingdoms, or brought 
 together in a connected form shortly before the ruin of the 
 kingdom out of the then existing contemporary historical docu- 
 ments and prophetic records. Two circumstances are strongly 
 in favour of the latter supposition. On the one hand, the refer- 
 ences to these annals in both kingdoms do not extend to the last 
 kings, but end in the kingdom of Israel with Pekah (2 Kings 
 xv. 31), in the kingdom of Judah with Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 
 5 and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8). On the other hand, the formula 
 " until this day" occurs in reference to various events; and since 
 it for the most part refers not to the time of the exile, but to 
 times when the kingdom still existed (cf. 1 Kings viii. 8 with 
 2 Chron. v. 9 ; 1 Kings ix. 13, 21, with 2 Chron. viii. 8 ; 1 Kings 
 xii. 19 with 2 Chron. x. 19 ; 2 Kings viii. 22 with 2 Chron. xxi. 
 10, 2 Kings ii. 22, x. 27, xiv. 7, and xvi. 6), it cannot be from 
 the hand of the authors of our canonical books of Kings and 
 Chronicles, but must have come down to us from the original 
 documents, and is in them possible only if they were written at 
 some shorter or longer period after the events. When Bahr, in 
 the place already quoted, says, on the contrary, that the time 
 shortly before the fall of the kingdom, the time of complete 
 uprooting, would appear to be the time least of all suited for the 
 collection and editing of national year-books, this arises from 
 his not having fully weighed the fact, that at that very time 
 prophets like Jeremiah lived and worked, and, as is clear from 
 
 documents of the kingdom and of all royal ordinances, that from it the com- 
 position of official annals of the kingdom follows almost as a matter of course. 
 The existence of such national annals, or official year-books of the kingdom, 
 is placed by 1 Chrou. ix. 1 and xxviL 24 beyond all doubt. According to 
 ix. 1, a genealogical record of the whole of Israel was prepared and inserted 
 in the book of the kings of Israel ; and according to xxvii. 24, the result of 
 the numbering of the people, carried out by Joab under David, was not 
 inserted in the book of the " Chronicles of King David." Bahr's objections 
 to the supposition of the existence of national annals, rest upon the erroneous 
 presupposition that all judgments concerning the kings and their religious 
 conduct which we find in our canonical histories, would have also been con- 
 tained in the annals of the kingdom, and that thus the authors of our books 
 of Kings and Chronicles would have been mere copyists giving us some 
 excerpts from the original documents. 
 
 C
 
 34 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 the prophecies of Jeremiah, gave much time to the accurate 
 study of the older holy writings. 
 
 The book composed by the prophet Isaiah concerning the reign 
 of King Uzziah (9) was a historical work ; as was also probably 
 the Midrash of the prophet Iddo (4). But, on the other hand, 
 we cannot believe, as do Ewald, Bertheau, Bahr, and others, that 
 the other prophetical writings enumerated under 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 
 and 13, were merely parts of the books of the kings of Israel and 
 Judah ; for the grounds which are brought forward in support of 
 this view do not appear to us to be tenable, or rather, tend to 
 show that those writings were independent books of prophecy, to 
 which some historical information was appended. 1. The cir- 
 cumstance that it is said of two of those writings, the Dibre of 
 Jehu and the Jitn of Isaiah (6 and 12), that they were incor- 
 porated or received into the books of the Kings, does not justify 
 the conclusion " that, since two of the above-named writings are 
 expressly said to be parts of the larger historical work, probably 
 by the others also only parts of this work are meant " (E\v., Berth. 
 S. xxxiv). For in the citations, those writings are not called 
 parts of the book of Kings, but are only said to have been re- 
 ceived into it as component parts ; and from that it by no means 
 follows that the others, whose reception is not mentioned, were parts 
 of that work. The admission of one writing into another book can 
 only then be spoken of when the book is different from the writing 
 which is received into it. 2. Since some of the writings are denomi- 
 nated "nyi of a prophet, from the double meaning of the word E" 1 "!^, 
 v erba and res, this title might be taken in the sense of " events 
 of the prophets," to denote historical writings. But it is much 
 more natural to think, after the analogy of the superscriptions 
 in Amos i. 1, Jer. i. 1, of books of prophecies like the books of 
 Amos and Jeremiah, which contained prophecies and prophetic 
 speeches along with historical information, just as the sections 
 Amos vii. 10-17, Jer. chap, xl.-xlv. do, and which differed 
 from our canonical books of prophecies, in which the historical 
 relations are mentioned only in exceptional cases, only by con- 
 taining more detailed and minute accounts of the historical 
 events which gave occasion to the prophetic utterances. On 
 account of this fulness of historical detail, such prophetic writ- 
 ings, without being properly histories, would yet be for many 
 periods of the history of the kings very abundant sources of 
 history. The above-mentioned difference between our canonical
 
 THEIR SOURCES. 35 
 
 books of prophecy and the books now under discussion is very 
 closely connected with the historical development of the theo- 
 cracy, which showed itself in general in this, that the action of 
 the older prophets was specially directed to the present, and to 
 viva voce speaking, while that of those of a later time was more 
 turned towards the future, and the consummation of the king- 
 dom of God by the Messiah (cf. Kiiper, das Prophetenthum des 
 A . Bundes, 1870, S. 93 ff.). This signification of the word n:n 
 is, in the present case, placed beyond all doubt by the fact that 
 the writings of other prophets which are mentioned along with 
 these are called fixing nifn, and Jitn, words which never denote 
 historical writings, but always only prophecies and visions of 
 the prophets. In accordance with this, the Jitn of Isaiah (12) 
 is clearly distinguished from the writing of the same prophet 
 concerning Uzziah, for which 2TI3 is used ; while in the reign of 
 Manasseh, the speeches of Hozai are named along with the 
 events, i.e. the history of the kings of Israel (2 Chron. xxxiii. 
 18, 19), and a more exact account of what was related about 
 Manasseh in each of these two books is given. From this we 
 learn that the historical book of Kings contained the words which 
 prophets had spoken against Manasseh ; while in the writing of 
 the prophet Hozai, of whom we know nothing further, informa- 
 tion as to the places where his idolatry was practised, and the 
 images which were the objects of it, was to be found. After 
 all these facts, which speak decidedly against the identification 
 of the prophetic writings cited in the book of Kings with that 
 book itself, the enigmatic ^D- J ?'?r> after the formula of quota- 
 tion, " They are written in the words (speeches) of the prophet 
 Shemaiah and of the seer Iddo " (2 Chron. xii. 15), can natu- 
 rally not be looked upon as a proof that here prophetic writings 
 are denominated parts of a larger historical work. 3. Nor can 
 we consider it, with Bertheau, decisive, " that for the whole his- 
 tory of David (Qtfirwrn n^fetenn -fe>n TH m*i), Solomon, Eeho- 
 boani, and Jehoshaphat, prophetic writings are referred to ; while 
 for the whole history of Asa, Amaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Josiah, 
 the references are to the book of the kings of Israel and Judah." 
 From this fact no further conclusion can be drawn than that, in 
 reference to the reigns of some kings the prophetic writings, 
 and in. reference to those of others the history of the kingdom, 
 contained all that was important, and that the history of the king- 
 dom contained also information as to the work of the prophets in
 
 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 the kingdom, while the prophetic writings contained likewise in- 
 formation as to the undertakings of the kings. The latter miVht 
 
 o *_s o 
 
 contain more detailed accounts in reference to some kings, the 
 former in reference to others ; and this very circumstance, or 
 some other reason which cannot now be ascertained by us, may 
 have caused the writer of the Chronicle to refer to the former in 
 reference to one king, and to the latter in reference to another. 
 
 Finally, 4. Bahr remarks, S. viii. f. : " Quite a number of 
 sections of our books (of Kings) are found in the Chronicle, where 
 the words are identical, and yet the reference there is to the writ- 
 ings of single definite persons, and not to the three original docu- 
 ments from which the Kings is compiled. Thus, in the first place, 
 in the history of Solomon, in which the sections 2 Chron. vi. 1-40 
 and 1 Kings viii. 1250, 2 Chron. vii. 7-22 and 1 Kings viii. 
 64-ix. 9, 2 Chron. viii. 2-x. 17 and 1 Kings ix. 17-xxiii. 26, 2 
 Chron. ix. 1-28 and 1 Kings x. 1-28, etc., are identical, the 
 Chronicle refers not to the book of the history of Solomon (as 
 
 1 Kings xi. 41), but to the ^n of the prophet Nathan, etc. (2 
 Chron. ix. 29) ; consequently the book of the history of Solomon 
 must either have been compiled from those three prophetic writ- 
 ings, or at least have contained considerable portions of them. 
 The case is identical with the second of the original documents, 
 the book of the history of the kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv. 29 
 and elsewhere). The narrative as to Rehoboam is identical in 
 
 2 Chron. x. 1-19 and 1 Kings xii. 1-19, as also in 2 Chron. xi. 
 1-4 and 1 Kings xii. 20-24; further, in 2, Chron. xii. 13 f. as 
 compared with 1 Kings xiv. 21 f.; but the history of the kings 
 of Judah is not mentioned as an authority, as is the case in 
 1 Kings xiv. 29, but the ""l^i of the prophet Shemaiah and the 
 seer Iddo (2 Chron. xii. 15). In the history of King Abijah we 
 are referred, in the very short account, 1 Kings xv. 1-8, for 
 further information to the book of the history of the kings of 
 Judah ; while the Chronicle, on the contrary, which gives further 
 information, quotes from the t^JI*? of the prophet Iddo (2 Chron. 
 xiii. 22). The case is similar in the history of the kings Uzziah 
 and Manasseh : our author refers in reference to both to the book 
 of the kings of Judah (2 Kings xv. 6, xx. 17) ; the chronicler 
 quotes, for the first the 2JH3 of the prophet Isaiah the son of 
 Amoz (2 Chron. xxvi. 22), for the latter 'tin nw (2 Chron. xxxiii. 
 19). By all these quotations it is satisfactorily shown that the 
 book of the kings of Judah is compiled from the historical writ-
 
 THEIR SOURCES. 37 
 
 ings of various prophets or seers." But this conclusion is neither 
 valid nor necessary. It is not valid, for this reason, that the 
 Chronicle, besides the narratives concerning the reigns of Reho- 
 boam, Abijah, Uzziah, and Manasseh, which it has in common 
 with the books of Kings, and which are in some cases identical, 
 contains a whole series of narratives peculiar to itself, which 
 perhaps were not contained at all in the larger historical work 
 on the kings of Judah, or at least were not there so complete as 
 in the special prophetic writings cited by the chronicler. As to 
 Solomon also, the Chronicle has something peculiar to itself 
 which is not found in the book of Kings. Nor is the conclu- 
 sion necessary ; for from a number of identical passages in our 
 canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, the only certain con- 
 clusion which can be drawn is, that these narratives were con- 
 tained in the authorities quoted by both writers, but not that the 
 variously named authorities form one and the same work. 
 
 By all this we are justified in maintaining the view, that the 
 writings quoted by the author of the Chronicle under the titles, 
 Words, Prophecy, Visions of this and that prophet, with the 
 exception of the two whose incorporation with the book of Kings is 
 specially mentioned, lay before him as writings separate and distinct 
 from the u Books of the Kings of Israel and Judah," that these 
 writings were also in the hands of many of his contemporaries, and 
 that he could refer his readers to them. On this supposition, we 
 can comprehend the change in the titles of the works quoted ; while 
 on the contrary supposition, that the special prophetic writings 
 quoted were parts of the larger history of the kings of Israel and 
 Judah, it remains inexplicable. But the references of the chronicler 
 are not to be understood as if all he relates, for example, of the 
 reign of David was contained in the words of the seer Samuel, 
 of the prophet Nathan, and of the seer Gad, the writings he 
 quotes for that reign. He may, as Berth. S. xxxviii. has already 
 remarked, " have made use also of authorities which he did not 
 feel called upon to name," as, for example, the lists of David's 
 heroes, 1 Chron. xi. 10-47, and of those who gave in their 
 adherence to David before the death of Saul,- and who anointed 
 him king in Hebron, chap. xii. Such also are the catalogues of 
 the leaders of the host, of the princes of the tribes, and the 
 stewards of the royal domains, chap, xxvii.; of the fathers'-houses 
 of the Levites, and the divisions of the priests, Levites, and singers, 
 etc., chap, xxiii.-xxvi. These lists contain records to whose sources
 
 38 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 he did not need to refer, even if he had extracted them from the 
 public annals of the kingdom during the reign of David, because 
 he has embodied them in their integrity in his book. 
 
 But our canonical books of Samuel and Kings are by no means 
 to be reckoned among the sources possibly used besides the writ- 
 ings which are quoted. It cannot well be denied that the author 
 of the Chronicle knew these books ; but that he has used them as 
 authorities, as de Wette, Movers, Ewald, and others think, we 
 must, with Bertheau and Dillmann, deny. The single plausible 
 ground which is usually brought forward to prove the use of 
 these writings, is the circumstance that the Chronicle contains 
 many narratives corresponding to those found in the books of 
 Samuel and Kings, and often verbally identical with them. But 
 that is fully accounted for by the fact that the chronicler used 
 the same more detailed writings as the authors of the books of 
 Samuel and Kings, and has extracted the narratives in question, 
 partly with verbal accuracy, partly with some small alterations, 
 from them. Against the supposition that the above-named 
 canonical books were used by the chronicler, we may adduce the 
 facts that the chronicle, even in those corresponding passages, 
 differs in many ways as to names and events from the account in 
 those books, and that it contains, on an average, more than they 
 do, as will be readily seen on an exact comparison of the parallel 
 sections. Other and much weaker grounds for believing that the 
 books of Samuel and Kings were used by the chronicler, are 
 refuted in my Handbook of Introduction, 141, 2 ; and in it, at 
 139, is to be found a synoptical arrangement of the parallel 
 sections. 
 
 4. THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE CHRONICLES. 
 
 The historic truth or credibility of the books of the Chronicle, 
 which de Wette, in the Beitrr. zur Einleit. 1806, violently 
 attacked, in order to get rid of the evidence of the Chronicle for 
 the Mosaic origin of the Sinaitic legislation, is now again in the 
 main generally recognised. 1 The care with which the chronicler 
 
 1 Cf. Bertheau, Com. S. xliii, and Dillmann, loc cit. The decision of the 
 latter is as follows, S. 693 : " This work has a great part of its narratives and 
 information in common with the older canonical historical books, and very 
 often corresponds verbally, or almost verbally, with them ; but another and 
 equally important part is peculiar to itself. This relationship was, formerly,
 
 THEIR HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 39 
 
 has used his authorities may be seen, on a comparison of the 
 narratives common to the Chronicle with the books of Samuel and 
 Kings, not only from the fact that in these parallel sections the 
 story of the chronicler agrees in all essential points with the 
 accounts of these books, but also from the variations which are 
 to be met with. For these variations, in respect to their matter, 
 give us in many ways more accurate and fuller information, and 
 in every other respect are of a purely formal kind, in great part 
 affecting only the language and style of expression, or arising 
 from the hortatory-didactic aim of the narrative. But this hor- 
 tatory aim has nowhere had a prejudicial effect on the objective 
 truth of the statement of historical facts, .as appears on every 
 hand on deeper and more attentive observation, but has only 
 imparted to the history a more subjective impress, as compared 
 with the objective style of the books of Kings. 
 
 Now, since the parallel places are of such a character, we are, 
 as Bertheau and Dillmann frankly acknowledge, justified in 
 believing that the author of the Chronicle, in the communication 
 of narratives not elsewhere to be found in the Old Testament, 
 has followed his authorities very closely, and that not only the 
 many registers which we find in his work the lists in 1 Chron. 
 xii., xxiii.-xxvi., xxvii. ; the catalogue of cities fortified by Reho- 
 boam, 2 Chron. xi. 6-12 ; the family intelligence, chap. xi. 18-23, 
 xxi. 2, and such matters have been communicated in exact 
 accordance with his authorities, but also the accounts of the wars 
 
 in the time of the specially negative criticism, explained by the supposition 
 that the chronicler had derived the information which he has in common with 
 these books from them, and that every difference and peculiarity arose from 
 misunderstanding, misinterpretation, a desire to ornament, intentional mis- 
 representation, and pure invention (so especially de Wette in his Beitrr., and 
 Gramberg, die Chronik nach ihrcm geschichtl. Karakter, 1823). The historic 
 credibility of the Chronicle has, however, been long ago delivered from such 
 measureless suspicions, and recognised (principally by the efforts of Kei], 
 apoloyet. Versucli, 1833 ; Movers, die bill. Chronik, 1834 ; Haevernick, in the 
 Einlcduny, 1839 ; and Ewald, in the GescMchte Israels). It is now again 
 acknowledged that the chronicler has written everywhere from authorities, 
 and that intentional fabrications or misrepresentations of the history can no 
 more be spoken of in connection with him." Only K. H. Graf has remained 
 BO far behind the present stage of Old Testament inquiry as to seek to revive 
 the views of de Wette and Gramberg as to the Chronicle and the Pentateuch. 
 For further information as to the attacks of de "Wette and Gramberg, and 
 their refutation, see my apologet. Versuche iiber die BB. der Chronik, 1833, 
 and in the Handbook of Introduction, 143 and 144.
 
 40 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoshaphat (chap, xx.), Amaziah, etc. 
 Only here and there, Bertheau thinks, has he used the opportunity 
 offered to him to treat the history in a freer way, so as to represent 
 the course of the more weighty events, and such as specially 
 attracted his attention, according to his own view. This appears 
 especially, he says, (1) in the account of the speeches of David, 1 
 Chron. xiii. 2 f., xv. 12 f., xxviii. 2-10, 20 f., xxix. 1-5 and 10- 
 19, where, too, there occur statements of the value of the precious 
 metals destined for the building of the temple (1 Chron. xxix. 
 4, 7), which clearly do not rest upon truthful historical recollec- 
 tion, and can by no means have been derived from a trustworthy 
 source ; as also in the reports of those of Abijah (2 Chron. xiii. 
 5-10) and of Asa (chap. xiv. 10, etc.) ; then (2) in the description 
 of the religious ceremonies and feasts (1 Chron. xv. and xvi. ; 2 
 Chron. v. 1 vii. 10, chap, xxix.-xxxi., chap, xxxv.) : for in both 
 speeches and descriptions expressions and phrases constantly recur 
 which may be called current expressions with the chronicler. Yet 
 these speeches stand quite on a level with those of Solomon, 2 
 Chron. i. 8-10, chap. vi. 4-11, 12-42, which are also to be found 
 in the books of Kings (1. iii. 6-9, chap. viii. 14-53), from which 
 it is to be inferred that the author here has not acted quite inde- 
 pendently, but that in this respect also older histories may have 
 served him as a model. But even in these descriptions informa- 
 tion is not lacking which must rest upon a more accurate histo- 
 rical recollection, e.g. the names in 1 Chron. xv. 5-11, 17-24 - r 
 the statement as to the small number of priests, and the help 
 given to them by the Levites, in 2 Chron. xxix. 14 f ., xxx. 1 7. 
 Yet we must, beyond doubt, believe that the author of the 
 Chronicle " has in these descriptions transferred that which had 
 become established custom in his own time, and which according 
 to general tradition rested upon ancient ordinance, without hesi- 
 tation, to an earlier period." Of these two objections so much is 
 certainly correct, that in the speeches of the persons acting in the 
 history, and in the descriptions of the religious feasts, the freer 
 handling of the authorities appears most strongly ; but no altera- 
 tions of the historical circumstances, nor additions in which the 
 circumstances of the older time have been unhistorically repre- 
 sented according to the ideas or the taste of the post-exilic age, 
 can, even here, be anywhere pointed out. With regard, first 
 of all, to the speeches in the Chronicle, they are certainly not 
 given according to the sketches or written reports of the hearers,
 
 THEIR HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 41 
 
 but sketched and composed by the historian according to a truth- 
 ful tradition of the fundamental thoughts. For although, in all 
 the speeches of the Chronicle, certain current and characteristic 
 expressions and phrases of the author of this book plainly occur, 
 yet it is just as little doubtful that the speeches of the various 
 persons are essentially different from one another in their 
 thoughts, and characteristic images and words. By this fact it 
 is placed beyond doubt that they have not been put into the 
 mouths of the historical persons either by the chronicler or by 
 the authors of the original documents upon which he relies, but 
 have been composed according to the reports or written records 
 of the ear-witnesses. For if we leave out of consideration the short 
 sayings or words of the various persons, such as 1 Chron. xi. 1 f., 
 xii. 12 f., xv. 12 f ., etc., which contain nothing characteristic, there 
 are in the Chronicle only three longer speeches of King David 
 (1 Chron. xxii. 7-16, xxviii. 2-10, 12-22, and xxix. 1-5), all of 
 which have reference to the transfer of the kingdom to his son Solo- 
 mon, and in great part treat, on the basis of the divine promise 
 (2 Sam. vii. and 1 Chron. xvii.), of the building of the temple, 
 and the preparations for this work. In these speeches the pecu- 
 liarities of the chronicler come so strongly into view, in contents 
 and form, in thought and language, that we must believe them 
 to be free representations of the thoughts which in those days 
 moved the soul of the grey-haired king. But if we compare 
 with these David's prayer (1 Chron. xxix. 10-19), we find in it 
 not only that multiplication of the predicates of God which is 
 so characteristic of David (cf. Ps. xviii.), but also, in vers. 11 
 and 15, definite echoes of the Davidic psalms. The speech of 
 Abijah, again, against the apostate Israel (2 Chron. xiii. 4-12), 
 moves, on the whole, within the circle of thought usual with the 
 chronicler, but contains in ver. 7 expressions such as D 11 !?"} D'E^K 
 and ?y_'?3 ^3, which are quite foreign to the language of the 
 Chronicle, and belong to the times of David and Solomon, and 
 consequently point to sources contemporaneous with the events. 
 The same thing is true of Hezekiah's speech (2 Chron. xxxii. 
 7, 8), in which the expression "1K>3 JrtiT, " the arm of flesh," recalls 
 the intimacy of this king with the prophet Isaiah (cf. Isa. xxxi. 
 3). The sayings and speeches of the prophets, on the contrary, 
 are related much more in their original form. Take, for in- 
 
 O 
 
 stance, the remarkable speech of Azariah ben Oded to King Asa 
 (2 Chron. xv. 1-7), which, on account of its obscurity, has been
 
 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 very variously explained, and which, as is well known, is the 
 foundation of the announcement made by Christ of the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem and the last judgment (Matt. xxiv. 6, 7 ; Luke 
 xxi. 19). As C. P. Caspari (der syrisck-epliraimit. Krieg., Chris- 
 tiania 1849, S. 54) has already remarked, it is so peculiar, and 
 bears so little of the impress of the Chronicle, that it is impos- 
 sible that it can have been produced by the chronicler himself : 
 it must have been taken over by him from his authorities almost 
 without alteration. From this one speech, whose contents he 
 could hardly have reproduced accurately in his own words, and 
 which he has consequently left almost unaltered, we can see 
 clearly enough that the chronicler has taken over the speeches 
 he communicates with fidelity, so far as their contents are con- 
 cerned, and has only clothed them formally, more or less, in his 
 own language. This treatment of the speeches in the Chronicle 
 is, however, not a thing peculiar and confined to the author of 
 this book, but is, as Delitzsch has shown (Tsaiah, p. 17 ff. tr.), 
 common to all the biblical historians ; for even in the prophecies 
 in the books of Samuel and Kings distinct traces are observable 
 throughout of the influence of the narrator, and they bear more 
 or less visibly upon them the impress of the writer who repro- 
 duces them, without their historical kernel being thereby affected. 
 Now the historical truth of the events is just as little interfered 
 with by the circumstance that the author of the Chronicle works 
 out rhetorically the descriptions of the celebration of the holy 
 feasts, represents in detail the offering of the sacrifices, and has 
 spoken in almost all of these descriptions of the musical perfor- 
 mances of the Levites and priests. The conclusion which has 
 been drawn from this, that he has here without hesitation trans- 
 ferred to an earlier time that which had become established 
 custom in his own time, would only then be correct if the re- 
 storation of the sacrificial worship according to the ordinance 
 of Leviticus, or the introduction of instrumental music and the 
 singing of psalms, dated only from the time of the exile, as de 
 Wette, Gramberg, and others have maintained. If, on the 
 contrary, these arrangements and regulations be of Mosaic, and 
 in a secondary sense of Davidic origin, then the chronicler has 
 not transferred the customs and usages of his own time to the 
 times of David, Asa, Hezekiah, and others, but has related what 
 actually occurred under these circumstances, only giving to the 
 description an individual colouring. Take, for example, the
 
 THEIR HISTORICAL CHARACTER 43 
 
 hymn (1 Chron. xvi. 8-36) which David caused to be sung by 
 Asaph and his brethren in praise of the Lord, after the transfer 
 of the ark to Jerusalem into the tabernacle prepared for it (1 
 Chron. xvi. 7). If it was not composed by David for this cere- 
 mony, but has been substituted by the chronicler, in his endeavour 
 to represent the matter in a vivid way, from among the psalms sung 
 in his own time on such solemn occasions, for the psalm which was 
 then sung, but which was not communicated by his authority, 
 nothing would be altered in the historical fact that then for the 
 first time, by Asaph and his brethren, God was praised in psalms ; 
 for the psalm given adequately expresses the sentiments and 
 feelings which animated the king and the assembled congrega- 
 tion at that solemn festival. To give another example : the 
 historical details of the last assembly of princes which David 
 held (1 Chron. xxviii.) are not altered if David did not go over 
 with his son Solomon, one by one, all the matters regarding the 
 temple enumerated in 1 Chron. xxviii. 11-19. 
 
 There now remains, therefore, only some records of numbers 
 in the Chronicle which are decidedly too large to be considered 
 either accurate or credible. Such are the sums of gold men- 
 tioned in 1 Chron. xxii. 14 and xxix. 4, 7, which David had 
 collected for the building of the temple, and which the princes of 
 the tribes expended for this purpose ; the statements as to the 
 greatness of the armies of Abijah and Jeroboam, of the number 
 of the Israelites who fell in battle (2 Chron. xiii. 3, 17), of the 
 number of King Asa's army and that of the Cushites (2 Chron. 
 xiv 7 f.), of the military force of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xvii. 
 14-18), and of the women and children who were led away cap- 
 tive under Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 8). But these numbers can- 
 not shake the historical credibility of the Chronicle in general, 
 because they are too isolated, and differ too greatly from state- 
 ments of the Chronicle in other places which are in accord- 
 ance with fact. To estimate provisionally and in general these 
 surprising statements, the more exact discussion of which belongs 
 to the Commentary, we must consider, (1) that they all contain 
 round numbers, in which thousands only are taken into account, 
 and are consequently not founded upon any exact enumeration, 
 but only upon an approximate estimate of contemporaries, and 
 attest nothing more than that the greatness of the armies, and 
 the multitude of those who had fallen in battle or were taken 
 prisoner, was estimated at so high a number ; (2) that the actual
 
 44 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 amount of the mass of gold and silver which had been collected 
 by David for the building of the temple cannot with certainty be 
 reckoned, because we are ignorant of the weight of the shekel of 
 that time ; and (3) that the correctness of the numbers given is 
 very doubtful, since it is indubitably shown, by a great number 
 of passages of the Old Testament, that the Hebrews have from 
 the earliest times expressed their numbers not by words, but by 
 letters, and consequently omissions might very easily occur, or 
 errors arise, in copying or writing out in words the sums originally 
 written in letters. Such textual errors are so manifest in not a 
 few places, that their existence cannot be doubted ; and that not 
 merely in the books of the Chronicle, but in all the historical 
 books of the Old Testament. The Philistines, according to 1 
 Sam. xiii. 5, for example, brought 30,000 chariots and 6000 
 horsemen into the field; and according to 1 Sam. vi. 19, God 
 smote of the people at Beth-shemesh 50,070 men. With respect 
 to these statements, all commentators are now agreed that the 
 numbers 30,000 and 50,000 are incorrect, and have come into 
 the text by errors of the copyists ; and that instead of 30,000 
 chariots there were originally only 1000, or at most 3000, spoken 
 of, and that the 50,000 in the second passage is an ancient gloss. 
 There is, moreover, at present no doubt among investigators of 
 Scripture, that in 1 Kings v. 6 (in English version, iv. 2 6) the 
 number 40,000 (stalls) is incorrect, and that instead of it, accord- 
 ing to 2 Chron. ix. 25, 4000 should be read ; and further, that 
 the statement of the age of King Ahaziah at 42 years (2 Chron. 
 xxii. 22), instead of 22 years (2 Kings viii. 26), has arisen by an 
 interchange of the numeral signs ID and 3. A similar case is 
 to be found in Ezra ii. 69, compared with Neh. vii. 70-72, where, 
 according to Ezra, the chiefs of the people gave 61,000 darics for 
 the restoration of the temple, and according to Nehemiah only 
 41,000 (viz. 1000 + 20,000 + 20,000). In both of these chap- 
 ters a multitude of differences is to be found in reference to the 
 number of the exiled families who returned from Babylon, which 
 can only be explained on the supposition of the numeral letters 
 having been confounded. But almost all these different state- 
 ments of numbers are to be found in the oldest translation of 
 the Old Testament, that of the LXX., from which it appears 
 that they had made their way into the MSS. before the settle- 
 ment of the Hebrew text by the Masoretes, and that conse- 
 quently the use of letters as numeral signs was customary in the
 
 THEIR HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 45 
 
 pre-Masoretic times. This use of the letters is attested and pre- 
 supposed as generally known by both Hieronymus and the rabbins, 
 and is confirmed by the Maccabean coins. That it is a primeval 
 custom, and reaches back into the times of the composition of 
 the biblical books, is clear from this fact, that the employment 
 of the alphabet as numeral signs among the Greeks coincides 
 with the Hebrew alphabet. This presupposes that the Greeks 
 received, along with the alphabet, at the same time the use of 
 the letters as numeral signs from the Semites (Phoenicians or 
 Hebrews). The custom of writing the numbers in words, which 
 prevails in the Masoretic text of the Bible, was probably first 
 introduced by the Masoretes in settling the rules for the writing 
 of the sacred books of the canon, or at least then became law. 
 
 After all these facts, we may conclude the Introduction to 
 the books of the Chronicle, feeling assured of our result, that 
 the books, in regard to their historical contents, notwithstanding 
 the hortatory-didactic aim of the author in bringing the history 
 before us, have been composed with care and fidelity according 
 to the authorities, and are fully deserving of belief. 
 
 As to the exegetical literature, see my Handbook of Introduc- 
 tion, 138.
 
 EXPOSITION. 
 
 THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES, 
 
 I. GENEALOGIES, WITH HISTORICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL 
 NOTES. CHAP. I.-IX. 
 
 || N order to show the connection of the tribal ancestors 
 of Israel with the peoples of the earth, in chap. i. are 
 enumerated the generations of the primeval world, 
 from Adam till the Flood, and those of the post- 
 diluvians to Abraham and his sons, according to the accounts 
 in Genesis ; in chap, ii.-viii., the twelve tribal ancestors of the 
 people of Israel, and the most important families of the twelve 
 tribes, are set down ; and finally, in chap, ix., we have a list 
 of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the genealogical 
 table of King Saul. The enumeration of the tribes and 
 families of Israel forms, accordingly, the chief part of the con- 
 tents of this first part of the Chronicle, to which the review 
 of the families and tribes of the primeval time and the early 
 days of Israel form the introduction, and the information as 
 to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the family of King Saul 
 the conclusion and the transition, to the following historical 
 narrative. Now, if we glance at the order in which the genea- 
 logies of the tribes of Israel are ranged, viz. (a) those of the 
 families of Judah and of the house of David, chap. ii. 1-iv. 23 ; 
 (6) those of the tribe of Simeon, with an account of their dwelling- 
 place, chap. iv. 24-43 ; (c) those of the trans-Jordanic tribes, 
 Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, chap. v. 1-26 ; 
 (d) of the tribe of Levi, or the priests and Levites, chap. v. 
 27-vi. 66 ; (<?) of the remaining tribes, viz. Issachar, Benjamin, 
 Naphtali, cis-Jordanic Manasseh, Ephraim, and Asher, chap. vii. ; 
 and of some still remaining families of Benjamin, with the family 
 of Saul, chap, viii., it is at once seen that this arrangement is 
 
 47
 
 48 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 the result of regarding the tribes from two points of view, which 
 are closely connected with each other. On the one hand, regard 
 is had to the historical position which the tribes took up, accord- 
 ing to the order of birth of their tribal ancestors, and which they 
 obtained by divine promise and guidance ; on the other hand, the 
 geographical position of their inheritance has been also taken 
 into account. That regard to the historical position and import- 
 ance of the tribes was mainly determinative, is plain from the 
 introductory remarks to the genealogies of the tribe of Reuben, 
 chap. v. 1, 2, to the effect that Reuben was the first-born of 
 Israel, but that, because of his offence against his father's bed, 
 his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, although they 
 are not specified as possessors of it in the family registers ; while 
 it is narrated that Judah, on the contrary, came to power among 
 his brethren, and that out of Judah had come forth the prince 
 over Israel. Judah is therefore placed at the head of the tribes, 
 as that one out of which God chose the king over His people ; 
 and Simeon comes next in order, because they had received their 
 inheritance within the tribal domain of Judah. Then follows 
 Reuben as the first-born, and after him are placed Gad and the 
 half tribe of Manasseh, because they had received their inherit- 
 ance along with Reuben on the other side of the Jordan. After 
 Reuben, according to age, only Levi could follow, and then after 
 L/evi come in order the other tribes. The arrangement of them, 
 however Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, 
 Asher, and again Benjamin is determined from neither the 
 historical nor by the geographical point of view, but probably 
 lay ready to the hand of the chronicler in the document used by 
 him, as we are justified in concluding from the character of all 
 these geographical and topographical lists. 
 
 For if we consider the character of these lists somewhat more 
 carefully, we find that they are throughout imperfect in their 
 contents, and fragmentary in their plan and execution. The 
 imperfection in the contents shows itself in this, that no genea- 
 logies of the tribes of Dan and Zebulun are given at all, only 
 the sons of Naphtali being mentioned (vii. 13) ; of the half tribe 
 of Manasseh beyond Jordan we have only the names of some 
 heads of f athers'-houses 1 (v. 24) ; and even in the relatively 
 
 1 It may perhaps be useful to notice here our author's use of the words 
 Geschlecht, Vaterhaus, and Familie, and the rendering of them in English. 
 As he states in a subsequent page, the Geschlechter are the larger divisions of
 
 CHAP. I.-IX. 49 
 
 copious lists of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin, only 
 the genealogies of single prominent families of these tribes are 
 enumerated. In Judah, little more is given than the families 
 descended from Pharez, chap. ii. 5-iv. 20, and a few notices of 
 the family of Shelah ; of Levi, none are noticed but the suc- 
 cession of generations in the high-priestly line of Aaron, some 
 descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, and the three 
 Levites, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, set over the service of song ; 
 while of Benjamin we have only the genealogies of three families, 
 and of the family of Saul, which dwelt at Gibeon. But the 
 incompleteness of these registers comes still more prominently 
 into view when we turn our attention to the extent of the genea- 
 logical lists, and see that only in the cases of the royal house of 
 David and the high-priestly line of Eleazar do the genealogies 
 reach to the Babylonian exile, and a few generations beyond that 
 point ; while all the others contain the succession of generations 
 for only short periods. Then, again, in regard to their plan and 
 execution, these genealogies are not only unsymmetrical in the 
 highest degree, but they are in many cases fragmentary. In the 
 tribe of Judah, besides the descendants of David, chap, iii., two 
 quite independent genealogies of the families of Judah are given, 
 in chap. ii. and iv. 1-23. The same is the case with the two 
 genealogies of the Levites, the lists in chap. vi. differing from 
 those in chap. v. 27-41 surprisingly, in vi. 1, 28, 47, 56, Levi's 
 eldest son being called Gershom, while in chap. v. 27 and 1 
 Chron. xxiii. 61, and in the Pentateuch, he is called Gershon. 
 Besides this, there is in chap. vi. 35-38 a fragment containing 
 the names of some of Aaron's descendants, who had been already 
 completely enumerated till the Babylonian exile in chap. v. 
 29-41. In the genealogies of Benjamin, too, the family of Saul 
 is twice entered, viz. in chap. viii. 29-40 and in chap. ix. 35-44. 
 The genealogies of the remaining tribes are throughout defective 
 in the highest degree. Some consist merely of an enumeration 
 of a number of heads of houses or families, with mention of their 
 
 the tribes tracing their descent from the sons of the twelve patriarchs ; the 
 Vaterhiiuser are the subdivisions descended from their grandsons or great- 
 grandsons ; while the Familien are the component parts of the Vaterhiiuser. 
 The author's use of these words is somewhat vacillating ; but Geschlecht, 
 in this connection, has always been rendered by " family," Viiterhaus by 
 " father's-house," Familie by " household," and Familiengruppen by " groups 
 of related households." TR. 
 
 D
 
 50 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 dwelling-place: as, for instance, the genealogies of Simeon, chap, 
 iv. 24-43 ; of Eeuben, Gad, half Manasseh, chap. v. 1-24 ; and 
 Ephraim, chap. vii. 28, 29. Others give only the number of men 
 capable of bearing arms belonging to the individual fathers' -houses, 
 as those of Issachar, Benjamin, and Asher, chap. vii. 2-5, 7-11, 
 40 ; and finally, of the longer genealogical lists of Judah and 
 Benjamin, those in chap. iv. 1-20 and in chap. viii. consist only 
 of fragments, loosely ranged one after the other, giving us the 
 names of a few of the posterity of individual men, whose genea- 
 logical connection with the larger divisions of these tribes is not 
 stated. 
 
 By all this, it is satisfactorily proved that all these registers 
 and lists have not been derived from one larger genealogical 
 historical work, but have been drawn together from various old 
 genealogical lists which single races and families had saved and 
 carried with them into exile, and preserved until their return 
 into the land of their fathers ; and that the author of the Chronicle 
 has received into his work all of these that he could obtain, 
 whether complete or imperfect, just as he found them. Nowhere 
 is any trace of artificial arrangement or an amalgamation of the 
 various lists to be found. 
 
 Now, when we recollect that the Chronicle was composed in 
 the time of Ezra, and that up to that time, of the whole people, 
 for the most part only households and families of the tribes of 
 Judah, Levi, and Benjamin had returned to Canaan, we will not 
 find it wonderful that the Chronicle contains somewhat more 
 copious registers of these three tribes, and gives us only frag- 
 ments bearing on the circumstances of prse-exilic times in the case 
 >of the remaining tribes. 
 
 CHAP. I. THE FAMILIES OF PRIMEVAL TIME, AND OF THE 
 ANTIQUITY OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Vers. 1-4. The patriarchs from Adam to Noah and his sons. 
 The names of the ten patriarchs of the primeval world, from 
 the Creation to the Flood, and the three sons of Noah, are given 
 according to Gen. v., and grouped together without any link of 
 connection whatever : it is assumed as known from Genesis, that 
 the first ten names denote generations succeeding one another, 
 and that the last three, on the contrary, are the names of 
 brethren.
 
 CHAP. I. 5-23. 51 
 
 Vers. 5-23. The peoples and races descended from the sons 
 of Noah. These are enumerated according to the table in Gen. 
 x. ; but our author has omitted not only the introductory and 
 concluding remarks (Gen. x. 1, 21, 32), but also the historical 
 notices of the founding of a kingdom in Babel by Nimrod, and 
 the distribution of the Japhetites and Shemites in their dwelling- 
 places (Gen. x. 5, 9-12, 186-20, and 30 and 31). The remain- 
 ing divergences are partly orthographic, such as ?2fl, ver. 5, for 
 ^avi, Gen. x. 2, and NOyi, ver. 9, for n^n. Gen. x. 7 ; and partly 
 arising from errors of transcription, as, for example, na^ ver. 6, 
 for na'n, Gen. x. 3, and conversely, ^^, ver. 7, for S^Ti, Gen. 
 x. 4, where it cannot with certainty be determined which form 
 is the original and correct one; and finally, are partly due to a 
 different pronunciation or form of the same name, as HB^Bnn, ver. 
 7, for vfrw^Rj Gen. x. 4, the a of motion having been gradually 
 fused into one word with the name, ET^o ver. 11, for B^v, Gen. 
 x. 13, just as in Amos ix. 7 we have D**B^3 for D^S ; in ver. 22, 
 <>Ty for ^niy, Gen. x. 28, where the LXX. have also Evd\, and 
 7)^ ver. 17, for PD, Gen. x. 23, which last has not yet been 
 satisfactorily explained, since Tr!' 1 ? is used in Ps. cxx. 5 with ~np of 
 an Arabian tribe. Finally, there is wanting in ver. 17 D"JN ^ 
 before py, Gen. x. 23, because, as in the case of Noah's sous, 
 ver. 4, where their relationship is not mentioned, so also in refer- 
 ence to the peoples descended from Shem, the relationship sub- 
 sisting between the names Uz, Hul, etc., and Aram, is supposed 
 to be already known from Genesis. Other suppositions as to 
 the omission of the words D"iX ^J\ are improbable. That this 
 register of seventy-one persons and tribes, descended from Shem, 
 Ham, and Japhet, has been taken from Gen. x., is placed beyond 
 doubt, by the fact that not only the names of our register exactly 
 correspond with the table in Gen. x., with the exception of the 
 few variations above mentioned, but also the plan and form of 
 both registers is quite the same. In vers. 5-9 the sections of the 
 register are connected, as in Gen. x. 2-7, by ^31 ; from ver. 10 
 onwards by "w as in Gen. ver. 8 ; in ver 17, again, by ^3, as in 
 Gen. ver. 22 ; and in ver. 18 by *vj, and ver. 19 by 17", as in Gen. 
 vers. 24 and 25. The historical and geographical explanation of 
 the names has been given in the commentary to Gen. x. Accord- 
 ing to Bertheau, the peoples descended from the sons of Noah 
 amount to seventy, and fourteen of these are enumerated as 
 descendants of Japhet, thirty of Ham, and twenty-six of Shem.
 
 52 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 These numbers he arrives at by omitting Nimrod, or not enume- 
 rating him among the sons of Ham ; while, on the contrary, he 
 takes Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, and Joktan, all of which 
 are the names of persons, for names of peoples, in contradiction 
 to Genesis, according to which the five names indicate persons, 
 viz. the tribal ancestors of the Terahites and Joktanites, peoples 
 descended from Eber by Peleg and Joktan. 
 
 Vers. 24-27. The patriarchs from Shem to Abraham. The 
 names of these, again, are simply ranged in order according to 
 Gen. xi. 10-26, while the record of their ages before the begetting 
 and after the birth of sons is omitted. Of the sons of Terah only 
 Abram is named, without his brothers ; with the remark that 
 Abram is Abraham, in order to point out to the reader that he 
 was the progenitor of the chosen people so well known from 
 Genesis (cf. chap. xvii.). 
 
 Vers. 28-34. The sons of Abraham. In ver. 28 only Isaac 
 and Ishmael are so called ; Isaac first, as the son of the promise. 
 Then, in vers. 29-31, follow the posterity of Ishmael, with the 
 remark that Ishmael was the first-born ; in vers. 32 and 33, the 
 sons of Keturah ; and finally in ver. 34, the two sons of Isaac. 
 Ver. 29 ff. The names of the generations (nilpin) of Ishmael 
 (Hebr. Yishma'el) correspond to those in Gen. xxv. 12-15, and 
 have been there explained. In ver. 32 f. also, the names of the 
 thirteen descendants of Abraham by Keturah, six sons and seven 
 grandsons, agree with Gen. xxv. 1-4 (see commentary on that 
 passage) ; only the tribes mentioned in Gen. xxv. 3, which were 
 descended from Dedan the grandson of Keturah, are omitted. 
 From this Bertheau wrongly concludes that the chronicler pro- 
 bably did not find these names in his copy of the Pentateuch. 
 The reason of the omission is rather this, that in Genesis the great- 
 grandchildren are not themselves mentioned, but only the tribes 
 descended from the grandchildren, while the chronicler wished 
 to enumerate only the sons and grandsons. Keturah is called 
 tWS after Gen. xxv. 6, where Keturah and Hagar are so named. 
 Ver. 34. The two sons of Isaac. Isaac has been already men- 
 tioned as a son of Abram, along with Ishmael, in ver. 28. But 
 here the continuation of the genealogy of Abraham is prefaced 
 by the remark that Abraham begat Isaac, just as in Gen. xxv. 
 19, where the begetting of Isaac the son of Abraham is intro- 
 duced with the same remark. Hence the supposition that the 
 registers of the posterity of Abraham by Hagar and Keturah
 
 CHAP. I. 35-42. 53 
 
 (vcrs. 28-33) have been derived from Gen. xxv., already in itself 
 so probable, becomes a certainty. 
 
 Vers. 35-42. The posterity of Esau and Seir. An extract 
 from Gen. xxxvi. 1-30. Ver. 35. The five sons of Esau are the 
 same who, according to Gen. xxxvi. 4 f., were born to him of 
 his three wives in the land of Canaan. Uhy\ is another form of 
 PT, Gen. ver. 5 (Kethibh). Vers. 36, 37. The grandchildren 
 of Esau. In ver. 36 there are first enumerated five sons of his 
 son Eliphaz, as in Gen. xxxvi. 11, for "'BV is only another form 
 of i2V (Gen.). Next to these five names are ranged in addition 
 P?y\ Worn, " Timua and Amalek," while we learn from Gen. 
 xxxvi. 12 that Tirnna was a concubine of Eliphaz, who bore to him 
 Amalek. The addition of the two names Timna and Amalek in 
 the Chronicle thus appears to be merely an abbreviation, which 
 the author might well allow himself, as the posterity of Esau were 
 known to his readers from Genesis. The name Timna, too, by 
 its form (a feminine formation), must have guarded against the 
 idea of some modern exegetes that Timna was also a son of 
 Eliphaz. Thus, then, Esau had through Eliphaz six grand- 
 children, who in Gen. xxxvi. 12 are all set down as sons of Adah, 
 the wife of Esau and the mother of Eliphaz. (Vide com. to 
 Gen. xxxvi. 12, where the change of Timna into a son of Eliphaz 
 is rejected as a misinterpretation.) Ver. 37. To Reuel, the son of 
 Esau by Bashemath, four sons were born, whose names corre- 
 spond to those in Gen. xxxvi. 13. These ten (6 + 4) grandsons 
 of Esau were, with his three sons by Aholibamah (Jeush, Jaalam, 
 and Korah, ver. 35), the founders of the thirteen tribes of the 
 posterity of Esau. They are called in Gen. xxxvi. 15 ^3 "WX 
 V^'y, heads of tribes (<f>v\ap'xpi) of the children of Esau, i.e. of 
 the Edomites, but are all again enumerated, vers. 15-19, singly. 1 
 
 1 The erroneous statement of Bertheau, therefore, that " according to 
 Genesis the Edomite people was also divided into twelve tribes, five tribes from 
 Eliphaz, four tribes from Reuel, and the three tribes which were referred im- 
 mediately to Aholibamah the wife of Esau. It is distinctly stated that Amalek 
 was connected with these twelve tribes only very loosely, for he appears as 
 the son of the concubine of Eliphaz," must be in so far corrected, that neither 
 the Chronicle nor Genesis knows anything of the twelve tribes of the Edom- 
 ites. Both books, on the contrary, mention thirteen grandsons of Esau, and 
 these thirteen grandsons are, according to the account of Genesis, the thirteen 
 phylarchs of the Edomite people, who are distributed according to the three 
 wives of Esau ; so that the thirteen families may be grouped together in three 
 tribes. Nor is Amalek connected only in a loose way with the other tribes in
 
 54 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Vers. 38-42. When Esau with his descendants had settled in 
 Mount Seir, they subdued by degrees the aboriginal inhabitants of 
 the land, and became fused with them into one people. For this 
 reason, in Gen. xxxvi. 20-30 the tribal princes of the Seirite 
 inhabitants of the land are noticed ; and in our chapter also, ver. 
 38, the names of these seven ">W ^ an d i n ve rs. 39-42 of their 
 sons (eighteen men and one woman, Timua), are enumerated, 
 where only Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, also mentioned in 
 Gen. xxxvi. 25, is omitted. 1 The names correspond, except in a 
 few unimportant points, which have been already discussed in 
 the Commentary on Genesis. The inhabitants of Mount Seir 
 consisted, then, after the immigration of Esau and his descendants, 
 of twenty tribes under a like number of phylarchs, thirteen of 
 whom were Edomite, of the family of Esau, and seven Seirite, 
 who are called in the Chronicle 1W ^3, and in Genesis """in, 
 Troglodytes, inhabitants of the land, that is, aborigines. 
 
 If we glance over the whole posterity of Abraham as they are 
 enumerated in vers. 28-42, we see that it embraces (a) his sons 
 Ishmael and Isaac, and Isaac's sons Israel and Esau (together 4 
 persons) ; (&) the sons of Ishmael, or the tribes descended from 
 Ishmael (12 names) ; (c) the sons and grandsons of Keturah (13 
 persons or chiefs) ; (d) the thirteen phylarchs descended from 
 Esau ; (e) the seven Seirite phylarchs, and eighteen grandsons 
 and a granddaughter of Seir (26 persons). We have thus in all 
 the names of sixty-eight persons, and to them we must add 
 Keturah, and Timna the concubine of Eliphaz, before we get 
 seventy persons. But these seventy must not by any means be 
 reckoned as seventy tribes, which is the result Bertheau arrives 
 at by means of strange calculations and errors in numbers. 1 
 
 Genesis : he is, on the contrary, not only included in the number of the sons 
 of Adah in ver. 12, probably because Tirana stood in the same relationship to 
 Adah the wife of Esau as Hagar held to Sarah, but also is reckoned in ver. 16 
 among the Allufim of the sons of Eliphaz. Genesis therefore enumerates not 
 five but six tribes from Eliphaz ; and the chronicler has not " completely 
 obliterated the twelvefold division," as Bertheau further maintains, but the 
 thirteen sons and grandsons of Esau who became phylarchs are all introduced ; 
 and the only thing which is omitted in reference to them is the title '"S^X 
 \&y *32 it being unnecessary in a genealogical enumeration of the descend- 
 ants of Esau. 
 
 1 That the Chronicle gives no countenance to this view appears from 
 Bertheau's calculation of the 70 tribes: from Ishmael, 12; from Keturah, 13; 
 from Isaac, 2 ; from Esau, 5 sons and 7 grandchildren by Eliphaz (Tirana,
 
 CHAP. I. 43-50. 55 
 
 Upon this conclusion he founds his hypothesis, that as the three 
 branches of the family of Noah are divided into seventy peoples 
 (which, as we have seen at page 51 f., is not the case), so 
 also the three branches of the family of Abraham are divided 
 into seventy tribes ; and in this again he finds a remarkable indi- 
 cation " that even in the time of the chronicler, men sought by 
 means of numbers to bring order and consistency into the lists 
 of names handed down by tradition from the ancient times." 
 
 Vers. 4350. The kings of Edom before the introduction of 
 the kingship into Israel. This is a verbally exact repetition of 
 Gen. xxxvi. 31-39, except that the introductory formula, Gen. 
 ver. 32, " and there reigned in Edom," which is superfluous after 
 the heading, and the addition " ben Achbor " (Gen. ver. 39) 
 in the account of the death of Baal-hanau in ver. 50, are 
 omitted ; the latter because even in Genesis, where mention is 
 made of the death of other kings, the name of the father of the 
 deceased king is not repeated. Besides this, the king called Hadad 
 (ver. 46 f.), and the city "^3 (ver. 50), are in Genesis Hadar 
 (ver. 35 f.) and WS (ver. 39). The first of these variations has 
 arisen from a transcriber's error, the other from a different pronun- 
 ciation of the name. A somewhat more important divergence, 
 however, appears, when in Gen. ver. 39 the death of the king last 
 named is not mentioned, because he was still alive in the time of 
 Moses ; while in the Chronicle, on the contrary, not only of him 
 also is it added, *nn no^, because at the time of the writing of 
 the Chronicle he had long been dead, but the list of the names 
 of the territories of the phylarchs, which in Genesis follows the 
 introductory formula niDty npfcO, is here connected with the 
 enumeration of the kings by vrw, " Hadad died, and there were 
 chiefs of Edom." This may mean that, in the view of the 
 
 ver. 30, being included in the number), and 4 grandsons by Eeuel 16 in all ; 
 from Seir 7 sons, and from these 20 other descendants, 27 in all, which makes 
 the sum of 70. But the biblical text mentions only 19 other descendants of 
 Seir, so that only 26 persons came from Seir, and the sum is therefore 12+ 
 13+2 + 16+26 = 69. But we must also object to other points in Bertheau's 
 reckoning : (1) the arbitrary change of Timua into a grandchild of Esau; (2) 
 the arbitrary reckoning of Esau and Israel (= Jacob) without Ishmael. "Was 
 Esau, apart from his sons, the originator of a people ? Had the author of the 
 Chronicle cherished the purpose attributed to him by Bertheau, of bringing 
 the lists of names handed down by tradition to the round or significant num- 
 ber 70, he would certainly in ver. 33 not have omitted the three peoples 
 descended from Dedan (Gen. xxv. 3), as he might by these names have com- 
 pleted the uuniber 70 without further trouble.
 
 56 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 chronicler, the reign of the phylarchs took the place of the king- 
 ship after the death of the last king, but that interpretation is by 
 no means necessary. The i consec. may also merely express the 
 succession of thought, only connecting logically the mention of 
 the princes with the enumeration of the kings ; or it may signify 
 that, besides the kings, there were also tribal princes who could 
 rule the land and people. The contents of the register which 
 follows require that vnl should be so understood. 
 
 Vers. 51-54. The princes of Edom. The names correspond 
 to those in Gen. xxxvi. 40-43, but the heading and the subscrip- 
 tion in Genesis are quite different from those in the Chronicle. 
 Here the heading is, " and the Allufim of Edom were," and the 
 subscription, " these are the Allufim of Edom," from which it 
 would be the natural conclusion that the eleven names given 
 are proper names of the phylarchs. But the occurrence of two 
 female names, Tirana and Aholibamah, as also of names which 
 are unquestionably those of races, e.g. Aliah, Piuon, Teman, and 
 Mibzar, is irreconcilable with this interpretation. If we compare 
 the heading and subscription of the register in Genesis, we find 
 that the former speaks of the names " of the Allufim of Edom 
 according to their habitations, 1 according to their places in their 
 names," and the latter of "the Allufim of Edom according to 
 their habitations in the land of their possession." It is there 
 unambiguously declared that the names enumerated are not the 
 names of persons, but the names of the dwelling-places of the 
 Allufim, after whom they were wont to be named. We must 
 therefore translate, " the Alluf of Timna, the Alluf of Aliah," 
 etc., when of course the female names need not cause any sur- 
 prise, as places can just as well receive their names from women 
 as their possessors as from men. Nor is there any greater diffi- 
 culty in this, that only eleven dwelling-places are mentioned, 
 while, on the contrary, the thirteen sons and grandsons of Esau 
 are called Allufim. For in the course of time the number of 
 phylarchs might have decreased, or in the larger districts two 
 phylarchs may have dwelt together. Since the author of the 
 Chronicle has taken this register also from Genesis, as the iden- 
 tity of the names clearly shows he did, he might safely assume 
 that the matter was already known from that book, and so might 
 
 1 So it is given by the author, "nach ihren "Wohnsitzen;" but this must 
 be a mistake, for the word is DninStyO= their families, not DnbtJ'lO as it is in 
 
 T : : T : 
 
 the subscription. TB.
 
 CHAP. II. 1, 2. 57 
 
 allow himself to abridge the heading without fearing any mis- 
 understanding ; seeing, too, that he does not enumerate 'B^K of 
 Esau, but Di"iK ^fr?, and Edom had become the name of a 
 country and a people. 
 
 CHAP. II.-IV. 23. THE TWELVE SONS OF ISRAEL AND THE 
 FAMILIES OF JUDAH. 
 
 The list of the twelve sons of Israel (ii. 1, 2) serves as foun- 
 dation and starting-point for the genealogies of the tribes of 
 Israel which follow, chap. ii. 3-viii. The enumeration of the 
 families of the tribe of Judah commences in ver. 3 with the 
 naming of Judah's sons, and extends to chap. iv. 23. The tribe 
 of Judah has issued from the posterity of only three of the five 
 sons of Judah, viz. from Shelah, Pharez, and Zerah ; but it was 
 subdivided into five great families, as Hezron and Hamul, the 
 two sons of Pharez, also founded families. The lists of our three 
 chapters give us : (1) from the family of Zerah only the names 
 of some famous men (ii. 6-8) ; (2) the descendants of Hezron in 
 the three branches corresponding to the three sons of Hezron, 
 into which they divided themselves (ii. 9), viz. the descendants 
 of Earn to David (ii. 10-17), of Caleb (ii. 18-24), and of Jerah- 
 meel (ii. 25-41). Then there follow in chap. ii. 42-55 four 
 other lists of descendants of Caleb, who peopled a great number 
 of the cities of Judah ; and then in chap. iii. we have a list of the 
 sons of David and the line of kings of the house of David, down 
 to the grandsons of Zerubbabel ; and finally, in chap. iv. 1-23, 
 other genealogical fragments as to the posterity of Pharez and 
 Shelah. Of Hamul, consequently, no descendants are noticed, 
 unless perhaps some of the groups ranged together in chap. iv. 
 8-22, whose connection with the heads of the families of Judah 
 is not given, are of his lineage. The lists collected in chap. iv. 
 1-20 are clearly only supplements to the genealogies of the 
 great families contained in chap. ii. and iii., which the author of 
 the Chronicle found in the same fragmentary state in which 
 they are communicated to us. 
 
 Vers. I, 2. The twelve sons of Israel, arranged as follows : 
 first, the six sons of Leah ; then Dan, the son of Rachel's hand- 
 maid ; next, the sons of Rachel ; and finally, the remaining sons 
 of the handmaids. That a different place is assigned to Dan, 
 viz. before the sons of Rachel, from that which he holds in the
 
 58 ' THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES, 
 
 list in Gen. xxxv. 23 ff., is perhaps to be accounted for by Rachel's 
 wishing the son of her maid Bilhah to be accounted her own 
 (vide Gen. xxx. 3-6). 
 
 Vers. 3-5. The sons of Judah and of Pharez, ver. 3 f. The 
 five sons of Judah are given according to Gen. xxxviii., as the 
 remark on Er which is quoted from ver. 7 of that chapter shows, 
 while the names of the five sons are to be found also in Gen. 
 xlvi. 12. The two sons of Pharez are according to Gen. xlvi. 
 12, cf. Num. xxvi. 21. 
 
 Vers. 6-8. Sons and descendants of Zerah. In ver. 6, five 
 names are grouped together as D^a of Zerah, which are found 
 nowhere else so united. The first, Zimri, may be strictly a son ; 
 but 'HOT may perhaps be a mistake for ^T, for Achan, who is in 
 ver. 7 the son of Carmi, is in Josh. vii. 1 called the son of Carmi, 
 the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah. But ""M (Josh.) may also 
 be an error for "HOT, or he may have been a son of Zimri, since in 
 genealogical lists an intermediate member of the family is often 
 passed over. Nothing certain can, however, be ascertained ; 
 both names are found elsewhere, but of persons belonging to 
 other tribes : Zimri as prince of the Simeonites, Num. xxv. 14 ; 
 as Benjamite, 1 Chron. viii. 36, ix. 42 ; and as king of Israel, 
 1 Kings xvi. 9 ; Zabdi, 1 Chron. viii. 19 (as Benjamite), and 
 xxvii. 27, Neh. xi. 17. The four succeeding names, Ethan, 
 Heman, Calcol, and Dara, are met with again in 1 Kings v. 11, 
 where it is said of Solomon he was wiser than the Ezrahite 
 Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Machol, 
 with the unimportant variation of jrm for jm. On this account, 
 Movers and Bertheau, following Clericus on 1 Kings iv. 31 
 (v. 11), hold the identity of the wise men mentioned in 1 Kings 
 v. 11 with the sons (descendants) of Zerah to be beyond doubt. 
 But the main reason which Clericus produces in support of this 
 supposition, the consensus quatuor nominum et quidem unius patris 
 fdiorum^ and the difficulty of believing that in alia familia 
 Hebrcea there should have been quatuor fratres cognomines 
 quatuor filiis Zerachi Judce filii, loses all its force from the fact 
 that the supposition that the four wise men in 1 Kings v. 11 are 
 brothers by blood, is a groundless and erroneous assumption. 
 Since Ethan is called the Ezrahite, while the last two are said 
 to be the sons of Machol, it is clear that the four were not 
 brothers. The mention of them as men famous for their wisdom, 
 does not at all require that' we should think the men contem-
 
 CHAP II. 6-8. 59 
 
 porary with each other. Even the enumeration of these four 
 along with Zimri as rnt ^a in our verse does not necessarily 
 involve that the five names denote brothers by blood ; for it is 
 plain from vers. 7 and 8 that in this genealogy only single 
 famous names of the family of Zerah the son of Judah and 
 Tamar are grouped together. But, on the other hand, the 
 reasons which go to disprove the identity of the persons in our 
 verse with those named in 1 Kings v. 11 are not of very great 
 weight. The difference in the names jm and jn~n is obviously 
 the result of an error of transcription, and the form ""niixn (1 
 Kings v. 11) is most probably a patronymic from rnt, notwith- 
 standing that in Num. xxvi. 20 it appears as ^% for even the 
 appellative T!TS, indigena^ is formed from rnt. We therefore hold 
 that the persons who bear the same names in our verse and 
 in 1 Kings v. 11 are most probably identical, in spite of the 
 addition ?in *pa to Calcol and Darda (1 Kings v. 11). For that 
 this addition belongs merely to these two names, and not to 
 Ezrah, appears from Ps. Ixxxviii. 1 and Ixxxix. 1, which, accord- 
 ing to the superscription, were composed by the Ezrahites Heman 
 and Ethan. The authors of these psalms are unquestionably the 
 Heman and Ethan who were famed for their wisdom (1 Kings 
 v. 11), and therefore most probably the same as those spoken 
 of in our verse as sons of Zerah. It is true that the authors 
 of these psalms have been held by many commentators to be 
 Levites, nay, to be the musicians mentioned in 1 Chrori. xv. 17 
 and 19 ; but sufficient support for this view, which I myself, on 
 1 Kings v. 11, after the example of Hengstenberg, Beitrr. ii. 
 S. 61, and on Ps. Ixxxviii. defended, cannot be found. The 
 statement of the superscription of Ps. Ixxxviii. 1 " a psalm of 
 the sons of Korah" from which it is inferred that the Ezrahite 
 Heman was of Levitic origin, does not justify such a conclusion. 1 
 For though the musician Heman the son of Joel was a Korahite 
 of the race of Kohath (1 Chron. vi. 18-23), yet the musician 
 Ethan the son of Kishi, or Kushaiah, was neither Korahite nor 
 Kohathite, but a Merarite (vi. 29 ff.). Moreover, the Levites 
 Heman and Ethan could not be enumerated among the Ezra- 
 
 1 The above quoted statement of the superscription of Ps. Ixxxviii. 1 can 
 contain no information as to the author of the psalm, for this reason, that the 
 author is expressly mentioned in the next sentence of the superscription. The 
 psalm can only in so far be called a song of the children of Korah, as it bears 
 the impress peculiar to the Korahite psalms in contents and form.
 
 60 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 liites, that is, the descendants of Zerah, a man of Judah. The 
 passages which are quoted in support of the view that the Levites 
 were numbered with the tribes in the midst of whom they dwelt, 
 and that, consequently, there were Judaean and Ephraimite 
 Levites, as, for example, 1 Sam. i. 1, w r here the father of the 
 Levite Samuel is called an Ephrathite because he dwelt in 
 Mount Ephraim ; and Judg. xvii. 7, where a Levite is numbered 
 with the family of Judah because he dwelt as sojourner (13) in 
 Bethlehem, a city of Judah, certainly prove that the Levites 
 were reckoned, as regards citizenship, according to the tribes or 
 cities in which they dwelt, but certainly do not show that they 
 were incorporated genealogically with those tribes because of their 
 place of residence. 1 The Levites Heman and Ethan, therefore, 
 cannot be brought forward in our verse "as adopted sons of 
 Zerah, who brought more honour to their father than his proper 
 sons " (Hengstb.). This view is completely excluded by the fact 
 that in our verse not only Ethan and Heman, but also Zimri, Cal- 
 col, and Dara are called sons of Zerah, yet these latter were not 
 adopted sons, but true descendants of Zerah. Besides, in ver. 8, 
 there is an actual son or descendant of Ethan mentioned, and 
 consequently "0? and |2 cannot possibly be understood in some 
 cases as implying only an adoptive relationship, and in the others 
 actual descent. But the similarity of the names is not of itself 
 sufficient to justify us in identifying the persons. As the name 
 Zerah again appears in chap. vi. 26 in the genealogy of the 
 Levite Asaph, so also the name Ethan occurs in the same genea- 
 logy, plainly showing that more than one Israelite bore this name. 
 The author of the Chronicle, too, has sufficiently guarded against 
 the opinion that Zerah's sons Ethan and Heman are identical 
 with the Levitical musicians who bear the same names, by tracing 
 back in chap. vi. the family of these musicians to Levi, without 
 calling them Ezrahites. 2 But to hold, with Movers, S. 237, that 
 the recurrences of the same names in various races are contra- 
 dictions, which are to be explained only on the supposition of 
 genealogical combinations by various authors, will enter into 
 
 1 Not even by intermarrying with heiresses could Levites become members 
 of another tribe ; for, according to the law, Num. xxxvi. 5 ff., heiresses could 
 marry only men of their own tribe ; and the possibility of a man of Judah 
 marrying an heiress of the tribe of Levi was out of the question, for the 
 Levites possessed no inheritance in land. 
 
 2 The supposition of Ewald and Bertheau, that these two great singers of
 
 CHAP. II. 9-41. 61 
 
 the head of no sensible critic. We therefore believe the five 
 persons mentioned in our verse to be actual descendants of the 
 Judsean Zerah; but whether they were sons or grandsons, or 
 still more distant descendants, cannot be determined. It is 
 certainly very probable that Zimri was a son, if he be identi- 
 cal with the Zabdi of Josh. vii. 1 ; Ethan and Heman may 
 have been later descendants of Zerah, if they were the wise 
 men mentioned in 1 Kings v. 11 ; but as to Calcol and Dara no 
 further information is to be obtained. From vers. 7 and 8, 
 where of the sons (^3) of Zimri and Ethan only one man in 
 each case is named, it is perfectly clear that in our genealogy 
 only individuals, men who have become famous, are grouped 
 together out of the whole posterity of Zerah. The plural ^3 in 
 vers. 7 and 8, etc., even where only one son is mentioned, is 
 used probably only in those cases where, out of a number of 
 sons or descendants, one has gained for himself by some means 
 a memorable name. This is true at least of Achan, ver. 7, who, 
 by laying hands on the accursed spoils of Jericho, had become 
 notorious (Josh. vii.). Because Achan had thus troubled Israel 
 (13V), he is called here at once Achar. As to Carmi, vide on 
 iv. 1. Ver. 9. The only name given here as that of a descen- 
 dant of Ethan is Azariah, of whom nothing further is known, 
 while the name recurs frequently. Nothing more is said of the 
 remaining sons of Zerah ; they are merely set down as famous 
 men of antiquity (Berth.). There follows in 
 
 Vers. 9-41. The family ofHezron, the first-born son of Pharez, 
 which branches off in three lines, originating with his three sons 
 respectively. The three sons of Hezron are Jerahmeel, and 
 Earn, and Chelubai ; but the families springing from them are 
 enumerated in a different order. First (vers. 10-17) we have 
 the family of Ram, because King David is descended from him ; 
 then (vers. 18-24) the family of Chelubai or Caleb, from whose 
 lineage came the illustrious Bezaleel ; and finally (vers. 25-41), 
 the posterity of the first-born, Jerahmeel. Ver. 9. tf> "ibfo nete, 
 what was born to him. The passive stands impersonally instead 
 of the more definite active, " to whom one bore," so that the 
 
 the tribe of Judah had been admitted into their guild by the Levitic musical 
 schools, and on that account had been received also into their family, and so 
 had been numbered with the tribe of Levi, is thus completely refuted, even 
 were it at all possible that members of other tribes should have been received 
 into the tribe of Levi.
 
 62 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 following names are subordinated to it with ns. The third 
 
 o 
 
 person singular Niph. occurs thus also in iii. 4 and xxvi. 6 ; 
 the construction of Niph. with nx frequently (Gen. iv. 18, xxi. 
 5, and elsewhere). Earn is called, in the genealogy in Matt, 
 i. 3, 4, Aram ; comp. D"J, Job xxxii. 2, with tns, Gen. xxii. 21. 
 QO3 is called afterwards 3^2 ; cf. on ver. 18. 
 
 Vers. 10-17 The family of Ram (vers. 10-12), traced down 
 through six members to Jesse. This genealogy is also to be 
 found in Ruth iv. 19-21 ; but only here is Nahshon made more 
 prominent than the others, by the addition, " prince of the sons 
 of Judah." Nahshon was a prince of Judah at the exodus of the 
 Israelites from Egypt (Num. i. 7, ii. 3, vii. 12). Now between 
 him, a contemporary of Moses, and Pharez, who at the immigration 
 of Jacob into Egypt was about fifteen years old, lies a period of 
 430 years, during which the Israelites remained in Egypt. For 
 that time only three names Hezron, Earn, and Amminadab are 
 mentioned, from which it is clear that several links must have been 
 passed over. So also, from Nahshon to David, for a period of 
 over 400 years, four generations Salma, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse 
 are too few ; and consequently here also the less famous ancestors 
 of David are omitted. $& is called in Euth iv. 20, 21, ne>^ and 
 Jiopb. In vers. 13-15, seven sons and two daughters of Jesse, 
 with those of their sons who became famous (vers. 16, 17), 
 are enumerated. According to 1 Sam. xvii. 12, Jesse had eight 
 sons. This account, which agrees with that in 1 Sam. xvi. 8-12, 
 may be reconciled with the enumeration in our verse, on the 
 supposition that one of the sons died without posterity. In 
 1 Sam. xvi. 6 ff. and xvii. 13, the names of the eldest three 
 Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah occur. Besides ^, we meet 
 with the form *&$ (ver. 13) ; and the name risa* is only another 
 form of HJW, which is found in 2 Sam. xiii. 3 and in 1 Chron. 
 xx. 7, and is repeated in 2 Sam. xiii. 32 and xxi. 21 in the 
 Kethibh (' ! i?DB'). The names of the other three sons here men- 
 tioned (vers. 14 and 15) are met with nowhere else. Ver. 16 f. 
 The sisters of David have become known through their heroic 
 
 o 
 
 sons. Zeruiah is the mother of the heroes of the Davidic his- 
 tory, Abishai, Joab, and Asahel (cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 6 ; 2 Sam. 
 ii. 18, iii. 3.9, viii. 16, and elsewhere). Their father is nowhere 
 mentioned, " because their more famous mother challenged the 
 greater attention" (Berth.). Abigail was, according to 2 Sam. 
 xvii. 25, the daughter of Nahash, a sister of Zeruiah, and so was
 
 CHAP. II. 18-24. 63 
 
 only a half-sister of David, and was the mother of Aniasa the 
 captain of the host, so well known on account of his share in the 
 conspiracy of Absalom ; cf. 2 Sam. xvii. 25, xix. 14, and xx. 10. 
 His father was Jether, or Jithra, the Ishmaelite, who in the 
 Masoretic text of 2 Sam. xvii. 25 is called, through a copyist's 
 error, vX"ib> s n instead of vNJflot^n ; see comm. on passage. 
 
 Vers. "18-24. The family of Caleb. That a!?3 is merely a 
 shortened form of "W3, or a form of that word resulting from 
 the friction of constant use, is so clear from the context, that all 
 exegetes recognise it. We have first (vers. 18-20) a list of the 
 descendants of Caleb by two wives, then descendants which the 
 daughter of the Gileadite Machir bore to his father Hezron 
 (vers. 21-23), and finally the sons whom Hezron's wife bore him 
 after his death (ver. 24). The grouping of these descendants of 
 Hezron with the family of Caleb can only be accounted for by 
 supposing that they, had, through circumstances unknown to us, 
 come into a more intimate connection with the family of Caleb 
 than with the families of his brothers Ram and Jerahmeel. In 
 vers. 42-55 follow some other lists of descendants of Caleb, 
 which will be more fully considered when we come to these 
 verses. The first half of the 18th verse is obscure, and the text 
 is probably corrupt. As the words stand at present, we must 
 translate, '' Caleb the son of Hezron begat with Azubah, a 
 woman, and with Jerioth, and these are her (the one wife's) 
 sons, Jesher," etc. n^a, filii ejus, suggests that only one wife of 
 Caleb had been before mentioned ; and, as appears from the 
 "and Azubah died" of ver. 19, Azubah is certainly meant. 
 The construction DS tWI, " he begat with," is, it is true, un- 
 usual, but is analogous to fl? T?i n , viii. 9, and is explained by 
 the fact that 1WI may mean to cause to bear, to bring to bear- 
 ing ; cf . Isa. Ixvi. 9 : therefore properly it is, " he brought 
 Azubah to bearing." The difficulty of the verse lies in the 
 nijP'VTiitt n^Kj for, according to the usual phraseology, we would 
 have expected iJT^X instead of n$X. But n$x may be, under 
 the circumstances, to some extent justified by the supposition 
 that Azubah is called indefinitely " woman," because Caleb had 
 several wives. nijPTTiitt gives no suitable meaning. The ex- 
 planation of Kimchi, " with Azubah a woman, and with Jerioth," 
 cannot be accepted, for only the sons of Azubah are hereafter 
 mentioned ; and the idea that the children of the other wives 
 are not enumerated here because the list used by the chronicler
 
 64 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 i 
 
 was defective, is untenable : for after two wives had been named 
 in the enumeration of the children of one of them, the mother 
 must necessarily have been mentioned ; and so, instead of n^a, we 
 should have had nairjj ya. Hiller and J. H. Michaelis take nan 
 as explicative, " with Azubah a woman, viz. with Jerioth ; " but 
 this is manifestly only the product of exegetical embarrassment. 
 The text is plainly at fault, and the easiest conjecture is to read, 
 with the Peschito and the Vulgate, nx \nvfa instead of nw ntf, 
 " he begat with Azubah his wife, Jerioth (a daughter) ; and 
 these are her sons." In that case ne>tf would be added to " | ?1TJ[, to 
 guard against n 2itl| being taken for ace. obj. The names of the 
 sons of Azubah, or of her daughter Jerioth, do not occur elsewhere. 
 Ver. 19. When Azubah died, Caleb took Ephrath to wife, who 
 bore him Hur. For rnBN we find in ver. 50 the lengthened femi- 
 nine form nni T E)K ; cf. also iv. 4. From Hur descended, by Uri, 
 the famous Bezaleel, the skilful architect of the tabernacle (Ex. 
 xxxi. 2, xxxv. 30). Vers. 21-24. The descendants of Hezron 
 numbered with the stock of Caleb : (a) those begotten by Hezron 
 with the daughter of Machir, vers. 21-23; (b) those born to 
 Hezron after his death, ver. 24. Ver. 21. Afterwards (">?*?)> i.e. 
 after the birth of the sons mentioned in ver. 9, whose mother is 
 not mentioned, when he was sixty years old, Hezron took to wife 
 the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, who bore him 
 Segub. Machir was the first-born of Manasseh (Gen. 1. 23 ; 
 Num. xxvi. 29). But Machir is not called in vers. 21 and 23 
 the father of Gilead because he was the originator of the 
 Israelite population of Gilead, but 3S has here its proper signi- 
 fication. Machir begot a son of the name of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 
 29); and it is clear from the genealogy of the daughters of Zelo- 
 phehad, communicated in Num. xxvii. 1, that this expression is 
 to be understood in its literal sense. Machir is distinguished 
 from other men of the same name (cf. 2 Sam. ix. 4, xvii. 27) 
 by the addition, father of Gilead. Segub the son of Hezron 
 and the daughter of Machir begat Jair. This Jair, belonging 
 on his mother's side to the tribe of Manasseh, is set down in 
 Num. xxxii. 40 f., Deut. iii. 14, as a descendant of Manasseh. 
 After Moses' victory over Og king of Bashan, Jair's family 
 conquered the district of Argob in Bashan, i.e. in the plain of 
 Jaulan and Hauran; and to the conquered cities, when they 
 were bestowed upon him for a possession by Moses, the name 
 Havvoth-Jair, i.e. Jair's-life, was given. Cf. Num. xxxii. 41
 
 CHAP. II. 18-24. G5 
 
 and Deut. iii. 14, where this name is explained. These are the 
 twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead, i.e. Peraa. Ver. 23. 
 These cities named Jair's-life were taken away from the Jairites 
 by Geshur and Aram, i.e. by the Arameans of Geshur and of 
 other places. Geshur denotes the inhabitants of a district of 
 Aram, or Syria, on the north-western frontier of Bashan, in the 
 neighbourhood of Hermon, on the east side of the upper Jordan, 
 which had still its own kings in the time of David (2 Sam. iii. 3, 
 xiii. 37, xiv. 23, xv. 8), but which had been assigned to the 
 Manassites by Moses; cf. Josh. xiii. 13. The following 'ttl J"tii?~nx 
 must not be taken as an explanatory apposition to TW rtirrnx : 
 "Jair's-life, Kenath and her daughters, sixty cities" (Berth.). 
 For since crixo refers to the collective name Jair, Geshur and 
 Aram could not take away from Jair sixty cities, for Jair only 
 possessed twenty-three cities. But besides this, according to 
 Num. xxxii. 42, Kenath with her daughters had been conquered 
 by Nobah, who gave his own name to the conquered cities; and 
 according to Deut. iii. 4, the kingdom of Og in Bashan had 
 sixty fenced cities. But this kingdom was, according to Num. 
 xxxii. 41 and 42, conquered by two families of Manasseh, by 
 Jair and Nobah, and was divided between them ; and as appears 
 from our passage, twenty-three cities were bestowed upon Jair, 
 and all the rest of the land, viz. Kenath with her daughters, fell 
 to Nobah. These two domains together included sixty fenced 
 cities, which in Deut. iii. 14 are called Jair's-life ; while here, in 
 our verse, only twenty-three cities are so called, and the remain- 
 ing thirty-seven are comprehended under the name of Kenath 
 and her daughters. We must therefore either supply a 1 copul. 
 before rwpTiK, or we must take 'P~ns in the signification " with 
 Kenath/' and refer Ty DW to both Jair's-life and Kenath. Cf. 
 herewith the discussion on Deut. iii. 12-14 ; and for Kenath, 
 the ruins of which still exist under the name Kanuat on the 
 western slope of the Jebel Hauran, see the remarks on Num. 
 xxxii. 42. The time when these cities were taken away by the 
 Arameans is not known. From Judg. x. 4 we only learn that 
 the Jair who was judge at a later time again had possession of 
 thirty of these cities, and renewed the name Jair's-life. n ^"' ) 3 
 is not all these sixty cities, but the before-mentioned descendants 
 of Hezron, who are called sons, that is offspring, of Machir, 
 because they were begotten with the daughter of Machir. Only 
 two names, it is true, Segub and Jair, are enumerated ; but from
 
 66 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 these two issue the numerous families which took Jair's-life. To 
 these, therefore, must we refer the HpX'73. Ver. 24. After the 
 death of Hezron there was born to him by his wife Abiah (the 
 third wife, cf. vers. 9 and 21) another son, Ashur, the father 
 of Tekoa, whose descendants are enumerated in chap. iv. 5-7. 
 Hezron's death took place nrnaK afca, " in Caleb Ephrathah." 
 This expression is obscure. According to 1 Sam. xxx. 14, a part 
 of the Negeb (south country) of Judah was called Negeb Caleb, 
 as it belonged to the family of Caleb. According to this analogy, 
 the town or village in which Caleb dwelt with his wife Ephrath 
 may have been called Caleb of Ephrathah, if Ephrath had brought 
 this place as a dower to Caleb, as in the case mentioned in Josh, 
 xv. 18 f. Ephrathah, or Ephrath, was the ancient name of 
 Bethlehem (Gen. xxxiii. 19, xlviii. 1), and with it the name of 
 Caleb's wife Ephrath (ver. 19) is unquestionably connected ; 
 probably she was so called 'after her birthplace. If this supposi- 
 tion be well founded, then Caleb of Ephrathah would be the little 
 town of Bethlehem. Ashur is called father (^N) of Tekoa, i.e. 
 lord and prince, as the chief of the inhabitants of Tekoa, now 
 Tekua, two hours south of Bethlehem (vide on Josh. xv. 59). 
 
 Vers. 25-41. The family of Jerahmeel, the first-born of 
 Hezron, which inhabited a part of the Negeb of Judah called 
 after him the south of the Jerahmeelites (1 Sam. xxvii. 10, xxx. 
 29). Ver. 25. Four sons were born to Jerahmeel by his first 
 wife. Five names indeed follow ; but as the last, | " ! * n ^, although 
 met with elsewhere as a man's name, is not ranged with the 
 others by 1 copul., as those that precede are with each other, 
 it appears to be the name of a woman, and probably a D has 
 fallen out after the immediately preceding D. So Cler., J. H. 
 Mich., Berth. This conjecture gains in probability from the 
 mention in ver. 26 of another wife, whence we might expect 
 that in ver. 25 the first wife would be named. Ver. 26. Only 
 one son of the second wife is given, Onam, whose posterity 
 follows in vers. 28-33 ; for in ver. 27 the three sons of Earn, the 
 first-born of Jerahmeel, are enumerated. Ver. 28. Onam had 
 two sons, Shammai and Jada ; the second of these, again, two 
 sons, Nadab and Abishur. Ver. 29. To Abishur his wife 
 Abihail bore likewise two sons, with whom his race terminates. 
 In vers. 30, 31, Nadab's posterity follow, in four members, 
 ending with Ahlai, in the fourth generation. But Ahlai cannot 
 well have been a son, but must have been a daughter, the heiress
 
 CHAP. II. 42-45. 67 
 
 of Shcslian ; for, according to ver. 34, Sheshan had no sons, 
 but only daughters, and gave his daughter to an Egyptian slave 
 whom he possessed, to wife, by whom she became the mother of 
 a numerous posterity. The |^ V.? is not irreconcilable with 
 this, for V.? denotes in genealogies only descendants in general, 
 and has been here correctly so explained by Hiller in Onomast. 
 p. 736 : quicquid liabu.it liberorum, sive nepotum, sustulit ex unica 
 filia Achlai. Vers. 32 and 33. The descendants of Jada, the 
 brother of Shammai, in two generations, after which this genea- 
 logy closes with the subscription, " these were the sons of Jerah- 
 meel." 1 In vers. 34-41 there follows the family of Sheshan, 
 which was originated by the marriage of his daughter with his 
 Egyptian slave, and which is continued through thirteen genera- 
 tions. The name of this daughter is in ver. 25 f. not mentioned, 
 but she is without doubt the Ahlai mentioned in ver. 31. But 
 since this Ahlai is the tenth in descent from Judah through 
 Pharez, she was probably born in Egypt ; and the Egyptian slave 
 Jarha was most likely a slave whom Sheshan had in Egypt, and 
 whom he adopted as his son for the propagation of his race, by 
 giving him his daughter and heir to wife. If this be the case, 
 the race begotten by Jarha with the daughter of Sheshan is 
 traced down till towards the end of the period of the judges. 
 The Egyptian slave Jarha is not elsewhere met with ; and though 
 the names which his posterity bore are found again in various 
 parts of the Old Testament, of none of them can it be proved 
 that they belonged to men of this family, so as to show that one 
 of these persons had become famous in history. 
 
 Vers. 42-55. Other renowned descendants of Caleb. First of 
 all there are enumerated, in vers. 42-49, three lines of descend- 
 ants of Caleb, of which the two latter, vers. 46-49, are the issue 
 of concubines. The first series, vers. 42-45, contains some 
 things which are very obscure. In ver. 42 there are mentioned, 
 as sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel, Mesha his first-born, 
 
 1 Bertheau reckons up to "the concluding subscription in ver. 33 "the 
 following descendants of Judah : " Judah's sons =5 ; Hezron and Hamul = 2 ; 
 Zerah's sous=5; Karnii, Akar, and Azariah = 3; Earn and his descendants 
 (including the two daughters of Jesse, and Jeter the father of Amasa)=21 ; 
 Kaleb and hisdescendants=10; Jerahmeel and his descendants =24: together 
 = 70." But this number also is obtained only by taking into account the father 
 and mother of Amasa as two persons, contrary to the rule according to which 
 only the father, without the mother, is to be counted, or, in case the mother 
 be more famous than the father, or be an heiress, only the mother.
 
 G8 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 with the addition, " this is the father of Ziph ; and the sons of 
 Mareshah, the father of Hebron," as it reads according to the 
 traditional Masoretic text. Now it is here not only very sur- 
 prising that the sons of Mareshah stand parallel with Mesha, 
 but it is still more strange to find such a collocation as " sons of 
 Mareshah the father of Hebron." The last-mentioned difficulty 
 would certainly be greatly lessened if we might take Hebron to 
 be the city of that name, and translate the phrase " father of 
 Hebron/' lord of the city of Hebron, according to the analogy of 
 father of Ziph," father of Tekoa" (ver. 24), and other names 
 of that sort. But the continuation of the genealogy, a and the 
 sons of Hebron were Korah, and Tappuah, Kekem, and Shema" 
 (ver. 43), is irreconcilable with such an interpretation. For of 
 these names, Tappuah, i.e. apple, is indeed met with several times as 
 the name of a city (Josh. xii. 17, xv. 34, xvi. 8) ; and Rekem is the 
 name of a city of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 27), but occurs also twice 
 as the name of a person once of a Midianite prince (Num. xxxi. 
 8), and once of a Manassite (1 Chron. vii. 16) ; but the other 
 two, Korah and Shema, only occur as the names of persons. In 
 ver. 44 f., moreover, the descendants of Shema and Rekem are 
 spoken of, and that, too, in connection with the word T^in, " he 
 begat," which demonstrably can only denote the propagation of 
 a race. We must therefore take Hebron as the name of a 
 person, as in v. 28 and Ex. vi. 18. But if Hebron be the name 
 of a man, then Mareshah also must be interpreted in the same 
 manner. This is also required by the mention of the sons of 
 Mareshah parallel with Mesha the first-born ; but still more so 
 by the circumstance that the interpretation of Mareshah and 
 Hebron, as names of cities, is irreconcilable with the position 
 of these two cities, and with their historical relations. Bertheau, 
 indeed, imagines that as Mareshah is called the father of Hebron, 
 the famous capital of the tribe of Judah, we must therefore make 
 the attempt, however inadmissible it may seem at first sight, to take 
 Mareshah, in the connection of our verse, as the name of a city, 
 which appears as father of Hebron, and that we must also conclude 
 that the ancient city Hebron (Num. xiii. 23) stood in some sort of 
 dependent relationship to Mareshah, perhaps only in later times, 
 although we cannot at all determine to what time the representation 
 of our verse applies. But at the foundation of this argument there 
 lies an error as to the position of the city Mareshah. Mareshah 
 lay in the Shephelah (Josh. xv. 44), and exists at present as the
 
 CHAP. II. 42-15. 69 
 
 ruin Marasch, twenty-four minutes south of Beit-Jibrin : vide 
 on Josh. xv. 44; and Tobler, Dritte Wanderuny, 129 and 142 f. 
 Zipli, therefore, which is mentioned in 2 Chron. xi. 8 along with 
 Mareshah, and which is consequently the Ziph mentioned in our 
 verse, cannot be, as Bertheau believes, the Ziph situated in the 
 hill country of Judah, in the wilderness of that name, whose 
 ruins are still to be seen on the hill Zif, about four miles south- 
 east from Hebron (Josh. xv. 55). It can only be the Ziph in the 
 Shephelah (Josh. xv. 24), the position of which has not indeed 
 been discovered, but which is to be sought in the Shephelah 
 at no great distance from Marasch, and thus far distant from 
 Hebron. Since, then, Mareshah and Ziph were in the Shephelah, 
 no relation of dependence between the capital, Hebron, situated 
 in the mountains of Judah, and Mareshah can be thought of, 
 neither in more ancient nor in later time. The supposition of 
 such a dependence is not made probable by tlie remark that we 
 cannot determine to what time the representation of our verse 
 applies; it only serves to cover the difficulty w r hich renders it 
 impossible. That the verse does not treat of post-exilic times 
 is clear, although even after the exile, and in the time of the 
 Maccabees and the Romans, Hebron was not in a position of 
 dependence on Marissa. Bertheau himself holds Caleb, of whose 
 son our verses treat, for a contemporary of Moses and Joshua, 
 because in ver. 49 Achsa is mentioned as daughter of Caleb 
 (Josh. xv. 16; Judg, i. 12). The contents of our verse would 
 therefore have reference to the first part of the period of the 
 judges. But since Hebron was never dependent on Mareshah 
 in the manner supposed, the attempt, which even at first sight 
 appeared so inadmissible, to interpret Mareshah as the name of 
 a city, loses all its support. For this reason, therefore, the city 
 of Hebron, and the other cities named in ver. 43 ff., which per- 
 haps belonged to the district of Mareshah, cannot be the sons of 
 Mareshah here spoken of ; and the fact that, of the names men- 
 tioned in vers. 43 and 44, at most two may denote cities, while 
 the others are undoubtedly the names of persons, points still more 
 clearly to the same conclusion. We must, then, hold Hebron and 
 Mareshah also to be the names of persons. Now, if the Masoretic 
 text be correct, the use of the phrase, " and the sons of Mareshah 
 the father of Hebron," instead of " and Mareshah, the sons of the 
 father of Hebron," can only have arisen from a desire to point 
 out, that besides Hebron there were also other sons of Mareshah
 
 70 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES 
 
 who were of Caleb's lineage. But the mention of the sons of 
 Mareshah, instead of Mareshah, and the calling him the father 
 of Hebron in this connection, make the correctness of the tradi- 
 tional text very questionable. Kimchi has, on account of the 
 harshness of placing the sons of Mareshah on a parallel with 
 Mesha the first-born of Caleb, supposed an ellipse in the expres- 
 sion, and construes '"i ym, et ex filiis Ziphi Mareshah. But this 
 addition cannot be justified. If we may venture a conjecture in. so 
 obscure a matter, it would more readily suggest itself that ntJh 
 is an error for V^O, and that |i~i2n 'as is to be taken as a nomen 
 compos., when the meaning would be, " and the sons of Mesha 
 were Abi-Hebron." The probability of the existence of such a 
 name as Abihebron along with the simple Hebron has many 
 analogies in its favour : cf. Dan and Abidan, Num. i. 11 ; Ezer, 
 xii. 9, Neh. iii. 19, with Abi-ezer ; Nadab, Ex. vi. 23, and Abi- 
 nadab. In the same family even we have Abiner, or Abner, the 
 son of Ner (1 Sam. xiv. 50 f. ; 2 Sam. ii. 8 ; cf. Ew. 273, S. 
 666, 7th edition). Abihebron would then be repeated in ver. 43, 
 in the shortened form Hebron, just as we have in Josh. xvi. 8 
 Tappuah, instead of En-Tappuah, Josh. xvii. 7. The four names 
 introduced as sons of Hebron denote persons, not localities : 
 cf. for Korah, i. 35, and concerning Tappuah and Rekem the 
 above remark (p. 68). In ver. 44 are mentioned the sons of 
 Rekem and of Shema, the latter a frequently recurring man's 
 name (cf. v. 8, viii. 13, xi. 44 ; Neh. viii. 4). Shema begat 
 Raham, the father of Jorkam. The name &J7J5T is quite un- 
 known elsewhere. The LXX. have rendered it 'Ie/eXai>, and 
 Bertheau therefore holds Jorkam to be the name of a place, and 
 conjectures that originally BJ^T (Josh* xv - 56) stood here also. 
 But the LXX. give also 'leickav for the following name Qj^i, 
 from which it is clear that we cannot rely much on their autho- 
 rity. The LXX. have overlooked the fact that Dpi, ver. 44, is 
 the son of the Hebron mentioned in ver. 43, whose descendants 
 are further enumerated. Shaminai occurs as a man's name also 
 in ver. 28, and is again met with in iv. 17. His son is called in 
 ver. 45 Maon, and Maon is the father of Bethzur. "WTP3 is 
 certainly the city in the mountains of Judah which Rehoboam 
 fortified (2 Chron. xi. 7), and which still exists in the ruin Bet- 
 sur, lying south of Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron. Maon 
 also was a city in the mountains of Judah, now Main (Josh. 
 xv. 55) ; but we cannot allow that this city is meant by the
 
 CHAP. II. 46-49. 71 
 
 name |U', because Maon is called on the one hand the son of 
 Shammai, and on the other is father of Bethzur, and there are 
 no well-ascertained examples of a city being represented as son 
 (i?) of a man, its founder or lord, nor of one city being called 
 the father of another. Dependent cities and villages are called 
 daughters (not sons) of the mother city. The word PJ?, " dwell- 
 ing," does not per se point to a village or town, and in Judg. 
 x. 12 denotes a tribe of non-Israelites. 
 
 Vers. 46-49. Descendants of Caleb by two concubines. The 
 name ns' i y occurs in ver. 47 and i. 33 as a man's name. Caleb's 
 concubine of this name bore three sons : Haran, of whom nothing 
 further is known ; Moza, which, though in Josh, xviii. 26 it is the 
 name of a Benjamite town, is not necessarily on that account the 
 name of a town here ; and Gazez, unknown, perhaps a grand- 
 son of Caleb, especially if the clause " Haran begat Gazez " 
 be merely an explanatory addition. But Haran may also have 
 given to his son the name of his younger brother, so that a son 
 and grandson of Caleb may have borne the same name. Ver, 
 47. The genealogical connection of the names in this verse is 
 entirely wanting ; for Jahdai, of whom six sons are enumerated, 
 appears quite abruptly. Hiller, in Onomast., supposes, but with- 
 out sufficient ground, that "'"in 1 ", is another name of Moza. Of 
 his sons' names, Jotham occurs frequently of different persons ; 
 Ephah, as has been already remarked, is in i. 33 the name of a 
 chief of a Midianite tribe; and lastly, Shaaph is used in ver. 49 
 of another person. Ver. 48 f. Another concubine of Caleb was 
 called Maachah, a not uncommon woman's name ; cf. iii. 2, vii. 
 16, viii. 29, xi. 43, etc. She bore Sheber and Tirhanah, names 
 quite unknown. The masc. "yj instead of the fern. n"p^ ver. 46, 
 is to be explained by the supposition that the father who begat 
 was present to the mind of the writer. Ver. 49. Then she bore 
 also Shaaph (different from the Shaaph in ver. 47), the father 
 of Madmannah, a city in the south of Judah, perhaps identical 
 with Miniay or Minieh, southwards from Gaza (see on Josh. xv. 
 31). Sheva (David's Sopher (scribe) is so called in the Keri of 
 2 Sam. xx. 25), the father of Machbenah, a village of Judah not 
 further mentioned, and of Gibea, perhaps the Gibeah mentioned 
 in Josh. xv. 57, in the mountains of Judah, or the village Jeba 
 mentioned by Robinson, Palest, ii. p. 327, and Tobler, Dritte 
 Wanderung, S. 157 f., on a hill in the Wady Musurr (vide on 
 Josh. xv. 57). This list closes with the abrupt remark, " and
 
 72 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Caleb s daughter was Achsah." This notice can only refer to 
 the Achsah so well known in the history of the conquest of the 
 tribal domain of Judah, whom Caleb had promised, and gave as a 
 reward to the conqueror of Debir (Josh. xv. 16 ff. ; Judg. i. 12) ; 
 otherwise in its abrupt form it would have no meaning. Women 
 occur in the genealogies only when they have played an important 
 part in history. Since, however, the father of this Achsah was 
 Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who was about forty years old when 
 the Israelites left Egypt, while our Caleb, on the contrary, is called 
 in ver. 42 the brother of Jerahmeel, and is at the same time 
 designated son of Hezron, the son of Pharez (ver. 9), these 
 two Calebs cannot be one person : the son of Hezron must 
 have been a much older Caleb than the son of Jephunneh. The 
 older commentators have consequently with one voice distin- 
 guished the Achsah mentioned in our verse from the Achsah in 
 Josh. xv. 16; while Movers, on the contrary (Chron. S. 83), 
 would eliminate from the text, as a later interpolation, the notice 
 of the daughter of Caleb. Bertheau, however, attempts to prove 
 the identity of Caleb the son of Hezron with Caleb the son of 
 Jephunneh. The assertion of Movers is so manifestly a critical 
 tour de force, that it requires no refutation ; but neither can we 
 subscribe to Bertheau's view. He is, indeed, right in rejecting 
 Ewald's expedient of holding that vers. 18-20 and 45-50 are to 
 be referred to Chelubai, and vers. 4249 to a Caleb to be care- 
 fully distinguished from him ; for it contradicts the plain sense of 
 the words, according to which both Chelubai, ver. 9, and Caleb, 
 vers. 18 and 42, is the son of Hezron and the brother of Jerah- 
 meel. But what he brings forward against distinguishing Caleb 
 the father of Achsah, ver. 49, from Caleb the brother of Jerah- 
 meel, ver. 42, is entirely w r anting in force. The reasons adduced 
 reduce themselves to these : that Caleb the son of Jephunneh, 
 the conqueror and possessor of Hebron, might well be called in 
 the genealogical language, which sometimes expresses geographi- 
 cal relations, the son of Hezron, along with Ram and Jerahmeel, 
 as the names Ram and Jerahmeel certainly denote families in 
 Judah, who, originally at least, dwelt in other domains than that 
 of Caleb ; and again, that the individual families as well as the 
 towns and villages in these various domains may be conceived of 
 as sons and descendants of those who represent the great families 
 of the tribe, and the divisions of the tribal territory. But we 
 must deny the geographical signification of the genealogies when
 
 CHAP. II. 50-55. 73 
 
 pressed so far as this : for valid proofs are entirely wanting that 
 towns are represented as sons and brothers of other towns ; and 
 the section vers. 42-49 does not treat merely, or principally, of 
 the geographical relations of the families of Judah, but in the 
 first place, and in the main, deals with the genealogical rami- 
 fications of the descendants and families of the sons of Judah. 
 It by no means follows, because some of these descendants are 
 brought forward as fathers of cities, that in vers. 4249 towns and 
 their mutual connection are spoken of; and the names Caleb, Ram, 
 and Jerahmeel do not here denote families, but are the names 
 of the fathers and chiefs of the families which descended from 
 them, and dwelt in the towns just named. We accordingly dis- 
 tinguish Caleb, whose daughter was called Achsah, and whose 
 father was Jephunneh (Josh. xv. 16 ff.), from Caleb the brother 
 of Jerahmeel and the son of Hezron. But we explain the men- 
 tion of Achsah as daughter of Caleb, at the end of the genea- 
 logical lists of the persons and families descended by concubines 
 from Caleb, by the supposition that the Caleb who lived in the 
 time of Moses, the son of Jephunneh, was a descendant of an 
 older Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel. But it is probable that 
 the Caleb in ver. 49 is the same who is called in ver. 42 the 
 brother of Jerahmeel, and whose descendants are specified vers. 
 4249 ; and we take the word ri2, " daughter," in its wider sense, 
 as signifying a later female descendant, because the father of the 
 Achsah so well known from Josh. xv. 16 ff. is also called son of 
 Jephunneh in the genealogy, chap. iv. 15. 
 
 Vers. 50-55. The families descended from Caleb through his 
 son Ilur. Ver. 50. The superscription, " These are the sons 
 (descendants) of Caleb," is more accurately defined by the addi- 
 tion, " the son of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah ; " and by this 
 definition the following lists of Caleb's descendants are limited to 
 the families descended'from his son Hur. That the words 'Ul "nn~}3 
 are to be so understood, and not as apposition to 373, " Caleb the 
 son of Hur," is shown by ver. 19, according to which Hur is a 
 son of Caleb and Ephrath. On that account, too, the relation- 
 ship of Hur to Caleb is not given here ; it is presupposed as known 
 from ver. 19. A famous descendant of Hur has already been 
 mentioned in ver. 20, viz. Bezaleel the son of Uri. Here, in 
 vers. 50 and 51, three sous of Hur are named, Shobal, Salma, 
 and Hareph, with the families descended from the first two. All 
 information is wanting as to whether these sons of Hur were
 
 74 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 brothers of Uri, or his cousins in nearer, or remoter degree, as 
 indeed is every means of a more accurate determination of the 
 degrees of relationship. Both |3 and lyin in genealogies mark 
 only descent in a straight line, while intermediate members of 
 a family are often omitted in the lists. Instead of "NTf^, 
 "WT'^a might have been expected, as two sons are mentioned. 
 The singular }? shows that the words are not to be fused with 
 the following into one sentence, but, as the Masoretic punctuation 
 also shows, are meant for a superscription, after which the names 
 to be enumerated are ranged without any more intimate logical 
 connection. For the three names are not connected by the 1 copul. 
 They stand thus : " sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah ; 
 Shobal . . . Salma . . . Hareph." Shobal is called father of Kir- 
 jath-jearim, now Kureyet el Enab (see on Josh. ix. 17). Salma, 
 father of Bethlehem, the birth-place of David and Christ. This 
 Salma is, however, not the same person as Salma mentioned in 
 ver. 1 1 and Ruth iv. 20 among the ancestors of David ; for the 
 latter belonged to the family of Earn, the former to the family 
 of Caleb. Hareph is called the father of Beth-Geder, which is 
 certainly not the same place as Gedera, Josh. xv. 36, which lay 
 in the Shephelah, but is probably identical with Gedor in the hill 
 country, Josh. xv. 58, west of the road which leads from Hebron 
 to Jerusalem (vide on chap. xii. 4). Nothing further is told of 
 Hareph, but in the following verses further descendants of both 
 the other sons of Hur are enumerated. Vers. 52 and 53. Shobal 
 had sons, rrimtsn ^n nx'-in. These words, which are translated in 
 the Vulgate, qui videbat dimidium requietionum, give, so interpreted, 
 no fitting sense, but must contain proper names. The LXX. have 
 made from them three names, 'Apaa /cal Alai /cal ''A^aviQ^ on 
 mere conjecture. Most commentators take n&on for the name of 
 the man who, in chap. iv. 2, is called under the name Reaiah, 
 rpfcn, the son of Shobal. This is doubtless correct ; but we must 
 not take ns'in for another name of Reaiah, but, with Bertheau, 
 must hold it to be a corruption of n ^"|, or a conjecture arising 
 from a false interpretation of ninjBn 'Tfn by a transcriber or 
 reader, who did not take Hazi-Hammenuhoth for a proper 
 name, but understood it appellatively, and attempted to bring 
 some sense out of the words by changing fTta into the participle 
 DNi. The ^nasn Vtfn in ver. 54 corresponds to our rrirusn H yn, as 
 one half of a race or district corresponds to the other, for the con- 
 nection between the substantive niroen and the adjective
 
 CHAP. II. 50-55. 75 
 
 cannot but be acknowledged. Now, although nrwo signifies 
 resting-place (Num. x. 33 ; Judg. xx. 43), and the words " the 
 half 9f the resting-place," or "of the resting-places," point in 
 the first instance to a district, yet not only does the context 
 require that Hazi-Hammenuhoth should signify a family sprung 
 from Shobal, but it is demanded also by a comparison of our 
 phrase with TiroDn ^'H in ver. 54, which unquestionably denotes 
 a family. It does not, however, seem necessary to alter the fiirusn 
 into ""fln^? 5 for as in ver. 54 Bethlehem stands for the family in 
 Bethlehem descended from Salma, so the district Hazi-Ham- 
 menuhoth may be used in ver. 52 to denote the family residing 
 there. As to the geographical position of this district, see on 
 ver. 54. Ver. 53. Besides the families mentioned iu ver. 52, 
 the families of Kirjath-jearim, which in ver. 53 are enumerated 
 by name, came of Shobal also. 'P ninBEnpl is simply a continua- 
 tion of the families already mentioned, and the remark of Berth., 
 that " the families of Kirjath-jearim are moreover distinguished 
 from the sons of Shobal," is as incorrect as the supplying of 1 cop. 
 before 'en 'sn in ver. 52 is unnecessary. The meaning is simply 
 this : Shobal had sons Reaiah, Hazi-Hammenuhoth, and the 
 families of Kirjath-jearim, viz. the family of Jether, etc. David's 
 heroes, Ira and Gareb, xi. 40, 2 Sam. xxiii. 38, belonged to the 
 
 family of Jether P"in s n). The other three families are not met 
 
 / V* ! . 
 
 with elsewhere. TORD, of these, the four families of Kirjath-jearim 
 
 just mentioned, came the Zoreathites and the Eshtaulites, the inha- 
 bitants of the town of Zoreah, the home of Samson, now the ruin 
 Sura, and of Eshtaol, which perhaps may be identified with Urn 
 Eshteyeh (see in Josh. xv. 33). Vers. 54 and 55. The descend- 
 ants of Salma : Bethlehem, i.e. the family of Bethlehem (see on 
 ver. 52), the Netophathites, i.e. the inhabitants of the town of 
 Netophah, which, according to our verse and Ezra ii. 22, and 
 especially Neh. vii. 26, is to be looked for in the neighbourhood 
 of Bethlehem (cf. ix. 16) ; a family which produced at various 
 times renowned men (cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 28 f . ; 2 Kings xxv. 23 ; 
 Ezra ii. 22). The following words, '" '2 HiiDy, i.e. li crowns of the 
 house of Joab," can only be the name of a place which is men- 
 tioned instead of its inhabitants; for nntjy occurs elsewhere, 
 sometimes alone, and sometimes in conjunction with a proper 
 name, as the name of places : cf.' Num. xxxii. 34 f. ; Josh. xvi. 
 2, 5, 7, xviii. 13. Hazi-Hammanahath is certainly to be sought 
 in the neighbourhood of Manahath, viii. 6, whose position has,
 
 76 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 however, not yet been ascertained. T^T! is only another form 
 of ''fijn-vn, and is derived from the masculine of the word. 
 The Zorites here spoken of formed a second division of the 
 inhabitants of Zoreah and the neighbourhood, along with the 
 Zoreathites descended from Shobal, ver. 53. Ver. 55. " And 
 the families of the writers (scribes) who inhabited Jabez." The 
 position of the town Jabez, which is mentioned only here, and 
 which derived its name from a descendant of Judah, has not 
 yet been discovered, but is to be sought somewhere in the 
 neighbourhood of Zoreah. This may be inferred from the fact 
 
 L- 
 
 that of the six Xv?& ^3, two are always more closely connected 
 with each other by 1 cop. : (1) Bethlehem and Netophathite, 
 (2) Ataroth-beth-Joab and Hazi-Hammanahath, (3) the Zorites 
 and the families of the Sopherim inhabiting Jabez. These last 
 were divided into three branches, DTijnn, DTiyoiy, DTD^t?, i.e. 
 those descended from Tira, Shimea, and Suchah. The Vulgate 
 has taken these words in an appellative sense of the occupations of 
 these three classes, and translates canentes et resonantes et in taber- 
 naculis commemorantes. But this interpretation is not made even 
 probable by all that Bertheau has brought forward in support of 
 it. Even if D'Ti^tJ' might perhaps be connected with n3D ? and 
 interpreted " dwellers in tabernacles," yet no tenable reason dan 
 be found for translating Q"fiy")n and 0^*?^ by canentes et resonantes. 
 'nypB'j from 'lypB', " that which is heard," cannot signify those 
 who repeat in words and song that which has been heard ; and 
 "Tijnn no more means canentes than it is connected (as Bertheau 
 tries to show) with 0^"]$?, " doorkeepers " (the Chaldee jnri 
 being equivalent to the Hebrew "W) ; and the addition, " These 
 are the Kenites who came of Hemath, the father of the house of 
 Kechab" (JJ? N13 ? to issue from any one, to be descended from 
 any one), gives no proof of this, for the phrase itself is to us 
 so very obscure. B^i? are not inhabitants of the city Kain 
 (Josh. xv. 57) in the tribal domain of Judah (Kimchi), but, 
 judging from the succeeding relative sentence, were descendants 
 of Keni the father-in-law of Moses (Judg. i. 16), who had come 
 with Israel to Canaan, and dwelt ^iere among the Israelites 
 (Judg. iv. 11, 17, v. 24 ; 1 Sam. xv. 6, xxvii. 10, xxx. 29) ; and 
 Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab, i.e. of the Rechabites 
 (Jer. xxxv. 6), is probably the grandfather of Jonadab the son 
 of Rechab, with whom Jehu entered into alliance (2 Kings x. 
 15, 23). But how can the families of Sopherim inhabiting
 
 CHAP. in. 1-9. 77 
 
 Jabez, which are here enumerated, be called descendants of 
 Salma, who is descended from Hur the son of Caleb, a man of 
 Judah, if they were Kenites, who issued from or were descend- 
 ants of the grandfather of the family of the Rechabites ? From 
 lack of information, this question cannot be answered with cer- 
 tainty. In general, however, we may explain the incorporation 
 of the Kenites in the Judjcan family of the Calebite Salma, on 
 the supposition that one of these Kenites of the family of Hobab, 
 the brother-in-law of Moses, married an heiress of the race of 
 Caleb. On this account the children and descendants sprung 
 of this marriage would be incorporated in the family of Caleb, 
 although they were on their father's side Kenites, and where 
 they followed the manner of life of their fathers, might continue 
 to be regarded as such, and to bear the name. 
 
 Chap. iii. The sons and descendants of David. After the 
 enumeration of the chief families of the two sons of Hezron, 
 Caleb and Jerahmeel, in chap. ii. 18-55, the genealogy of Ram 
 the second son of Hezron, which in chap. ii. 10-17 was only 
 traced down to Jesse, the father of the royal race of David, is in 
 chap. iii. again taken up and further followed out. In vers. 1-9 
 all the sons of David are enumerated ; in vers. 10-16, the line of 
 kings of the house of David from Solomon to Jeconiah and 
 Zedekiah ; in 17-21, the descendants of Jeconiah to the grand- 
 sons of Zerubbabel ; and finally, in vers. 2224, other descendants 
 of Shechaniah to the fourth generation. 
 
 Vers. 1-9. The sons of David : (a) Those born in Hebron ; 
 (b) those born in Jerusalem. Vers. 1-4. The six sons born in 
 Hebron are enumerated also in 2 Sam. iii. 2-5, with mention of 
 their mother as here : but there the second is called 3S?3 ; here, on 
 the contrary, ^KJOT, a difference which cannot well have arisen 
 through an error of a copyist, but is probably to be explained on 
 the supposition that this son had two different names. In refer- 
 ence to the others, see on 2 Sam. iii. The sing, v *6i3 "IB>K after 
 a preceding plural subject is to be explained as in ii. 9. *3B>, 
 without the article, for inaeto, 2 Sam. iii. 3, or fiJBton, 1 Chron. 
 v. 12, is surprising, as all ^the other numbers have the article ; 
 but the enumeration, the first-born, a second, the third, etc., may 
 be justified without any alteration of the text being necessary. 
 But the difference between our text and that of 2 Sam. in regard 
 to the second son, shows that the chronicler did not take the 
 register from 2 Sam. iii. The preposition ? before Dwas* seems
 
 78 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 to have come into the text only through a mistake occasioned by 
 the preceding ?^n&6, for no reason is apparent for any strong 
 emphasis which might be implied in the ? being placed on the 
 name of Absalom. The addition of to^K to rpjy (ver. 3) seems 
 introduced only to conclude the enumeration in a fitting way, as 
 the descent of Eglah had not been communicated ; just as, for 
 a similar reason, the additional clause "the wife of David" is 
 inserted in 2 Sam. iii. 5, without Eglah being thereby distin- 
 guished above the other wives as the most honoured. The 
 concluding formula, u six were born to him in Hebron " (ver. 4), 
 is followed by a notice of how long David reigned in Hebron 
 and in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam. ii. 11 and 55), which is intended 
 to form a fitting transition to the following list of the sons who 
 were born to him in Jerusalem. Vers. 5-8. In Jerusalem thirteen 
 other sons were born to him, of whom four were the children of 
 Bathsheba. The thirteen names are again enumerated in the 
 history of David, in chap. xiv. 7-11, while in the parallel pas- 
 sage, 2 Sam. v. 1416, only eleven are mentioned, the two last 
 being omitted (see on the passage). Some of the names are 
 somewhat differently given in these passages, owing to differ- 
 ences of pronunciation and form : ^iM?^ is in both places JW2E> ; 
 JflD^pX, between Ibhar and Eliphalet, is in chap. xiv. more cor- 
 rectly written Jftt?yK. Elishama is clearly a transcriber's error, 
 occasioned by one of the following sons bearing this name. 
 tWSvX shortened in xiv. 6 into t3727N, and nJiJ are wanting in 2 
 
 V V V;7 V V : V / T 7 . O 
 
 Sain. v. 15, probably because they died early. JTJ^, ver - 8, 2 
 Sam. v. 16, appears in chap. xiv. 7 as jnvj?3 5 the mother also 
 of the four first named, IWn?, the daughter of Ammiel, is else- 
 where always JDB>~ri3, e.g. 2 Sam. xi. 3, and 1 Kings i. 11, 15, 
 etc. ; and her father, Eliam (2 Sam. xi. 3). jwra has been 
 
 derived from jntfna a nd jntfna is softened from jnstfn ; but DK 
 
 T '. . / T *. . . . . T V. 
 
 has arisen by transposition of the two parts of the name ^W, 
 or Ammiel has been altered to Eliam. Besides these, David had 
 also sons by concubines, whose names, however, are nowhere met 
 with. Of David's daughters only Tamar is mentioned as " their 
 sister," i.e. sister of the before-mentioned sons, because she had 
 become known in history through Amnon's crime (2 Sam. xiii.). 
 Vers. 10-16. The kings of the house of David from Solo- 
 mon till the exile. Until Josiah the individual kings are men- 
 tioned in their order, each with the addition fo3, son of the 
 preceding, vers. 10-14; the only omission being that of the
 
 CHAP. III. 10-16. 79 
 
 usurper Athaliab, because she did not belong to the posterity 
 of David. But in ver. 15 four sons of Josiah are mentioned, 
 not " in order to allow of a halt in the long line of David's 
 descendants after Josiah the great reformer" (Berth.), but 
 because with Josiah the regular succession to the throne in the 
 house of David ceased. For the younger son Jehoahaz, who 
 was made king after his father's death by the people, was soon de- 
 throned by Pharaoh-Necho, and led away captive to Egypt ; and 
 of the other sons Jehoiakim was set up by Pharaoh, and Zedekiah 
 by Nebuchadnezzar, so that both were only vassals of heathen 
 lords of the land, and the independent kingship of David came 
 properly to an end with the death of Josiah. Johanan, the first- 
 born of the sons of Josiah, is not to be identified with Jehoahaz, 
 whom the people raised to the throne. For, in the first place, 
 it appears from the statement as to the ages of Jehoahaz and 
 Jehoiakim in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, 36, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 2, 5, that 
 Jehoahaz was two years younger than Jehoiakim, and conse- 
 quently was not the first-born. In Jer. xxii. 11 it is expressly 
 declared that Shallum, the fourth son of Josiah, was king of 
 Judah instead of his father, and was led away into captivity, 
 and never saw his native land again, as history narrates of 
 Jehoahaz. From this it would appear that Shallum took, as 
 king, the name Jehoahaz. Johanan, the first-born, is not met 
 with again in history, either because he died early, or because 
 nothing remarkable could be told of him. Jehoiakim was called 
 Eliakim before he was raised to the throne (2 Kings xxiii. 
 24). Zedekiah was at first Mattaniah (2 Kings xxiv. 17). 
 Zedekiah, on his ascending the throne, was younger than Shal- 
 lum, and that event occurred eleven years after the accession of 
 Shallum = Jehoahaz. Zedekiah was only twenty-one years old, 
 while Jehoahaz .had become king in his twenty-third year. But 
 in our genealogy Zedekiah is introduced after Jehoiakim, and 
 before Shallum, because, on the one hand, .Jehoiakim and Zede- 
 kiah had occupied the throne for a longer period, each having 
 been eleven years king ; and on the other, Zedekiah and Shallum 
 were sons of Hamutal (2 Kings xxiii. 31, xxiv. 18), while Jehoi- 
 akim was the son of Zebudah (2 Kings xxiii. 36). According 
 to age, they should have followed each other in this order Jo- 
 hanan, Jehoiakim, Shallum, and Zedekiah ; and in respect to 
 their kingship, Shallum should have stood before Jehoiakim. 
 But in both cases those born of the same mother, Hamutal, would
 
 80 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 have been separated. To avoid this, apparently, Shallum has 
 been enumerated in the fourth place, along with his full brother 
 Zedekiah. In ver. 6 it is remarkable that a son of Jehoiakim's 
 son Jeconiah is mentioned, named Zedekiah, while the sons of 
 Jeconiah follow only in vers. 17 and 18. Jeconiah (cf. Jer. 
 xxiv. 1 ; shortened Coniah, Jer. xxii. 24, 28, and xxxvii. 1) is 
 called, as king, in 2 Kings xxiv. 8 ff. and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, 
 Jehoiachin, another form of the name, but having the same 
 signification, " Jahve founds or establishes." Zedekiah can only 
 be a son of Jeconiah, for the fas which is added constantly 
 denotes that the person so called is the son of his predecessor. 
 Many commentators, certainly, were of opinion that Zedekiah 
 was the same person as the brother of Jehoiakim mentioned in 
 ver. 15 under the name Zidkijahu, and who is here introduced 
 as son of Jeconiah, because he was the successor of Jeconiah on 
 the throne. For this view support was sought in a reference to 
 ver. 10 ff., in which all Solomon's successors in the kingship are 
 enumerated in order with fa?. But all the kings who succeeded 
 each other from Solomon to Josiah were also, without exception, 
 sons of their predecessors ; so that there fa? throughout denotes a 
 proper son, while King Zedekiah, on the contrary, was not the son, 
 but an uncle of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin). We must therefore hold 
 i"^i?1Y for a literal son of Jeconiah, and that so much the more, 
 because the name n'pIV differs also from ^jnVj as the name of 
 the king is constantly written in 2 Kings xxiv. 17 ff. and in 2 
 Chron. xxxvi. 10. But mention is made of this Zedekiah in 
 ver. 16 apart from the other sons of Jeconiah (vers. 17 and 18), 
 perhaps because he was not led away captive into exile with 
 the others, but died in Judah before the breaking up of the 
 kingdom. 
 
 Vers. 17-24. The descendants of the captive and exiled 
 Jeconiah, and other families. Ver. 17. In the list of the sons of 
 Jeconiah it is doubtful if "IBK be the name of a son, or should be 
 considered, as it is by Luther and others, an appellative, "prisoner," 
 in apposition to ^33^ " the sons of Jeconiah, the captive, is 
 Shealtiel " (A. V. Salathiel). The reasons which have been ad- 
 vanced in favour of this latter interpretation are : the lack of the 
 conjunction with PN'WXti' ; the position of fa? after 'n!>X5J>, not after 
 ")DN ; and the circumstance that Assir is nowhere to be met with, 
 either in Matt. i. 12 or in Seder olam zuta, as an intervening 
 member of the family between Jeconiah and Shealtiel (Berth.).
 
 CHAP. III. 17-24. 81 
 
 But none of these reasons is decisive. The want of the conjunc- 
 tion proves absolutely nothing, for in ver. 18 also, the last three 
 names are grouped together without a conjunction ; and the 
 position of 133 after 'rbxw is just as strange, whether Shealtiel 
 be the first named son or the second, for in ver. 18 other sons of 
 Jeconiah follow, and the peculiarity of it can only be accounted 
 for on the supposition that the case of Shealtiel differs from that 
 of the remaining sons. The omission of Assir in the genealogies 
 in Matthew and the Seder olarn also proves nothing, for in the 
 genealogies intermediate members are often passed over. Against 
 the appellative interpretation of the word, on the contrary, the 
 want of the article is decisive; as apposition to n ^9o ^ should 
 have the article. But besides this, according to the genealogy of 
 Jesus in Luke iii. 27, Shealtiel is a son of Neri, a descendant of 
 David, of the lineage of Nathan, not of Solomon ; and accord- 
 ing to Hagg. i. 1, 12, Ezra iii. 2, v. 2, and Matt. i. 12, Zerub- 
 babel is sou of Shealtiel ; while, according to vers. 18 and 19 of 
 our chapter, he is a son of Pedaiah, a brother of Shealtiel. 
 These divergent statements may be reconciled by the following 
 combination. The discrepancy in regard to the enumeration of 
 Shealtiel among the sons of Jeconiah, a descendant of Solomon, 
 and the statement that he was descended from Neri, a descendant 
 of Nathan, Solomon's brother, is removed by the supposition 
 that Jeconiah, besides the Zedekiah mentioned in ver. 16, who 
 died childless, had another son, viz. Assir, who left only a 
 daughter, who then, according to the law as to heiresses (Num. 
 xxvii. 8, xxxvi. 8 f.), married a man belonging to a family of 
 her paternal tribe, viz. Neri, of the family of David, in the line 
 of Nathan, and that from this marriage sprang Shealtiel, Mal- 
 chiram, and the other sons (properly grandsons) of Jeconiah 
 mentioned in ver. 18. If we suppose the eldest of these, Sheal- 
 tiel, to come into the inheritance of his maternal grandfather, 
 he would be legally regarded as his legitimate son. In our 
 genealogy, therefore, along with the childless Assir, Shealtiel is 
 introduced as a descendant of Jeconiah, while in Luke he is 
 called, according to his actual descent, a sou of Neri. The other 
 discrepancy in respect to the descendants of Zerubbabel is to be 
 explained, as has been already shown on Hagg. i. 1, by the law of 
 Levirate marriage, and by the supposition that Shealtiel died 
 without any male descendants, leaving his wife a widow. In 
 such a case, according to the law (Deut. xxv. 5-10, cf. Matt.
 
 82 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 xxii. 24-28), it became the duty of one of the brothers of the 
 deceased to marry his brother's widow, that he might raise up 
 seed, i.e. posterity, to the deceased brother ; and the first son 
 born of this marriage would be legally incorporated with the 
 family o the deceased, and registered as his son. After Sheal- 
 tiel's death, his second brother Pedaiah fulfilled this Levirate 
 duty, and begat, in his marriage with his sister-in-law, Zerubbabel, 
 who was now regarded, in all that related to laws of heritage, as 
 Shealtiel's son, and propagated his race as his heir. According 
 to this right of heritage, Zerubbabel is called in the passages 
 quoted from Haggai and Ezra, as also in the genealogy in 
 Matthew, the son of Shealtiel. The iJ3 seems to hint at this 
 peculiar position of Shealtiel with reference to the proper de- 
 scendants of Jeconiah, helping to remind us that he was son of 
 Jeconiah not by natural birth, but only because of his right of 
 heritage only, on his mother's side. As to the orthography of the 
 name i>fcrr6fci>, see on Hagg. i. 1. The six persons named in ver. 
 18 are not sons of Shealtiel, as Kimchi, Hiller, and others, and 
 latterly Hitzig also, on Hagg. i. 1, believe, but his brothers, as 
 the cop. 1 before B'VGpD requires. The supposition just men- 
 tioned is only an attempt, irreconcilable with the words of the 
 text, to form a series, thus : Shealtiel, Pedaiah his son, Zerub- 
 babel his son, so as to get rid of the differences between our 
 verse and Hagg. i. 1, Ezra iii. 2. In vers. 19 and 20, sons and 
 grandsons of Pedaiah are registered. Nothing further is known 
 of the Bne Jeconiah mentioned in ver. 18. Pedaiah' s son Zerub- 
 babel is unquestionably the prince of Judah who returned to 
 Jerusalem in the reign of Cyrus in the year 536, at the head of 
 a great host of exiles, and superintended their settlement anew 
 in the land of their fathers (Ezra i. vi.). Of Shimei nothing 
 further is known. In vers. 19& and 20, the sons of Zerubbabel 
 are mentioned, and in ver. 2 la two grandsons are named. In- 
 stead of the singular |31 some MSS. have V.?S and the old versions 
 also have the plural. This is correct according to the sense, 
 although J31 cannot be objected to on critical grounds, and may 
 be explained by the writer's having had mainly in view the one 
 son who continued the line of descendants. By the mention of 
 their sister after the first two names, the sons of Zerubbabel are 
 divided into two groups, probably as the descendants of different 
 mothers. How Shelomith had gained such fame as to be re- 
 ceived into the family register, we do not know. Those men-
 
 CHAP. III. 17-24. 83 
 
 tionecl in ver. 20 are brought together in one group by the 
 number " five." IDn 1V)\ grace is restored," is one name. 
 The grandsons of Zerubbabel, Pelatiah and Jesaiah, were with- 
 out doubt contemporaries of Ezra, -who returned to Jerusalem 
 from Babylon seventy-eight years after Zerubbabel. 
 
 After these grandsons of Zerubbabel, there are ranged in ver. 
 21&, without any copula whatever, four families, the sons of 
 Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc.; and of the last named of 
 these, the sons of Shecaniah, four generations of descendants are 
 enumerated in vers. 22-24, without any hint as to the genea- 
 logical connection of Shecaniah with the grandsons of Zerubbabel. 
 The assertion of more modern critics, Ewald, Bertheau, and 
 others, that Shecaniah was a brother or a son of Pelatiah or 
 Jesaiah, and that Zerubbabel's family is traced down through 
 six generations, owes its origin to the wish to gain support for 
 the opinion that the Chronicle was composed long after Ezra, 
 and is without any foundation. The argument of Bertheau, 
 that " since the sons of Rephaiah, etc., run parallel with the 
 preceding names Pelatiah and Jesaiah, and since the continua- 
 tion of the list in ver. 22 is connected with the last mentioned 
 Shecaniah, we cannot but believe that Pelatiah, Jesaiah, Re- 
 phaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah are, without exception, 
 sons of Hananiah," would be well founded if, and only if, the 
 names Rephaiah, Arnan, etc., stood in our verse, instead of the 
 sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., for Pelatiah and 
 Jesaiah are not parallel with the sons of Arnan. Pelatiah and 
 Jesaiah may perhaps be sons of Hananiah, but not the sons of 
 Rephaiah, Arnan, etc. These would be grandsons of Hananiah, 
 on the assumption that Rephaiah, Arnan, etc., were brothers of 
 Pelatiah and Jesaiah, and sons of Hananiah. But for this assump- 
 tion there is no tenable ground ; it would be justified only if our 
 present Masoretic text could lay claim to infallibility. Only on 
 the ground of a belief in this infallibility of the traditional text 
 could we explain to ourselves, as Bertheau does, the ranging of 
 the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., along with Pela- 
 tiah and Jesaiah, called sons of Hananiah, by supposing that 
 Rephaiah, Arnan, Obadiah, and Shecaniah are not named as 
 individuals, but are mentioned together with their families, because 
 they were the progenitors of famous races, while Pelatiah and 
 Jesaiah either had no descendants at all, or none at least who 
 were at all renowned. The text, as we have it, in which the sons
 
 84 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of Rephaiah, etc., follow the names of the grandsons of Zerub- 
 babel without a conjunction, and in which the words n^3E> ""pn^ 
 and a statement of the names of one of these D^2 and his further 
 descendants, follow the immediately preceding n^3B> rn, has no 
 meaning, and is clearly corrupt, as has been recognised by 
 Heidegger, Vitringa, Carpzov, and others. Owing, however, to 
 want of information from other sources regarding these families 
 and their connection with the descendants of Zerubbabel, we 
 have no means whatever of restoring the original text. The sons 
 of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, etc., were, it may be supposed, 
 branches of the family of David, whose descent or connection 
 with Zerubbabel is for us unascertainable. The list from "!"! ^.3, 
 ver. 21&, to the end of the chapter, is a genealogical fragment, 
 which has perhaps come into the text of the Chronicle at a later 
 time. 1 Many of the names which this fragment contains are met 
 with singly in genealogies of other tribes, but nowhere in a con- 
 nection from which we might draw conclusions as to the origin 
 of the families here enumerated, and the age in which they lived. 
 Bertheau, indeed, thinks " we may in any case hold Hattush, 
 ver. 22, for the descendant of David of the same name mentioned 
 in Ezra viii. 2, who lived at the time of Ezra;" but he has 
 apparently forgotten that, according to his interpretation of our 
 verse, Hattush would be a great-grandson of Zerubbabel, who, 
 even if he were then born, could not possibly have been a man 
 and the head of a family at the time of his supposed return from 
 Babylon with Ezra, seventy-eight years after the return of his 
 great-grandfather to Palestine. Other men too, even priests, 
 have borne the name Hattush; cf. Neh. iii. 10, x. 5, xii. 2. 
 There returned, moreover, from Babylon with Ezra sons of 
 Shecaniah (Ezra viii. 3), who may as justly be identified with the 
 sons of Shecaniah mentioned in ver. 22 of our chapter as fore- 
 fathers or ancestors of Hattush, as the Hattush here is identified 
 with the Hattush of Ezra viii. 2. But from the fact that, in 
 the genealogy of Jesus, Matt, i., not a single one of the names of 
 
 1 Yet at a very early time, for the LXX. had before them our present text, 
 and sought to make sense of it by expressing the four times recurring ^3^ 
 ver. 21fe, by the singular foa in every case, as follows : xeti 'Itot'cc; vlo; UVTW, 
 ' P(px vto; avTov,' Opvcc vlo; etvrov, etc. ; according to which, between Hananiah 
 and Shecaniah seven consecutive generations would be enumerated, and 
 Zerubbabel's family traced down through eleven generations. So also Vulg. 
 and Syr.
 
 CHAP. IV. 1, 2. 85 
 
 descendants of Zerubbabel there enumerated coincides with the 
 names given in our verses, we may conclude that the descendants 
 of Shecaniah enumerated in vers. 22-24 did not descend from 
 Zerubbabel in a direct line. Intermediate members are, it is 
 true, often omitted in genealogical lists ; but who would maintain 
 that in Matthew seven, or, according to the other interpretation 
 of our verse, nine, consecutive members have been at one bound 
 overleapt ? This weighty consideration, which has been brought 
 forward by Clericus, is passed over in silence by the defenders 
 of the opinion that our verses contain a continuation of the gene- 
 alogy of Zerubbabel. The only other remark to be made about 
 this fragment is, that in ver. 22 the number of the sons of 
 Shecaniah is given as six, while only five names are mentioned, 
 and that consequently a name must have fallen out by mistake 
 in transcribing. Nothing further can be said of these families, 
 as they are otherwise quite unknown. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 123. FRAGMENTS OF THE GENEALOGIES OF 
 DESCENDANTS AND FAMILIES OF JUDAH. 
 
 Ver. 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 (ii. 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 chap. ii. Hezron is the son of Pharez, and 
 consequently grandson of Judah, ii. 8. Carmi, a descendant of 
 Zerah, the brother of Pharez, see on ii. 6, 7. Hur is a son of 
 Caleb, the son of Hezron, by Ephratah (see on ii. 19 and 50) ; 
 and Shobal is the son of Hur, who has just been mentioned (ii. 
 50). These five names do not denote here, any more than in 
 chap, ii., " 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 
 
 O O 
 
 origin to them, although in the enumeration which follows the 
 genealogical connection of the various groups is not clearly 
 brought out. The enumeration begins, 
 
 Ver. 2, with the descendants of ShobaL As to Reaiah the son 
 of Shobal, see ii. 52. He begat Jahath, a name often occurring
 
 86 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 in Levite families, cf. vi. 5, 28, xxiii. 10 if., xxiv. 22, 2 Chron. 
 xxxiv. 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 ii. 53, were descended from sons of Shobal. 
 Our verse therefore gives more detailed information regarding 
 the lineage of these families. 
 
 Vers. 3 and 4 contain notices of the descendants of Hur. 
 The first words of the third verse, " these, father of Etam, 
 Jezreel," have no meaning ; but the last sentence of the second 
 verse suggests that nin2B> should be supplied, when we read, 
 " and these are the families of (from) Abi-Etam." The LXX. 
 and Vulgate have nwy Ml r6x, which is also to be found in 
 several codices, while other codices read Dt^y ^K '33 nta. Both 
 readings are probably only conjectures. Whether swy "ax is to 
 be taken as- the name of a person, or appellatively, father =: lord 
 of Etam, cannot be decided. DB^ is in ver. 32, and probably also 
 in Judg. xv. 8, 11, the name of a town of the Simeonites ; and in 
 2 Chron. xi. 6, the name of a little town in the highlands of Judah, 
 south of Jerusalem. If DB'Jf be the name of a place, only the 
 last named' can be here meant. The names Jezreel, Ishrna, and 
 Idbash denote persons as progenitors and head of families or 
 branches of families. For ?NJP.r. as the name of a person, cf. 
 Hos. i. 4. That these names should be those of persons is 
 required by the succeeding remark, " and their sister Hazelel- 
 poni." The formation of this name, with the derivative termina- 
 tion i t seems to express a relationship of race ; but the word may 
 also be an adjective, and as such may be a proper name : cf . Ew. 
 273, e. Ver. 4. Penuel, in Gen. xxii. 31 f., Judg. viii. 8, name of 
 a place in the East- Jordan land, as here, and in viii. 25 the name 
 of a man. Gedor is, we may suppose, the town of that name in 
 the mountains of Judah, which is still to be found in the ruin 
 Jedur (see on Josh. xv. 58). Penuel is here called father 
 of Gedor, while in ver. 18 one Jered is so called, whence we 
 must conclude that the inhabitants of Gedor were descended 
 from both. Ezer (Help) occurs in vii. 21, xii. 9, Neh. iii. 19, of 
 other men ; father of Hushah, i.e. according to the analogy of 
 Abi-Gedor, also the name of a place not elsewhere mentioned, 
 where the hero Sibbecai had his birth, xi. 29, 2 Sam. xxiii. 27. 
 Those thus named in vers. 3 and 4 are sons of Hur, the first-born 
 of Ephratah (ii. 19), the father of Bethlehem. The inhabitants
 
 CHAP. IV. 5-10. 87 
 
 of Bethlehem then, according to this, were descended from Hur 
 through his son Salma, who is called in ii. 51 father of Bethle- 
 hem. The circumstance, too, that in our verses (3 and 4) other 
 names of persons are enumerated as descendants of Hur than 
 those given in ii. 50-55 gives rise to no discrepancy, for there is 
 no ground for the supposition that in ii. 50-55 all the descend- 
 ants of Hur have been mentioned. 
 
 Vers. 5-7. Sons ofAshur, the father of Tekoa, who, according 
 to ii. 24, was a posthumous son of Hezron. Ashur had two wives, 
 Helah and Naarah. Of the latter came four sons and as many 
 families : Ahuzam, of whom nothing further is known ; Hepher, 
 also unknown, but to be distinguished from the Gileadite of the 
 same name in chap. xi. 36 and Num. xxvi. 32 f. The conjecture 
 that the name is connected with the land of Hepher (1 Kings iv. 
 10), the territory of a king conquered by Joshua (Josh. xii. 17) 
 (Berth.), is not very well supported. Temaui (man of the south) 
 may be simply the name of a person, but it is probably, like the 
 following, the name of a family. Haahashtari, descended from 
 Ahashtar, is quite unknown. Ver. 7. The first wife, Helah, bore 
 three sons, Zereth, Jezoar, and Ethnan, who are not elsewhere 
 met with. For the Kethibh ini" 1 there is in the Keri in'xi, the 
 name of a son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10), and of a Hittite chief 
 in the time of the patriarchs (Gen. xxiii. 8), .with whom the son of 
 Helah has nothing to do. 
 
 Vers. 8-10 contain a fragment, the connection of which with 
 the sons of Judah mentioned in chap. ii. is not clear. Coz begat 
 Anub, etc. The name pp occurs only here; elsewhere only 
 PP? is found, of a Levite, xxiv. 10, cf. Ezra ii. 61 and Neh. 
 iii. 4, in the latter passage without any statement as to the tribe 
 to which the sons of Hakkoz belonged. The names of the sons 
 begotten by Coz, ver. 8, do not occur elsewhere. The same is 
 to be said of Jabez, of whom we know nothing beyond what is 
 communicated in vers. 9 and 10. The word K?V! denotes in 
 ii. 55 a town or village which is quite unknown to us ; but 
 whether our Jabez were father (lord) of this town cannot be 
 determined. If there be any genealogical connection between 
 the man Jabez and the locality of this name or its inhabitants 
 (ii. 55), then the persons named in ver. 8 would belong to the 
 descendants of Shobal. For although the connection of Jabez 
 
 O 
 
 with Coz and his sons is not clearly set forth, yet it may be 
 conjectured from the statements as to Jabez being connected
 
 88 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 \vitli the preceding by the words, " Jabez was more honoured 
 than his brethren." The older commentators have thence 
 drawn the conclusion that Jabez was a son or brother of Coz. 
 Bertheau also rightly remarks : " The statements that he was 
 more honoured than his brethren (cf. Gen. xxxiv. 19), that his 
 mother called him Jabez because she had borne him with sorrow ; 
 the use of the similarly sounding word SS'y along with the name 
 r?V! (cf. Gen. iv. 25, xix. 37 f., xxix. 32, 33, 35, xxx. 6, 8, etc.) ; 
 and the statement that Jabez vowed to the God of Israel 
 (cf. Gen. xxxiii. 20) in a prayer (cf. Gen. xxviii. 20), all bring 
 to our recollection similar statements of Genesis, and doubtless 
 rest upon primeval tradition." In the terms of the vow, ^?3? 
 avy, " so that sorrow may not be to me," there is a play upon the 
 name Jabez. But of the vow itself only the conditions proposed 
 by the maker of the vow are communicated : " If Thou wilt 
 bless me, and enlarge my coast, and Thy hand shall be with me, 
 and Thou wilt keep evil far off, not to bring sorrow to me," 
 without the conclusion, Then I vow to do this or that (cf. Gen. 
 xxviii. 20 f.), but with the remark that God granted him that 
 which he requested. The reason of this is probably that the 
 vow had acquired importance sufficient to make it worthy of 
 being handed down only from God's having so fulfilled his wish, 
 that his life became a contradiction of his name; the son of 
 sorrow having been free from pain in life, and having attained 
 to greater happiness and reputation than his brothers. 
 
 Vers. 11, 12. The genealogy of the men of Rechah. As to 
 their connection with the larger families of Judah, nothing has 
 been handed down to us. Chelub, another form of the name Caleb 
 or Chelubai (see ii. 9 and 18), is distinguished from the better 
 known Caleb son of Hezron (ii. 18 and 42), and from the son 
 of Jephunneh (ver. 15), by the additional clause, "the son of 
 Shuah." Shuah is not met with elsewhere, but is without reason 
 identified with Hushah, ver. 4, by the older commentators. 
 Mehir the father of Eshton is likewise unknown. Eshton begat 
 the house (the family) of Eapha, of whom also nothing further 
 is said ; for they can be connected neither with the Benjamite 
 Rapha (viii. 2) nor with the children of Rapha (xx. 4, 6, 8). 
 Paseah and Tehinnah are also unknown, for it is uncertain 
 whether the sons of Paseah mentioned among the Nethinim, 
 Ezra ii. 49, Neh. vii. 51, have any connection with our Paseah. 
 Tehinnah is called " father of the city of Nahash." The latter
 
 CHAP. IV. 13-15. 89 
 
 name is probably not properly the name of a town, but rather 
 the name of a person Nahash, not unlikely the same as the father 
 of Abigail (2 Sam. xvii. 25), the step-sister of David (cf. ii. 16). 
 The men (or people) of Rechah are unknown. 
 
 Vers. 13-15. Descendants of Kenaz. Hi? is a descendant of 
 Hezron the son of Pharez, as may be inferred from the fact 
 that Caleb the son of Jephunneh, a descendant of Hezron's 
 son Caleb, is called in Num. xxxii. 12 and Josh. xiv. 6 ''W?, and 
 consequently was also a descendant of Kenaz. Othniel and 
 Seraiah, introduced here as Hi? "O^ are not sons (in the narrower 
 sense of the word), but more distant descendants of Kenaz ; for 
 Othniel and Caleb the son of Jephunneh were, according to 
 Josh. xv. 17 and Judg. i. 13, brothers. 1 Kenaz, therefore, can 
 neither have been the father of Othniel nor father of Caleb 
 (in the proper sense of the word), but must at least have been 
 the grandfather or great-grandfather of both. Othniel is the 
 famous first judge of Israel, Judg. iii. 9 ff. Of Seraiah nothing 
 further is known, although the name is often met with of dif- 
 ferent persons. The sons of Othniel are Hathath. The plural 
 
 1 The words used in Judg. i. 13, cf. Josh. xv. 17, of the relationship of 
 Othniel and Caleb, {iDpn 3^>3 ''HX T3p~j3 may be, it is true, taken in dif- 
 ferent senses, either as signifying flius Kenasi fratris Caleb, according to 
 which, not Othniel, but Kenaz, was a younger brother of Caleb ; or in this 
 way, filius Kenasi, frater Calebi minor, as we have interpreted them in the 
 text, and also in the commentary on Josh. xv. 17. This interpretation we 
 still hold to be certainly the correct one, notwithstanding what Bachmann 
 (Buck der Richter, on i. 13) has brought forward against it and in favour of 
 the other interpretation, and cannot see that his chief reasons are decisive. 
 The assertion that we must predicate of Othniel, if he be a younger brother of 
 Caleb, an unsuitably advanced age, is not convincing. Caleb was eighty-five 
 years of age at the division of the land of Canaan (Josh. xiv. 10). Now if we 
 suppose that his younger or youngest brother Othniel was from twenty-five to 
 thirty years younger, as often happens, Othniel would be from sixty to sixty- 
 one or fifty-five to fifty-six years of age at the conquest of Debir, an age at 
 which he might well win a wife as the reward of valour. Ten years later came 
 the invasion of the land by Cushan Kishathaim, which lasted eight years, till 
 Othniel had conquered Cushan R., and there were judges in Israel. This 
 victory he would thus gain at the age of seventy-eight or seventy-three ; and 
 even if he filled the office of judge for forty years which, however, Judg. iii. 
 11 does not state he would have reached no greater age than 118 or 113 
 years, only three or eight years older than Joshua had been. If we consider 
 what Caleb said of himself in his eighty-fifth year, Josh. xiv. 11, " I am 
 still strong as in the day that Moses sent me (i.e. forty years before) ; as my 
 strength was then, even so is my strength now for war, both to go out and 
 to come in," we cannot think that Othniel, in the seventy-third or seventy-
 
 90 THE F1KST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ^3, even when only one name follows, is met with elsewhere 
 (vide on ii. 7) ; but the continuation is somewhat strange, " and 
 Meonothai begat Ophrah," for as Meonothai is not before men- 
 tioned, his connection with Othniel is not given. There is 
 evidently a hiatus in the text, which may most easily be filled 
 up by repeating "TmyDi at the end of ver. 13. According to this 
 conjecture two sons of Othniel would be named, Hathath and 
 Meonothai, and then the posterity of the latter is given. The 
 name 'ToiJ/B (my dwellings) is not met with elsewhere. It is not 
 at all probable that it is connected with the town Maon, and still 
 less that it is so in any way with the Mehunim, Ezra ii. 50. 
 Ophrah is unknown, for of course we must not think of the towns 
 called Ophrah, in the territory of Benjamin, Josh, xviii. 23, and 
 in that of Manasseh, Judg. vi. 11, 24. Seraiah, who is men- 
 tioned in ver. 13, begat Joab the father (founder) of the valley 
 of the craftsmen, " for they (i.e. the inhabitants of this valley, 
 who were descended from Joab) were craftsmen." The valley 
 of the D^Enn (craftsmen) is again mentioned in Neh. xi. 35, 
 
 eighth years of his age, was too old to be a military leader. But the other 
 reason : " that Caleb is always called son of Jephunneh, Othniel always son 
 of Kenaz, should cause us to hesitate before we take Othniel to be the proper 
 brother of Caleb," loses all its weight when we find that Caleb also is called 
 in Num. xxxii. 12 and Josh. xiv. 6 'TJp = f3p~j3, and it is seen that Caleb 
 therefore, as well as Othniel, was a son of Kenaz. Now if the Kenazite 
 Caleb the son of Jephunneh were a brother of Kenaz, the father of Othniel, 
 we must suppose an older Kenaz, the grandfather or great-grandfather of 
 Caleb, and a younger Kenaz, the father of Othniel. This supposition is cer- 
 tainly feasible, for, according to ver. 15 of our chapter, a grandson of Caleb 
 again was called Kenaz ; but if it be probable is another question. For the 
 answering of this question in the affirmative, Bachmann adduces that, accord- 
 ing to 1 Chron. iv. 13, Othniel is undoubtedly the son of Kenaz in the proper 
 sense of the word ; but it might perhaps be difficult to prove, or even to render 
 probable, this "undoubtedly." In the superscriptions of the single genea- 
 logies of the Chronicle, more than elsewhere, 133 has in general a very wide 
 signification. In ver. 1 of our chapter, for instance, sons, grandsons, and 
 great-grandsons of Judah are all grouped together as rniiT 1 ''JS. But besides 
 this, the ranging of the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh (ver. 15) after 
 the enumeration of the sons of Kenaz in vers. 13 and 14, is clearly much more 
 easily explicable if Caleb himself belonged to the jjp 133 mentioned in ver. 
 13, than if he was a brother of Kenaz. In the latter case we should ex- 
 pect, after the analogy of ii. 42, to find an additional clause f3|p IHK after 
 nap 1 "'):! 3^3 ; while if Caleb was a brother of Othniel, his descent from Kenaz, 
 or the fact that he belonged to the T3[? 133, might be assumed to be known 
 from Num. xxxii. 12.
 
 CHAP. IV. 16-20. 91 
 
 whence we may conclude that it lay at no great distance from 
 Jerusalem, in a northern direction. Ver. 15. Of Iru, Elah, 
 and Naam, the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh (cf. on 
 ver. 13), nothing more is known. To connect Elah with the 
 Edomite chief of that name (i. 52) is arbitrary. Of Elah's sons 
 only " and Kenaz" is mentioned ; the 1 copul. before Hi? shows 
 clearly that a name has been dropped out before it. 
 
 Vers. 16-20. Descendants of various men, whose genealogical 
 connection with the sons and grandsons of Judah, mentioned in 
 ver. 1, is not given in the text as it has come to us. Ver. 16. 
 Sons of Jehaleleel, a man not elsewhere mentioned. Ziph, 
 Ziphah, etc., are met with only here. There is no strong reason 
 for connecting the name *TT with the towns of that name, Josh. 
 
 o / 
 
 xv. 24, 55. Ver. 17. Ezra, whose four sons are enumerated, is 
 likewise unknown. The singular J3 is peculiar, but has analogies 
 in iii. 19, 21, and 23. Of the names of his sons, Jether and 
 Epher again occur, the former in ii. 53, and the latter in i. 33 
 and v. 24, but in other families. Jalon, on the contrary, is 
 found only here. The children of two wives of Mered are 
 enumerated in vers. \lb and 18, but in a fashion which is quite 
 unintelligible, and shows clear traces of a corruption in the text. 
 For (1) the name of a woman as subject of "inni, " and she con- 
 ceived (bare)," is wanting ; and (2) in ver. 18 the names of two 
 women occur, Jehudijah and Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh. 
 But the sons of Jehudijah are first given, and there follows there- 
 upon the formula, " and these are the sons of Bithiah," without 
 any mention of the names of these sons. This manifest confusion 
 Bertheau has sought to remove by a happy transposition of the 
 words. He suggests that the words, " and these are the sons of 
 Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered had taken," should 
 be placed immediately after IW. " By this means we obtain 
 (1) the missing subject of "inni; (2) the definite statement that 
 Mered had two wives, with whom he begat sons ; and (3) an 
 arrangement by which the sons are enumerated after the names 
 of their respective mothers." After this transposition the 17th 
 verse would read thus: "And the sons of Ezra are Jether, 
 Mered, . . . and Jalon ; and these are the sons of Bithiah the 
 daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took ; and she conceived (and 
 bare) Miriam, and Shammai, and Ishbah, the father of Esh- 
 temoa (ver. 18), and his wife Jehudijah bore Jered the father 
 of Gedor, etc." This conjecture commends itself by its siin-
 
 92 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 plicity, and by the clearness which it brings into the words. 
 From them we then learn that two families, who dwelt in a 
 number of the cities of Judah, were descended from Mered the 
 son of Ezra by his two wives. We certainly know no more 
 details concerning them, as neither Mered iior his children are 
 met with elsewhere. From the circumstance, however, that the 
 one wife was a daughter of Pharaoh, we may conclude that 
 Mered lived before the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. 
 The name Miriam, which Moses' sister bore, is here a man's 
 name. The names introduced by ""SK are the names of towns. 
 Ishbah is father (lord) of the town Eshtemoa, in the mountains 
 of Judah, now Semua, a village to the south of Hebron, with 
 considerable ruins dating from ancient times (cf. on Josh, 
 xv. 50). n*"N"T"} means properly u the Jewess," as distinguished 
 from the Egyptian woman, Pharaoh's daughter. Gedor is a 
 town in the high lands of Judah (cf. on ver. 4). Socho, in the 
 low land of Judah, now Shuweikeh, in Wady Sumt (cf . on Josh, 
 xv. 35). Zanoah is the name of a town in the high lands of 
 Judah, Josh. xv. 56 (which has not yet been discovered), and of 
 a town in the low land, now Zanua, not far from Zoreah, in an 
 easterly direction (cf. on Josh. xv. 34). Perhaps the latter is 
 here meant. In ver. 19, " the sons of the wife of Hodiah, the 
 sister of Naham, are the father of Keilah the Garmite, and 
 Eshtemoa the Maachathite." The stat. constr. fiW$ before Hfpn 
 shows that Hodiah is a man's name. Levites of this name are 
 mentioned in Neh. viii. 7, ix. 5, x. 11. The relationship of 
 Hodiah and Naham to the persons formerly named is not given. 
 n^J?!? is a locality in the low land of Judah not yet discovered 
 (see on Josh. xv. 44). The origin of the epithet ^"lan we do not 
 know. Before ybflK'K, *2K with 1 copul. is probably to be re- 
 peated ; and the Maachathite, the chief of a part of the inhabit- 
 ants of Eshtemoa, is perhaps a descendant of Caleb by Maachah 
 (ii. 48). Ver. 20. Of Shimon and his four sons, also, nothing is 
 known. l}n~I? is one name. Ishi is often met with, e.g. ver. 42 
 and ii. 31, but nowhere in connection with Zoheth (not further 
 noticed). The names of the sons are wanting after nnirja. 
 
 Vers. 21-23. Descendants of Shelah, the third son of Judah, 
 ii. 3, and Gen. xxxviii. 5. All the families of Judah enumerated 
 in vers. 2-20 are connected together by the conjunction i, and so 
 are grouped as descendants of the sons and grandsons of Judah 
 named in ver. 1. The conjunction is omitted, however, before
 
 CHAP. IV. 21-23. 93 
 
 rff rn, as also before nnirr ^3 in ver. 3, to show that the de- 
 scendants of Shelah form a second line of descendants of Judah, 
 co-ordinate with) the sons of Judah enumerated in vers. 1-19, 
 concerning whom only a little obscure but not unimportant in- 
 formation has been preserved. Those mentioned as sons are Er 
 (which also was the name of the first-born of Judah, ii. 3 f .), father 
 of Lecah, and Laadan, the father of Mareshah. The latter 
 name denotes, beyond question, a town which still exists as the 
 ruin Marash in the Shephelah, Josh. xv. 44 (see on ii. 42), and 
 consequently Lecah (""9-) also is the name of a locality not else- 
 where mentioned. The further descendants of Shelah were, 
 " the families of the Byssus-work of the house of Ashbea," i.e. 
 the families of Ashbea, a man of whom nothing further is known. 
 Of these families some were connected with a famous weaving- 
 house or linen (Byssus) manufactory, probably in Egypt ; and 
 then further, in ver. 22, " Jokim, and the men of Chozeba, and 
 Joash, and Saraph, which ruled over Moab, and Jashubi-lehem." 
 Kimchi conjectured that narb was the place called ^D in Gen. 
 xxxviii. 5 = ^pK, Josh. xv. 44, in the low land, where Shelah 
 was born. DH7 "as^ is a strange name, "which the punctuators 
 would hardly have pronounced in the way they have done if 
 it had not come down to them by tradition" (Berth.). The 
 other names denote heads of families or branches of families, 
 the branches and families being included in them. 1 Nothing 
 is told us of them beyond what is found in our verses, ac- 
 cording to which the four first named ruled over Moab during 
 a period in the primeval time ; for, as the historian himself re- 
 marks, " these things are old." Ver. 23. " These are the potters 
 and the inhabitants of Netaim and Gedera." It is doubtful 
 whether nan refers to all the descendants of Shelah, or only to 
 those named in ver. 22. Bertheau holds the latter to be the 
 more probable reference; " for as those named in ver. 21 have 
 already been denominated Byssus-workers, it appears fitting that 
 those in ver. 22 should be regarded as the potters, etc." But all 
 
 1 Jerome has given a curious translation of ver. 22, "et qui stare fecit sokm, 
 viriqite mcndacii et securus et incendens, qui principes fnerunt in Moab et quire- 
 versi sunt in Laliem: hxc autcm verba retera," according to the Jewish Midrasb, 
 in which 3NiO^> ^J?3 IK'S was connected with the narrative in the book of 
 Ruth. For D^piN qui stare fecit sokm, is supposed to be Elimelech, and the 
 viri mendacii Mahlon and Chilion, so well known from the book of Ruth, who 
 went with their father into the land of Moab and married Moabitesses.
 
 94 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 those mentioned in ver. 22 are by no means called Byssus- 
 weavers, but only the families of Ashbea. What the descend- 
 ants of Er and Laadan were is not said. The nan may conse- 
 quently very probably refer to all the sons of Shelah enumerated 
 in vers. 21 and 22, with the exception of the families designated 
 Byssus-weavers, who are, of course, understood to be excepted. 
 D^yCJ signifies " plantings ; " but since irna is probably the name 
 of a city Gedera in the lowlands of Judah (cf. Josh. xv. 36 ; and 
 for the situation, see on 1 Chron. xii. 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. ty?l?n is not an individual king of Judah, for we know not 
 merely " of King Uzziah that he had country lands, 2 Chron. 
 xxvi. 10 " (Berth.) ; but we learn from 1 Chron. xxvii. 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. 1 
 
 1 From the arrangement of the names in vers. 2-20, in which Bertheau finds 
 just twelve families grouped together, he concludes, S. 44 f., 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 2d Kings, and the few thus known 
 refer to the original divisions of the tribe, which may have maintained them- 
 selves 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 com- 
 munity 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 vers. 2-20 belong to just twelve families is very questionable ; for 
 this number can only be arrived at by separating the descendants of Caleb, 
 ver. 15, from the descendants of Kenaz, vers. 13 and 14, of whom Caleb him- 
 self was one, and reckoning them separately. But the circumstance that in 
 this reckoning only the names in vers. 12-20 are taken into consideration, 
 while no notice is taken of the descendants of Shelah the son of Judah,
 
 CHAP. IV. 24-27. 95 
 
 CHAP. IV. 24-43. THE FAMILIES AND THE DWELLING-PLACES OF 
 THE TRIBE OF SIMEON. 
 
 In 25-27 we have, traced down through several generations, 
 the genealogy of only one of all the families of the tribe of 
 Simeon. There follows thereupon, in vers. 28-33, an enumera- 
 tion of the ancient dwelling-places of this tribe ; and finally, in 
 vers. 34-43, information is given concerning the emigrations of 
 Simeonite families into other neighbourhoods. 
 
 Vers. 2427. The families of Simeon. Of the six sons of 
 Simeon, Gen. xlvi. 10 and Ex. vi. 15, only the five are here 
 named who, according to Num. xxvi. 12-14, founded the families 
 of this tribe. The third son, Ohad, is omitted even in Num. 
 xxvi. 12 in the list of the families of Simeon, at the numbering 
 of the people in the fortieth year of the journey through the 
 wilderness, clearly only because the posterity of Ohad had either 
 died out, or had so dwindled away that it could form no inde- 
 
 enumerated in vers. 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 ver. 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 Jiad 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, vers. 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 
 ranged according to the order of the sons and grandsons of Judah mentioned in 
 ver. 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 irrecon- 
 cilable 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 2d 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 vers. 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
 
 96 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 pendent family. The names of the five sons agree with the 
 names in Num. xxvi. 12-14, except in the case of Jarib, who in 
 Num. xxvi. 12, which coincides here with Gen. xlvi. 10 and Ex. 
 vi. 15, is called Jachin ; ^"ij, consequently, must be looked upon 
 as a transcriber's error for T3\ Nemuel and Zerah (rnt, the 
 rising of the sun) are called in Genesis and Exodus Jemuel (a 
 different form of the same name) and Zohar C 11 ^, i.e. candor), 
 another name of similar meaning, which, at first used only as a 
 by-name, afterwards supplanted the original name. Ver. 25. 
 " Shallum (was) his son;" without doubt the son of the last 
 named Shaul, who in Genesis and Exodus is called the son of a 
 Canaanitish woman, and is thereby distinguished from the other 
 sons. His family is traced down, in vers. 25 and 26, through six 
 generations to one Shimei. But this list is divided into two 
 groups by the words " and the sons of Mishma," inserted at the 
 beginning of ver. 26, but the reasons for the division are un- 
 known. The plural, sons of Mishma, refers to Hammuel and his 
 
 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 Isehemiah 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 vers. 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 intermit- 
 tently 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 ; bat 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 vers. 2-20 to be an utter failure.
 
 CHAP. IV. 28-33. 97 
 
 descendants Zacchur and Shimei. Perhaps these two together 
 form, with the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons mentioned 
 in ver. 25, a single larger family. Ver. 27. Shimei had sixteen 
 sons and six daughters, by whom he became the father of a 
 numerous race. " His brothers," i.e. the other Simeonites, on the 
 contrary, had not many sons. Hence it happens that they made 
 not their whole race, i.e. the whole race of the Simeonites, 
 numerous unto the sons of Judah, i.e. that the Simeonites were 
 not so numerous as the descendants of Judah. This account is 
 corroborated by the statement made at the numberings of the 
 people under Moses ; see on Num. i.-iv. (i. 2, S. 192). 
 
 Vers. 28-33. The ancient dwelling-places of the Simeonites, 
 which they received within the tribal domain of Judah at the 
 division of the land by Joshua ; cf. Josh. xix. 1 ff. There are in 
 all eighteen cities, divided into two groups, numbering thirteen 
 and five respectively, as in Josh. xix. 2-6, where these same cities 
 are enumerated in the same order. The only difference is, that 
 in Joshua thirteen cities are reckoned in the first group and four 
 in the second, although the first group contains fourteen names. 
 Between Beersheba and Moladah there stands there a yi& which 
 is not found in our list, and which might be considered to be a 
 repetition of the second part of jnEJisa, if it were not that in the 
 list of the cities, Josh. xv. 26, the name yW before Moladah 
 corresponds to it. The other differences between the two pas- 
 sages arise partly from different forms of the same name being 
 used, as, for example, i" 1 ?- 5 ? for n/>3 (Josh.), 1?ifi for "ipiWK, 
 twna for ?V13 ; and partly from different names being used of 
 the same city, e.g. Wa-JVa (ver. 31) instead of HtooSTta, the 
 house of lions" (Josh.), Dn^ instead of KIVIB> (Josh.). All these 
 cities lie in the south land of Judah, and have therefore been 
 named in Josh. xv. 26-32 among the cities of that district. As to 
 Beersheba, now Bir es Seba, see on Gen. xxi. 31 ; and for Mola- 
 dah, which is to be identified with the ruin el Milh to the south 
 of Hebron, on the road to Ailah, see on Josh. xv. 26. Bilhah 
 (in Josh. xv. 29, n ^ : ?), Ezem, Tolad, and Bethuel (for which in 
 Josh. xv. 31 ?'D3 is found), have not yet been discovered ; cf . on 
 Josh. xv. 29 and 30. Hormah, formerly Sephat, is now the ruin 
 Sepata, on the western slope of the Kakhma table-land, 2 hours 
 south of Khalasa (Elusa) ; cf. on Josh. xii. 14. Ziklag is most 
 probably to be sought in the ancient village Aschludsch or Kas- 
 ludsch, to the east of Sepata; cf. on Josh. xv. 31. Beth-Mar- 
 
 G
 
 98 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 caboth, i.e. " carriage-house," and Hazar-Susim (or Susa), i.d. 
 horse-village, both evidently by-names, are called in Josh. xv. 31 
 Madmannah and Sansannah. Their position has not yet been 
 discovered. Beth-Birei, or Beth-Leboath, is also as yet undis- 
 covered ; cf. on Josh. xv. 32. Shaaraim, called in Josh. xv. 32 
 Shilhim, is supposed to be the same as Tell Sheriah, between 
 Gaza and Beersheba ; cf. Van de Velde, Reise, ii. S. 154. The 
 enumeration of these thirteen cities concludes in ver. 31 with the 
 strange subscription, " These (were) their cities until the reign 
 of David, and their villages." Dnnvrn, w hich, according to the 
 Masoretic division of the verses, stands at the beginning of ver. 
 32, should certainly be taken with ver. 31 ; for the places men- 
 tioned in ver. 32 are expressly called cities, and in Josh. xix. 6, 
 cities and their villages, O^IY?, are spoken of. This subscription 
 can hardly " only be intended to remind us, that of the first- 
 mentioned cities, one (viz. Ziklag, 1 Sam. xxvii. 6), or several, in 
 the time of David, no longer belonged to the tribe of Simeon ;" 
 nor can it only be meant to state that " till the time of David 
 the cities named were in possession of the tribe of Simeon, though 
 they did not all continue to be possessed by this tribe at a later 
 time" (Berth.). Ziklag had been, even before the reign of 
 David, taken away from the Simeonites by the Philistines, and 
 had become the property of King Achish, who in the reign of 
 Saul presented it to David, and through him it became the pro- 
 perty of the kings of Judah (1 Sam. xxvii. 6). The subscription 
 can only mean that till the reign of David these cities rightfully 
 belonged to the Simeonites, but that during and after David's 
 reign this rightful possession of the Simeonites was trenched 
 upon ; and of this curtailing of their rights, the transfer of the 
 city of Ziklag to the kings of Judah gives one historically 
 attested proof. This, however, might not have been the only 
 instance of the sort ; it may have brought with it other alterations 
 in the possessions of the Simeonites as to which we have no infor- 
 mation. The remark of R. Salomo and Kimchi, that the men 
 of Judah, when they had attained to greater power under David's 
 rule, drove the Simeonites out of their domains, and compelled 
 them to seek out other dwelling-places, is easily seen to be an 
 inference drawn from the notices in vers. 33-43 of emigrations 
 of the Simeonites into other districts ; but it may not be quite 
 incorrect, as these emigrations under Hezekiah presuppose a pres- 
 sure upon or diminution of their territory. We would indeed
 
 CHAP. IV. 28-33. 99 
 
 expect this remark to occur after ver. 33, but it may have been 
 placed between the first and second groups of cities, for the 
 reason that the alterations in the dwelling-places of the Simeon- 
 ites which took place in the time of David affected merely the 
 first group, while the cities named in ver. 32 f ., with their villages, 
 remained at a later time even the untouched possession of the 
 Simeonites. Ver. 32. Instead of the five cities, Etam, Ain, Rim- 
 mon, Tochen, and Ashan, only four are mentioned in Josh. xix. 7, 
 viz. Ain, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan; "iny_ is written instead of l^in, 
 and Ct^y 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: pB"] H? (one city), "iny, pin, and \VV; 
 in Joshua |2in must have fallen out by mistake, in our text 
 "tny has been erroneously exchanged for the better known city 
 Bk^y in the tribe of Judah, while by reckoning both py and 
 JiG>"} the number four has become five. These conjectures are 
 shown to be groundless by the order of the names in our text. 
 For had ifiy been exchanged for CB'y, ^P would not stand in the 
 first place, at the head of the four or five cities, but would have 
 occupied the place of "ifiy, which is connected with J'^'y in Josh, 
 xix. 7 and xv. 43. Then again, the fact that in Josh. xv. 32 |iB~> 
 is separated from TV by the 1 cop., and in Josh. xix. 7 is reckoned 
 by itself as one city as in our verse, is decisive against taking TV 
 and |ifi"! together as one name. The want of the conjunction, 
 moreover, between the two names here and in Josh. xix. 7, and 
 the uniting of the two words into one name, |iB"!Ty.j Neh. xi. 29, 
 is explained by the supposition that the towns lay in the imme- 
 diate 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 Josh. xv. 32. Finally, 
 the assertion that the name Dt^y has come into our text by an 
 exchange of the unknown "ifiy, 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 Judg. 
 xv. 8, 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
 
 100 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 lands of Judah, whereas it was, according to Josh. xv. 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 exist- 
 ence of a second Etam, besides that in the neighbourhood of 
 Bethlehem, is placed beyond doubt by Judg. xv. 8 and 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 Judg. xv. 8. 
 It is this Etam which is spoken of in our verse, and it is rightly 
 grouped with Ain and Kimmon, which were situated in the Negeb, 
 while Tochen and Ashan were in the Shephelah. The statement 
 of Josh. xix. 7 and xv. 42 leaves no doubt as to the fact that the 
 pin of our verse is only another name for ">nv. 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. Ver. 33. Concerning the villages belong- 
 ing to these cities, cf. on Josh. xix. 8, where for 7V? we have the 
 more accurate "1x2 npj^ 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.). i^nTin 
 infin. is used substantively, " the entering in the family register." 
 Vers. 3443. Emigrations of Simeonite families into other dis- 
 tricts. Vers. 34-41 record an expedition of the Simeonites, in 
 the time of Hezekiah, undertaken for purposes of conquest. 
 In vers. 34-36, thirteen princes of the tribe of Simeon are enu- 
 merated who undertook this expedition. The families of some 
 of them are traced through several generations, but in no case 
 are they traced down so far as to show their connection with the 
 families named in vers. 24-26. Ver. 38. " These mentioned by 
 their names were princes in their families ; whose fathers'-houses 
 had increased to a multitude. And they went," etc. MiDB'a D'Nan, 
 properly " those who have come with their names," i.e. those 
 who have been mentioned by name ; for tfia with 3 = to come 
 with, is to bring something in, to introduce : cf. Ps. Ixxi. 16. 
 This formula is synonymous with niK>3 Dorian, ver. 41 ; but we 
 cannot consider it, as J. H. Mich., Berth., and others do, identi- 
 cal in meaninng with niDBfe ttjM nefc, xii. 31, Num. i. 17, etc. The 
 predicate to n?K is D^B>3, and B^an is a relative sentence, more
 
 CHAP. IV. 34-43. 101 
 
 accurately defining the subject H|X. Princes in their families 
 are not heads of families, but heads of fathers'-houses, into which 
 the families had divided themselves. ntaKVPn is not construed with 
 the plural, as being collective (Berth.), but as the plural of the 
 word 2K'fV3: cf. Ew. 270, c. Ver. 39. The princes named " went 
 westward from Gedor to the east side of the valley, to seek pas- 
 ture for their flocks." "HJ Nisp does not mean the entrance of 
 Gedor (Mich., Berth., and others) ; but is, as the corresponding 
 'T'ttpj " rising " of the sun, i.e. east, requires, a designation of the 
 west, and is abridged from ttW? K13O, as in statements with refer- 
 ence to places rnro is used instead of vfown nnnp. The locality 
 itself, however, is to us at present unknown. So much is clear, 
 that by Gedor, the Gedor mentioned in Josh. xv. 58, situated in 
 the high lands of Judah, north of Hebron, cannot be intended, 
 for in that district there is no open valley stretching out on either 
 hand ; and the Simeonites, moreover, could not have carried on 
 a war of conquest in the territory of the tribe of Judah in the 
 reign of Hezekiah. But where this Gedor is to be sought cannot 
 be more accurately determined ; for S^n is certainly not " the 
 valley in which the Dead Sea lies, and the southern continuation 
 of that valley," as Ewald and Berth, think : that valley has, in 
 the Old Testament, always the name n ?"JS?7' From the use of 
 the article, " the valley," no further conclusion can be drawn, 
 than that a definite valley in the neighbourhood of Gedor is 
 meant. 1 Even the further statements, in ver. 30, with regard to 
 the district, that they found there fat and good pasture, and that 
 the land extended on both sides (i.e. was wide), and at rest and 
 secure, because formerly the Hamites dwelt there, and the state- 
 ment of ver. 41, that the Simeonites found the Meunim there, and 
 smote them, give us no firm foothold for the ascertainment of the 
 district referred to. The whole Negeb of Judah has been as yet 
 too little travelled over and explored by modern travellers, to allow 
 
 1 The LXX. have rendered "nj by Tfpup, whence Ewald and Bertheau 
 conclude that Y13 is a transcriber's error for vij. But a slip of the pen 
 which would make the Gerar so famed in the history of the patriarchs into 
 Gedor is a priori not very probable ; and the defective writing mj, while 
 Gedor in the high lands is written "ina, cannot be adduced, as Bertheau 
 thinks, in support of the hypothesis, since Gedor even in ver. 18 is written 
 defectively. It is decisive against Gerar, that the dwelling-places of the 
 Simeonites demonstrably did not extend till towards sunset (westward) from 
 Gerar, for the cities assigned to them all lie to the east of Gerar.
 
 102 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of our forming any probable conjecture as to Gedor and the wide 
 valley stretching out on both sides. The description of the Hamite 
 inhabitants, ""IIPK^ ^\^, reminds us of the inhabitants of the ancient 
 Laish (Judg. xviii. 7, 27). Those DH f are people from Ham, 
 i.e. Hamites, and they may have been Egyptians, Cushites, or 
 even Canaanites (chap. i. 8). This only is certain, that they were 
 a peaceful shepherd people, who dwelt in tents, and were there- 
 fore nomads. D<1 ???, "formerly," before the Simeonites took 
 possession of the land. Ver. 41. The above-mentioned Simeonite 
 princes, with their people, fell upon the peaceful little people of 
 the Hamites hi 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 con- 
 nected with the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the 
 east of Wady Musa (cf. on 2 Chron. xx. 1 and xxvi. 7), who 
 dwelt in tents as nomads, with the Hamites. in their richly pas- 
 tured valley. Bp 11 "!!!!?^ and they destroyed them utterly, as the 
 Vulgate rightly renders it, et deleverunt ; and J. H. Mich., ad 
 internecionem usque eos exciderunt. The word ^"inr^ 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 Chron. xx. 23, xxxii. 14, 2 Kings xix. 11, Isa. xxxvii. 11 ; 
 and it is to be so understood here also. 1 " 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. Vers. 42 
 and 43. A part of the Simeonites undertook a second war of 
 conquest against Mount Seir. Led by four chiefs of the sons 
 of Shimei (cf. ver. 27), 500 men marched thither, smote the 
 remainder of the Amalekites who had escaped, and they dwell 
 there to this day (as in ver. 41). DHO is more accurately defined by 
 
 1 Bertheau ignores this secondary use of the word, and has drawn from 
 DD'nrV 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.
 
 CHAP. V. 1-10. 103 
 
 'V rjao, and is therefore to be referred to the Simeonites in general, 
 and not to that part of them only mentioned in ver. 33 (Berth.). 
 From the circumstance that the leaders were sons of Shimei, we 
 may conclude that the whole troop belonged to this family. The 
 escaped of Amalek are those who had escaped destruction in the 
 victories of Saul and David over this hereditary enemy of Israel 
 (1 Sam. xiv. 48, xv. 7 ; 2 Sam. viii. 12). A remnant of them 
 had been driven into the mountain land of Idumea, where they 
 were smitten, i.e. extirpated, by the Simeonites. It is not said at 
 what time this was done, but it occurred most probably in the 
 second half of Hezekiah's reign. 
 
 CHAP. V. 1-26. THE FAMILIES OF KEUBEN, GAD, AND THE HALF 
 TRIBE OF MANASSEH BEYOND JORDAN. 
 
 Vers. 1-10. The families of the tribe of Reuben. Vers. 1, 2. 
 Reuben is called the first-born of Israel, because he was the 
 first-born of Jacob, although, owing to his having defiled his 
 father's bed (Gen. xlix. 4), his birthright, i.e. its privileges, were 
 transferred to the sons of Joseph, who were not, however, 
 entered in the family register of the house of Israel according 
 to the birthright, i.e. as first-born sons. The inf. KWnn with 
 ? expresses "shall" or "must," cf. Ew. 237, e, "he was not 
 to register," i.e. " he was not to be registered." The subject 
 is Joseph, as the Rabbins, e.g. Kimchi, have perceived. The 
 clauses after Kin 13 form a parenthesis, containing the reason of 
 Reuben's being called 7N1B^ "N23, which is still further established 
 by its being shown (in ver. 2) how it happened that Joseph, 
 although the birthright was given to him, according to the dis- 
 position made by the patriarch (Gen. xlviii. 5 ff.), yet was not 
 entered in the family registers as first-born. The reason of this 
 was, " for Judah was strong among his brethren, and (one) from 
 him became the Prince ; " scil. on the strength of the patriarchal 
 blessing (Gen. xlix. 8-12), and by means of the historic fulfil- 
 ment of this blessing. The " prevailing " of Judah among his 
 brethren showed itself even under Moses at the numbering of 
 the people, when the tribe of Judah considerably outnumbered 
 all the other tribes (cf. t. i. 2, S. 192). Then, again, it appeared 
 after the division of the land of Canaan among the tribes of 
 
 D 
 
 Israel, Judah being called by a declaration of the divine will to 
 be the vanguard of the army in the war against the Canaanites
 
 104 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ( Judg. i. 1 f .) ; and it was finally made manifest by the T33 over 
 Israel being chosen by God from the tribe of Judah, in the 
 person of David (cf. xxviii. 4 with 1 Sam. xiii. 14, xxv. 30). 
 From this we gather that the short, and from its brevity obscure, 
 sentence MDO TOft bears the signification we have given it. 
 " But the birthright was Joseph's ; " i.e. the rights of the pro- 
 genitor were transferred to or remained with him, for two tribal 
 domains were assigned to his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, 
 according to the law of the first-born (Deut. xxi. 15-17). 
 
 After this parenthetic explanation, the words " the sons of 
 Eeuben, the first-born of Israel," ver. 1, are again taken up in 
 ver. 3, and the sons are enumerated. The names of the four sons 
 correspond to those given in Gen. xlvi. 9, Ex. vi. 14, and Num. 
 xxvi. 5-7. Vers. 46. From one of these sons descended Joel, 
 whose family is traced down through seven generations, to the time 
 of the Assyrian deportation of the Israelites. But we are neither 
 informed here, nor can we ascertain from any information else- 
 where given in the Old Testament, from which of the four sons 
 Joel was descended. For although many of the names in vers. 
 4-6 frequently occur, yet they are nowhere met with in connec- 
 tion with the family whose members are here registered. The 
 last-named, Beerah, was ^Ny N 11 ^, a prince of the Reubenites, 
 not a prince of the tribe of Reuben, but a prince of a family of 
 the Reubenites. This is expressed by p being used instead of 
 the stat. constr.; cf. Ew. 292, a. In reference to the leading away 
 of the trans-Jordanic tribes into captivity by Tiglath-pilneser, 
 cf. on 2 Kings xv. 29. The name of this king as it appears in the 
 Chronicles is always Tiglath-pilneser, and in the book of Kings 
 Tiglath-pileser, but its meaning has not yet been certainly ascer- 
 tained. According to Oppert's interpretation, it = "intp-Npa-rtan, 
 i.e. " worship of the son of the Zodiac" (i.e. the Assyrian Her- 
 cules) ; vid. Delitzsch on Isaiah, Introd. Vers. 7-9. " And 
 his brothers, (each) according to his families in the registration, 
 according to their descent (properly their generations ; vide for 
 nnpin on Gen. ii. 4), are (were) the head (the first) Jeiel and 
 Zechariah, and Bela, . . . the son of Joel," .probably the 
 Joel already mentioned in ver. 4. " His (i.e. Beerah's) brothers" 
 are the families related to the family of Beerah, which were 
 descended from the brothers of Joel. That they were not, how- 
 ever, properly "brothers," is clear from the fact that Bela's 
 descent is traced back to Joel as the third of the preceding
 
 CHAP. V. 1-10. 105 
 
 members of his f-amily ; and the conclusion would be the same, 
 even if this Joel be another than the one mentioned in ver. 4. 
 The singular suffix with vn'naB'O^ is to be taken distributively, 
 or tJ^K may be supplied before it in thought ; cf. Num. ii. 34, 
 xi. 10. The word wth, "head," for the first-born, stands here 
 before the name, as in xii. 3, xxiii. 8 ; elsewhere it stands after the 
 name, e.g. ver. 12 and ix. 17. The dwelling-places of Bela and his 
 family are then given in vers. 86 and 9. " He dwelt in Aroer," 
 on the banks of the brook Arnon (Josh. xiii. 9, xii. 2), now the 
 ruin Araayr on the northern bank of the Mojeb (vide on Num. 
 xxxii. 34). " Until Nebo and Baal-meon" westward. Nebo, a 
 village on the hill of the same name in the mountains of Abarim, 
 opposite Jericho (cf. on Num. xxxii. 38). Baal-meon is probably 
 identical with the ruin Myun, three-quarters of an hour south- 
 east from Heshbon. Ver. 9. " Eastward to the coming to the 
 desert (i.e. till towards the desert) from the river Euphrates," i.e. 
 to the great Arabico-Syrian desert, which stretches from the 
 Euphrates to the eastern frontier of Perea, or from Gilead 
 to the Euphrates. Bela's family had spread themselves so 
 far abroad, " for their herds were numerous in the land of 
 Gilead," i.e. Perea, the whole trans-Jordanic domain of the 
 Israelites. Ver. 10. " In the days of Saul they made war upon 
 the Hagarites, and they fell into their hands, and they dwelt in 
 their tents over the whole east side of Gilead." The subject 
 is not determined, so that the words may be referred either to 
 the whole tribe of Reuben or to the family of Bela (ver. 8). The 
 circumstance that in vers. 8 and 9 Bela is spoken of in the 
 singular (1W' 1 &wn and 3^), while here the plural is used in refer- 
 ence to the war, is not sufficient to show that the words do not 
 refer to Bela's family, for the narrative has already fallen into 
 the plural in the last clause of ver. 9. We therefore think it 
 better to refer ver. 10 to the family of Bela, seeing that the wide 
 spread of this family, which is mentioned in ver. 9, as far as the 
 desert to the east of the inhabited land, presupposes the driving 
 out of the Hagarites dwelling on the eastern plain of Gilead. 
 The notice of this war, moreover, is clearly inserted here for the 
 purpose of explaining the wide spread of the Belaites even to the 
 Euphrates desert, and there is nothing which can be adduced 
 against that reference. The vns in ver. 7 does not, as Bertheau 
 thinks probable, denote that Bela was a contemporary of Beerah, 
 even if the circumstance that from Bela to Joel only three
 
 106 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 generations are enumerated, could be reconciled with this sup- 
 position. The spread of Bela's family over the whole of the 
 Reubenite Gilead, which has just been narrated, proves decisively 
 that they were not contemporaries. If Bela lived at the time of 
 the invasion of Gilead by Tiglath-pileser, when the prince Beerah 
 was carried away into exile, it is certainly possible that he might 
 have escaped the Assyrians ; but he could neither have had at 
 that time a family " which inhabited all the east land," nor could 
 he himself have extended his domain from " Aroer and Nebo 
 towards the wilderness," as the words 3W wn ver. 8, distinctly 
 
 f it! 
 
 state. We therefore hold that Bela was much older than 
 Beerah, for he is introduced as a great-grandson of Joel, so that 
 his family might have been as widely distributed as vers. 8, 9 
 state, and have undertaken and carried out the war of conquest 
 against the Hagarites, referred to in ver. 10, as early as the 
 time of Saul. Thus, too, we can most easily explain the fact 
 that Bela and his brothers Jeiel and Zechariah are not mentioned. 
 As to DWJn, cf. on ver. 19. 
 
 Vers. 11-17. TJie families of the tribe of Gad, and their dwelling- 
 places. Ver. 11. In connection with the preceding statement as 
 to the dwelling-places of the Reubenites, the enumeration of the 
 families of Gad begins with a statement as to their dwelling- 
 places : " Over against them (the Reubenites) dwelt the Gadites 
 in Bashan unto Salcah." Bashan is used here in its wider signifi- 
 cation of the dominion of King Og, which embraced the northern 
 half of Gilead, i.e. the part of that district which lay on the north 
 side of the Jabbok, and the whole district of Bashan ; cf . on 
 Deut. iii. 10. Salcah formed the boundary towards the east, 
 and is now Szalchad, about six hours eastward from Bosra (see 
 on Deut. iii. 10). Ver. 12. The sons of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16) are 
 not named here, because the enumeration of the families of Gad 
 had been already introduced by ver. 11, and the genealogical 
 connection of the families enumerated in ver. 12 ff., with the 
 sons of the tribal ancestor, had not been handed down. In ver. 
 12 four names are mentioned, which are clearly those of heads 
 of families or fathers'-houses, with the addition " in Bashan," i.e. 
 dwelling, for *3B* is to be repeated or supplied from the preceding 
 verse. In ver. 13 seven other names occur, the bearers of which 
 are introduced as brothers of those mentioned (ver. 12), according 
 to their fathers'-houses. They are therefore heads of fathers'- 
 houses, but the district in which they dwelt is not given ; whence
 
 CHAP. V. 11-17, 107 
 
 Bertheau concludes, but wrongly, that the place where they dwelt 
 is not given in the text. The statement which is here omitted 
 follows in ver. 16 at a fitting place ; for in vers. 14 and 15 their 
 genealogy, which rightly goes before the mention of their 
 dwelling-place, is given, n^x, ver. 14, is not to be referred, as 
 Bertheau thinks, to the four Gadites mentioned in vers. 12 and 
 13, but only to those mentioned in ver. 13. Nothing more was 
 known of those four (ver. 12) but that they dwelt in Bashan, 
 while the genealogy of the seven is traced up through eight gene- 
 rations to a certain Buz, of whom nothing further is known, as 
 the name fQ occurs nowhere else, except in Gen. xxii. 21 as that 
 of a son of Nahor. The names of his ancestors also are not 
 found elsewhere among the Gadites. Ver. 15. The head of their 
 fathers'-houses (i.e. of those mentioned in ver. 13) was Ahi the 
 son of Abdiel, the son of Guni, who is conjectured to have lived 
 in the time of King Jotham of Judah, or of Jeroboam 11. of 
 Israel, when, according to ver. 17, genealogical registers of the 
 Gadites were made up. Ver. 16. The families descended from 
 Buz " dwelt in Gilead," in the part of that district lying to the 
 south of the Jabbok, which Moses had given to the Gadites 
 and Reubenites (Deut. iii. 12) ; "in Bashan and her daughters," 
 that is, iu the villages belonging to the cities of Bashan and 
 Gilead inhabited by them (for the suffix in HTii322 is to be 
 referred distributively to both districts, or the cities in them). 
 " And in all the pasture grounds (^9, c ^- on Num. xxxv. 2) 
 of Sharon unto their outgoings." JiiB*, Sharon, lay not in Perea, 
 but is a great plain on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, 
 extending from Carmel to near Joppa, famed for its great 
 fertility and its rich growth of flowers (Song ii. 1 ; Isa. xxxiii. 
 9, xxxv. 2, Ixv. 10). " A Ccesarea Palcestince usque ad oppidum 
 Joppe omnis terra,quce cernitur,diciturSaronas" Jerome in Onom.; 
 cf. v. Raumer, Pal. S. 50, and Robins. Phys. Geog. S. 123. It is 
 this plain which is here meant, and the supposition of the older 
 commentators that there was a second Sharon in the east- 
 Jordan land is without foundation, as Reland, Palestina illustr. 
 p. 370 sq., has correctly remarked. For it is not said that the 
 Gadites possessed cities in Sharon, but only pastures of Sharon 
 are spoken of, which the Gadites may have sought out for their 
 herds even on. the coast of the Mediterranean ; more especially as 
 the domain of the cis-Jordanic half-tribe of Manasseh stretched 
 into the plain of Sharon, and it is probable that at all times
 
 108 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 there was intercourse between the cis- and trans- Jordanic Manas- 
 sites, in which the Gadites may also have taken part. Dnixtfn are 
 the outgoings of the pastures to the sea, cf . Josh. xvii. 9. Ver. 
 17. " All these (D?3, all the families of Gad, not merely those 
 mentioned in ver. 13 ff.) were registered in the days of Jotham 
 king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam king of Israel." 
 These two kings did not reign contemporaneously, for Jotham 
 ascended the throne in Judah twenty-five years after the death 
 of Jeroboam of Israel. Here, therefore, two different registra- 
 tions must be referred to, and that carried on under Jotham is 
 mentioned first, because Judah had the legitimate kingship. That 
 set on foot by Jeroboam was probably undertaken after that king 
 had restored all the ancient boundaries of the kingdom of Israel, 
 2 Kings xiv. 25 ff. King Jotham of Judah could prepare a 
 register of the Gadites only if a part of the trans-Jordanic tribes 
 had come temporarily under his dominion. As to any such event, 
 indeed, we have no accurate information, but the thing in itself is 
 not unlikely. For as the death of Jeroboam n. was followed by 
 complete anarchy in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and one ruler 
 overthrew the other, until at last Pekah succeeded in holding the 
 crown for ten years, while in Judah until Pekah ascended the 
 throne of Israel Uzziah reigned, and raised his kingdom to greater 
 power and prosperity, the southern part of the trans-Jordanic land 
 might very well have come for a time under the sway of Judah. 
 At such a time Jotham may have carried out an assessment 
 and registration of the Gadites, until his contemporary Pekah 
 succeeded, with the help of the Syrian king Rezin, in taking from 
 the king of Judah the dominion over Gilead, and in humbling 
 the kingdom of Judah in the reign of Ahaz. 
 
 Vers. 18-22. War of the trans-Jordanic tribes of Israel with 
 Arabic tribes. As the half-tribe of Manasseh also took part in 
 this war, we should have expected the account of it after ver. 24. 
 Bertheau regards its position here as a result of striving after a 
 symmetrical distribution of the historical information. " In the 
 case of Reuben," he says, " the historical information is in ver. 
 10 ; in the case of the half-tribe of Manasseh, in vers. 25 and 26 ; 
 as to Gad, we have our record in vers. 18-22, which, together 
 with the account in vers. 25 and 26, refers to all the trans-Jor- 
 danic Israelites." But it is much more likely that the reason of 
 it will be found in the character of the authorities which the 
 author of the Chronicle made use of, in which, probably, the
 
 CHAP. V. 18-22. 109 
 
 notes regarding this war were contained in the genealogical 
 register of the Gadites. Ver. 18. 710 ^"i? belongs to the predi- 
 cate of the sentence, " They were the sons of valour," i.e. they 
 belonged to the valiant warriors, " men bearing shield and sword 
 (weapons of offence and defence), and those treading (or bending) 
 the bow," i.e. skilful bowmen. ^npp *jp9, people practised in 
 war ; cf . the portrayal of the warlike valour of Gad and Manas- 
 seh, chap. xii. 8, 21. " The number 44,760 must be founded 
 upon an accurate reckoning" (Berth.); but in comparison with 
 the number of men capable of bearing arms in those tribes in 
 the time of Moses, it is somewhat inconsiderable : for at the first 
 numbering under him Reuben alone had 46,500 and Gad 45,650, 
 and at the second numbering Reuben had 43,730 and Gad 40,500 
 men ; see on Num. i.-iv. (i. 2, S. 192). Ver. 19. " They made war 
 with the Hagarites and Jetur, Nephish and Nodab." So early as 
 the time of Saul the Reubenites had victoriously made war upon 
 the Hagarites (see ver. 10) ; but the war here mentioned was 
 certainly at a later time, and has no further connection with that 
 in ver. 10 except that both arose from similar causes. The time 
 of the second is not given, and all we know from ver. 226 is that 
 it had broken out before the trans- Jordanic Israelites were led 
 captive by the Assyrians. DW'un, in Ps. Ixxxiii. 7 contracted 
 into E'niri, are the 'A<ypaloi, whom Strabo, xvi. p. 767, introduces, 
 on the authority of Eratosthenes, as leading a nomadic life in 
 the great Arabico-Syrian desert, along with the Nabatseans and 
 ChaulotEeans. Jetur, from whom the Itureans are descended, and 
 Nephishj are Ishmaelites ; cf. on Gen. xxv. 15. Nodab, mentioned 
 only here, is a Bedouin tribe of whom nothing more is known. 
 Ver. 20. The Israelites, with God's help, gained the victory. 
 'nw.l, " it was helped to them," i.e. by God " against them" the 
 Hagarites and their allies. on^t? contracted from Dnsy "IK'S. 
 ^iflJW is not an uncommon form of the perf. Niph., which would 
 not be suitable in a continuous sentence, but the inf. absol. Niph. 
 used instead of the third pers. perf. (cf. Gesen. Heb. Gramm. 
 131, 4) : " and (God) was entreated of them, because they 
 trusted in Him." From these words we may conclude that the 
 war was a very serious one, in which the possession of the land 
 was at stake. As the trans- Jordanic tribes lived mainly by cattle- 
 breeding, and the Arabian tribes on the eastern frontier of their 
 land were also a shepherd people, quarrels could easily arise as to 
 the possession of the pasture grounds, which might lead to a war
 
 110 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of extermination. Ver. 21. The conquerors captured a great 
 booty in herds, 50,000 camels, 250,000 head of small cattle (sheep 
 and goats), 2000 asses, and 100,000 persons all round numbers ; 
 cf. the rich booty obtained in the war against the Midianites, 
 Num. xxxi. 11, 32 ff. Ver. 22. This rich booty should not sur- 
 prise us, " for there fell many slain," i.e. the enemy had suffered 
 a very bloody defeat. " For the war was from God," i.e. con- 
 ducted to this result : cf . 2 Chron. xxv. 20 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 47. 
 " And they dwelt in their stead," i.e. they took possession of the 
 pasture grounds, which up to that time had belonged to the 
 Arabs, and held them until they were carried away captive by 
 the Assyrians; see ver. 26. 
 
 Vers. 23-26. Tlie families of the half -tribe of Manasseh in 
 Bashan^ and the leading away of the East-Jordan Israelites into 
 the Assyrian exile. Ver. 23. The half-tribe of Manasseh in 
 Bashan was very numerous (&} n 9[?), " and they dwelt in the 
 land of Bashan (i.e. the Bashan inhabited by Gad, ver. 12) (north- 
 wards) to Baal Hermon," i.e., according to the more accurate 
 designation of the place in Josh. xii. 7 and xiii. 5, in the valley 
 of Lebanon under Mount Hermon, probably the present Banjas, 
 at the foot of Hermon (see on Num. xxxiv. 8), " and Senir and 
 Mount Hermon." "Wfr, which according to Deut. iii. 9 was the 
 name of Hermon or Antilibanus in use among the Amorites, is 
 here and in Ezek. xxvii. 5 the name of a part of those mountains 
 (vide on Deut. iii. 9), just as " Mount Hermon" is the name of 
 another part of this range. Ver. 24. Seven heads of fathers'- 
 houses of the half-tribe of Manasseh are enumerated, and cha- 
 racterized as valiant heroes and famous men. The enumeration 
 of the names begins strangely with i ("^JTj) ; perhaps a name has 
 fallen out before it. Nothing has been handed down as to any 
 of these names. Vers. 25 and 26 form the conclusion of the 
 register of the two and a half trans- Jordanic tribes. The sons of 
 Manasseh are not. the subject to 1?^??, but the Reubenites and 
 Manassites, as is clear from ver. 26. These fell away faithlessly 
 from the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods 
 of the people of the land, whom God had destroyed before them, 
 i.e. the Amorites or Canaanites. " And the God of Israel stirred 
 up the spirit of the Assyrian kings Pul and Tiglath-pilneser, and 
 he (this latter) led them away captives to Halah and Habor," etc. 
 nvrnx IJM, Lavater has rightly rendered, " in mentem illis dedit, 
 movit eos, ut expeditionemfacerent contra illos;" cf . 2 Chron. xxi. 16.
 
 CHAP. V. 23-26. Ill 
 
 Pul is mentioned as being the first Assyrian king who attacked 
 the land of Israel, cf. 2 Kings xv. 19 f. The deportation began, 
 however, only with Tiglath-pileser, who led the East-Jordan 
 tribes into exile, 2 Kings xv. 29. To him D?an sing, refers. The 
 suffix is defined by the following ace., '"1 ^S"y ; f is, according 
 to the later usage, nota ace. ; cf. Ew. 277, e. So also before the 
 name n^n, " to Halah," i.e. probably the district KaXa^vij (in 
 Strabo) on the east side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to the north 
 of Nineveh, on the frontier of Armenia (cf. on 2 Kings xvii. 6). 
 In the second book of Kings (xv. 29) the district to which the 
 two and a half tribes were sent as exiles is not accurately deter- 
 mined, being only called in general Asshur (Assyria). The 
 names in our verse are there (2 Kings xvii. 6) the names of the 
 districts to which Shalmaneser sent the remainder of the ten 
 tribes after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. It is 
 therefore questionable whether the author of the Chronicle took 
 his account from an authority used by him, or if he names these 
 districts only according to general recollection, in which the times 
 of Shalmaneser and of Tiglath-pilneser are not very accurately 
 distinguished (Berth.). We consider the first supposition the 
 more probable, not merely because he inverts the order of the 
 names, but mainly because he gives the name N^n instead of " the 
 cities of Media," as it is in Kings, and that name he could only 
 have obtained from his authorities, "ton is not the river Cha- 
 boras in Mesopotamia, which falls into the Euphrates near Cir- 
 cesium, for that river is called in Ezekiel ">?2, but is a district 
 in northern Assyria, where Jakut mentions that there is both 
 a mountain Xa/Stupa? on the frontier of Assyria and Media 
 (Ptolem. vi. 1), and a river Khabur Chasania?, which still bears 
 the old name Khabur, rising in the neighbourhood of the upper 
 Zab, near Amadijeh, and falling into the Tigris below Jezirah. 
 This Khabur is the river of Gozan (vide on 2 Kings xvii. 6). 
 The word N"in appears to be the Aramaic form of the Hebrew 
 "in 7 mountains, and the vernacular designation usual in the mouths 
 of the people of the mountain land of Media, which is called also 
 in Arabic el Jebal (the mountains). This name can there- 
 fore only have been handed down from the exiles who dwelt 
 there.
 
 112 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 CHAP. V. 27-VI. 66. THE FAMILIES OF LEVI, AND THEIR CITIES. 
 
 As to the tribe of Levi, we have several communications : 
 (1.) the genealogy of the high-priestly family of Aaron, down 
 to Jehozadak, who was led away into exile by Nebuchadnezzar 
 (v. 27-41) ; (2.) a short register of the families of Gershon, 
 Kohath, and Merari, which does not extend far into later times 
 (vi. 1-15) ; (3.) the genealogies of the musicians Heman, 
 Asaph, and Ethan (vi. 16-32), with remarks on the service of 
 the other Levites (vers. 33, 34) ; (4.) a register of the high 
 priests from Eleazar to Ahimaaz the son of Zadok (vi. 35-38), 
 with a register of the cities of the Levites (vi. 39-66). If we look 
 into these genealogies and registers, we see, both from a repetition 
 of a part of the genealogy of the high priest (vi. 35-38), and 
 also from the name of the eldest son of Levi appearing in two 
 different forms in v. 27 ff. Gershon ; in vi. 1, 2, 5, etc., Ger- 
 shom that the register in v. 27-41 is drawn from another source 
 than the registers in chap, vi., which, with the exception of the 
 genealogies of David's chief musicians, are throughout fragmen- 
 tary, and in parts corrupt, and were most probably found by the 
 author of the Chronicle in this defective state. 
 
 Chap. v. 27-41. The family of Aaron, or the high-priestly 
 line of Aaron, to the time of the Babylonian exile. Vers. 27-29. 
 In order to exhibit the connection of Aharon (or Aaron) with 
 the patriarch Levi, the enumeration begins with the three sons 
 of Levi, who are given in ver. 27 as in Gen. xlvi. 11, Ex. vi. 16, 
 and in other passages. Of Levi's grandchildren, only the four 
 sons of Kohath (ver. 28) are noticed ; and of these, again, Amram 
 is the only one whose descendants Aaron, Moses, and Miriam 
 are named (ver. 29) ; and thereafter only Aaron's sons are intro- 
 duced, in order that the enumeration of his family in the high- 
 priestly line of Eleazar might follow. With ver. 28 cf. Ex. 
 i. 18, and on ver. 19 see the commentary on Ex. vi. 20. With 
 the sons of Aaron (29Z>) compare besides Ex. vi. 23, also Num. 
 iii. 2-4, and 1 Chron. xxiv. 1, 2. As Nadab and Abihu were slain 
 when they offered strange fire before Jahve (Lev. x. 1 ff.), Aaron's 
 race was continued only by his sons Eleazar and Ithamar. After 
 Aaron's death, his eldest son Eleazar was chosen by God to be his 
 successor in the high priest's office, and thus the line of Eleazar 
 came into possession of the high-priestly dignity. 
 
 In vers. 30-41 the descendants of Eleazar are enumerated
 
 CHAP. V. 27-41. 113 
 
 in twenty-two generations ; the word Ty&l, " he begat," being 
 repeated with every name. The son so begotten was, when he 
 lived after his father, the heir of the high-priestly dignity. Thus 
 Phinehas the son of Eleazar (Ex. vi. 25) is found in possession 
 of it in Judg. xx. 28. From this the older commentators have 
 rightly drawn tho inference that the purpose of the enumeration 
 in vers. 30-40 was to communicate the succession of high priests 
 from Eleazar, who died shortly after Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 33), to 
 Jehozadak, whom Nebuchadnezzar caused to be carried away 
 into Babylon. From the death of Aaron in the fortieth year 
 after Israel came forth from Egypt, till the building of the 
 temple in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon, 440 years 
 elapsed (480 40 = 440, 1 Kings vi. 1). From the building of 
 the temple to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple 
 by the Chaldoeans there was an interval of 423 years (36 years 
 under Solomon, and 387 years during which the kingdom of 
 Judah existed ; see the chronological table to 1 Kings xii.). Be- 
 tween the death of Aaron, therefore, and the time when Jeho- 
 zadak was led away into captivity, supposing that that event 
 occurred only under Zedekiah, lay a period of 440 + 423 = 863 
 years. For this period twenty-two generations appear too few, for 
 then the average duration of each life would be 39^ years. Such 
 an estimate would certainly appear a very high one, but it does 
 not pass the bounds of possibility, as cases may have occurred 
 in which the son died before the father, when consequently the 
 grandson would succeed the grandfather in the office of high 
 priest, and the son would be omitted in our register. The ever- 
 recurring Tvin cannot be brought forward in opposition to this 
 supposition, because Tvla in the genealogical lists may express 
 mediate procreation, and the grandson may be introduced as 
 begotten by the grandfather. On the supposition of the exist- 
 ence of such cases, we should have to regard the average above 
 mentioned as the average time during which each of the high 
 priests held the office. But against such an interpretation of 
 this list of the posterity of Eleazar two somewhat serious diffi- 
 culties are raised. The less serious of these consists in this, that 
 in the view of the author of our register, the line of Eleazar 
 remained in uninterrupted possession of the high-priestly dignity ; 
 but in the historical books of the Old Testament another line of 
 high priests, beginning with Eli, is mentioned, which, according 
 to 1 Chron. xxiv. 5, and Joseph. Anlt. v. 11. 5, belonged to the 
 
 H
 
 114 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 family of Ithamar. The list is as follows : Eli (1 Sam. ii. 20) ; 
 his son Phinehas, who, however, died before Eli (1 Sam. iv. 11) ; 
 his son Ahitub (1 Sam. xiv. 3) ; his son Ahijah, who was also 
 called Ahimelech (1 Sam. xiv. 3, xxii. 9, 11, 20) ; his son Abia- 
 thar (1 Sam. xxii. 20), from whom Solomon took away the 
 high-priesthood (1 Kings ii. 26 f.), and set Zadok in his place 
 (1 Kings ii. 35). According to Josephus, loc. cit., the high- 
 priestly dignity remained with the line of Eleazar, from Eleazar 
 to Ozi ("W, ver. 31 f .) ; it then fell to Eli and his descendants, 
 until with Zadok it returned to the line of Eleazar. These 
 statements manifestly rest upon truthful historical tradition ; 
 for the supposition that at the death of Ozi the high-priesthood 
 was transferred from the line of Eleazar to the line of Ithamar 
 through Eli, is supported by the circumstance that from the 
 beginning of the judgeship of Eli to the beginning of the reign 
 of Solomon a period of 139 years elapsed, which is filled up in 
 both lines by five names, Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahijah, and 
 Abiathar in the passages above quoted ; and Zerahiah, Meraioth, 
 Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok in vers. 32-34 of our chapter. 
 But the further opinion expressed by Joseph. Antt. viii. 1. 3, 
 that the descendants of Eleazar, during the time in which Eli 
 and his descendants were in possession of the priesthood, lived 
 as private persons, plainly rests on a conjecture, the incorrectness 
 of which is made manifest by some distinct statements of the 
 Old Testament : for, according to 2 Sam. viii. 17 and xx. 25, 
 Zadok of Eleazar's line, and Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, 
 were high priests in the time of David ; cf. 1 Chron. xxiv. 5 f. 
 The transfer of the high-priestly dignity, or rather of the official 
 exercise of the high-priesthood, to Eli, one of Ithamar's line, 
 after Ozi's death, was, as we have already remarked on 1 Sam. 
 ii. 27 ff., probably brought about by circumstances or relations 
 which are not now known to us, but without an extinction of 
 the right of Ozi's descendants to the succession in the dignity. 
 But when the wave of judgment broke over the house of Eli, 
 the ark was taken by the Philistines ; and after it had been sent 
 back into the land of Israel, it was not again placed beside the 
 tabernacle, but remained during seventy years in the house of 
 Abinadab (1 Sam. iv. 4-vii. 2). Years afterwards David caused 
 it to be brought to Jerusalem, and erected a separate tent for it 
 on Zion, while the tabernacle had meanwhile been transferred to 
 Gibeon, where it continued to be the place where sacrifices were
 
 CHAP. V. 27-41. 115 
 
 offered till the building of the 'temple. Thus there arose two 
 places of worship, and in connection with them separate spheres 
 of action for the high priests of both lines, Zadok performing the 
 duties of the priestly office at Gibeon (1 Chron. xvi. 39 ; cf. 1 
 Kings iii. 4 ff.), while Abiathar discharged its functions in Jeru- 
 salem. But without doubt not only Zadok, but also his father 
 Ahitub before him, had discharged the duties of high priest in 
 the tabernacle at Gibeon, while the connection of Eli's sons with 
 the office came to an end with the slaughter of Ahijah (Ahime- 
 lech) and all the priesthood at Nob (1 Sam. xxii.) ; for Abiathar, 
 the only son of Ahimelech, and the single survivor of that mas- 
 sacre, fled to David, and accompanied him continuously in his 
 flight before Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 20-23). But, not content with the 
 slaughter of the priests in Nob, Saul also smote the city itself with 
 the edge of the sword ; whence it is probable, although all definite 
 information to that effect is wanting, that it was in consequence 
 of this catastrophe that the tabernacle was removed to Gibeon 
 and the high-priesthood entrusted to Zadok's father, a man of 
 the line of Eleazar, because the only son of Ahimelech, and the 
 only representative of Ithamar's line, had fled to David. If this 
 view be correct, of the ancestors of Ahitub, only Amariah, 
 Meraioth, and Zerahiah did not hold the office of high priest. 
 But if these had neither been supplanted by Eli nor had ren- 
 dered themselves unworthy of the office by criminal conduct ; if 
 the only reason why the possession of the high-priesthood was 
 transferred to Eli was, that Ozi's son Zerahiah was not equal to 
 the discharge of the duties of the office under the difficult cir- 
 cumstances of the time ; and if Eli's grandson Ahitub succeeded 
 his grandfather in the office at a time when God had already 
 announced to Eli by prophets the approaching ruin of his house, 
 then Zerahiah, Meraioth, and Amariah, although not de facto 
 in possession of the high-priesthood, might still be looked upon 
 as de jure holders of the dignity, and so be introduced in the 
 genealogies of Eleazar as such. In this way the difficulty is 
 completely overcome. 
 
 But it is somewhat more difficult to explain the other fact, 
 that our register on the one hand gives too many names for 
 the earlier period and too few for the later time, and on the 
 other hand is contradicted by some definite statements of the 
 historical books. We find too few names for the time from the 
 death of Aaron to the death of Uzzi (Ozi), when Eli became
 
 116 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 high priest, a period of 299 years (vide the Chronological View 
 of the Period of the Judges, ii. 1, S. 217). Five high priests 
 Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, and Uzzi are too few ; 
 for in that case each one of them must have discharged the 
 office for 60 years, and have begotten the son who succeeded 
 him in the office only in his 60th year, or the grandson must 
 have regularly succeeded the grandfather in the office, all of 
 which suppositions appear somewhat incredible. Clearly, there- 
 fore, intermediate names must have been omitted in our register. 
 To the period from Eli till the deposition of Abiathar, in the 
 beginning of Solomon's reign which, according to the chrono- 
 logical survey, was a period of 139 years the last five names 
 from Zerahiah to Zadok correspond ; and as 24 years are thus 
 assigned to each, and Zadok held the office for a number of 
 years more under Solomon, we may reckon an average of 30 
 years to each generation. For the following period of about 417 
 years from Solomon, or the completion of the temple, till the 
 destruction of the temple by the Chaldseans, the twelve names 
 from Ahimaaz the son of Zadok to Jehozadak, who was led 
 away into captivity, give the not incredible average of from 34 
 to 35 years for each generation, so that in this part of our 
 register not many breaks need be supposed. But if we examine 
 the names enumerated, we find (1) that no mention is made of 
 the high priest Jehoiada, who raised the youthful Joash to the 
 throne, and was his adviser during the first years of his reign 
 (2 Kings xi., and 2 Chron. xxii. 10, xxiv. 2), and that under 
 Ahaz, Urijah, who indeed is called only ftsn, but who was cer- 
 tainly high priest (2 Kings xvi. 10 ff.), is omitted ; and (2) we 
 find that the name Azariah occurs three times (vers. 35, 36, and 
 40), on which Berth, remarks : " Azariah is the name of the 
 high priest in the time of Solomon (1 Kings iv. 2), in the time 
 of Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 17), and in the time of Hezekiah (2 
 Chron. xxxi. 10)." Besides this, we meet with an Amariah, the 
 fifth after Zadok, whom Lightf., Oehler, and others consider to 
 be the high priest of that name under Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. 
 xix. 11. And finally, (3) in the historical account in 2 Kings 
 xxii. 4 ff., Hilkiah is mentioned as high priest under Josiah, 
 while according to our register (ver. 39) Hilkiah begat Azariah ; 
 whence we must conclude either that Hilkiah is not the high 
 priest of that name under Josiah, or Azariah is not the person 
 of that name who lived in the time of Hezekiah. As regards
 
 CHAP. V. 27-41. 117 
 
 the omission of the names Urijah and Jehoiada in our register, 
 Urijah may have been passed over as an unimportant man ; but 
 Jehoiada had exerted far too important an influence on the fate 
 of the kingdom of Judah to allow of his being so overlooked. 
 The only possibilities in his case are, either that he occurs in 
 our register under another name, owing to his having had, like 
 so many others, two different names, or that the name jn^iT 1 has 
 fallen out through an old error in the transcription of the genealo- 
 gical list. The latter supposition, viz. that Jehoiada has fallen 
 out before Johanan, is the more probable. Judging from 2 Kings 
 xii. 3 and 2 Chron. xxiv. 2, Jehoiada died under Joash, at least five 
 or ten years before the king, and consequently from 127 to 132 
 years after Solomon, at the advanced age of 130 years (2 Chron. 
 xxiv. 15). He was therefore born shortly before or after the death 
 of Solomon, being a great-grandson of Zadok, who may have died 
 a considerable time before Solomon, as he had filled the office of 
 high priest at Gibeon under David for a period of 30 years. 
 
 Then, if we turn our attention to the thrice recurring name 
 Azariah, we see that the Azariah mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 2 
 cannot be regarded as the high priest ; for the word J^b in 
 this passage does not denote the high priest, but the viceroy 
 of the kingdom (vide on the passage). But besides, this 
 Azariah cannot be the same person as the Azariah in ver. 
 35 of our genealogy, because he is called a son of Zadok, 
 while our Azariah is introduced as the son of Ahimaaz, the son 
 of Zadok, and consequently as a grandson of Zadok; and the 
 grandson of Zadok who is mentioned as being high priest along 
 with Abiathar, 1 Kings iv. 4, could not have occupied in his 
 grandfather's time the first place among the highest public officials 
 of Solomon. The Azariah mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 2 as the 
 son of Zadok must not be considered to be a brother of the 
 Ahimaaz of our register, for we very seldom find a nephew and 
 uncle called by the same name. As to the Azariah of ver. 36, the 
 son of Johanan, it is remarked, " This is he who was priest (or 
 who held the priest's office ; i??, cf . Ex. xl. 13, Lev. xvi. 32) in 
 the house (temple) which Solomon had built in Jerusalem." 
 R. Sal. and Kimchi have connected this remark with the events 
 narrated in 2 Chron. xxvi. 17, referring it to the special jealousy 
 of King Uzziah's encroachments on the priest's office, in 
 arrogating to himself in the temple the priestly function of 
 offering incense in the holy place. Against this, indeed, J. H.
 
 118 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Mich, has raised the objection, quod tamen chronologies rationes 
 via admittunt ; and it is true that this encroachment of Uzziah's 
 happened 200 years after Solomon's death, while the Azariah 
 mentioned in our register is the fourth after Zadok. But if the 
 name Jehoiada has been dropped out before Johanan, and 
 Jehoiada held the high priest's office for a considerable time 
 under Joash, the high-priesthood of his grandson Azariah would 
 coincide with Uzziah's reign, when of course the chronological 
 objection to the above-mentioned explanation of the words Nin 
 'U1 jna "it?x is removed. 1 But lastly, the difficulty connected 
 with the fact that in our passage Azariah follows Hilkiah, while 
 in 2 Kings xxii. 4 ff. and 2 Chron. xxxi. 10, 13, Azariah 
 occurs as high priest under King Hezekiah, and Hilkiah in the 
 time of his great-grandson Josiah, cannot be cleared away by 
 merely changing the order of the names Hilkiah and Azariah. 
 For, apart altogether from the improbability of such a transposi- 
 tion having taken place in a register formed as this is, " Shallum 
 begat Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begat Azariah, and Azariah begat," 
 the main objection to it is the fact that between Azariah, ver. 
 26, who lived under Uzziah, and Hilkiah, four names are intro- 
 duced ; so that on this supposition, during the time which elapsed 
 between Uzziah's forcing his way into the temple till the pass- 
 over under Hezekiah, i.e. during a period of from 55 to 60 years, 
 
 1 Bertheau's explanation is inadmissible. He says : "If we consider 
 that in the long line of the high priests, many of them bearing the same 
 name, it would naturally suggest itself to distinguish the Azariah who first 
 discharged the duties of his office in the temple, in order to bring a fixed 
 chronology into the enumeration of the names ; and if we recollect that a high 
 priest Azariah, the son, or according to our passage more definitely the 
 grandson, of Zadok, lived in the time of Solomon ; and finally, if we consider 
 the passage chap. vi. 17, we must hold that the words, ' He it is who dis- 
 charged the duties of priest in the temple which Solomon had built in Jeru- 
 salem,' originally stood after the name Azariah in ver. 85 ; cf. 1 Kings iv. 2." 
 All justification of the proposed transposition is completely taken away by 
 the fact that the Azariah of 1 Kings iv. 2 was neither high priest nor the same 
 person as the Azariah in ver. 35 of our register ; and it is impossible that a 
 grandson of Zadok whom Solomon appointed to the high-priesthood, instead 
 of Abiathar, can have been the first who discharged the duties of high priest 
 in the temple. Oehler's opinion (in Herzog's Reakncyklop. vi. 205), that the 
 Amariah who follows Azariah (ver. 37) is identical with the Amariah under 
 Jehoshaphat, is not less improbable ; for Jehoshaphat was king sixty-one years 
 after Solomon's death, and during these sixty-one years the four high priests 
 who are named between Zadok and Amariah could not have succeeded each 
 other.
 
 CHAP. V. 27-41. 119 
 
 four generations must have followed one another, which is quite 
 impossible. In addition to this, between Hezekiah and Josiah 
 came the reigns of Manasseh and Amon, who reigned 55 years 
 and 2 years respectively ; and from the passover of Hezekiah to 
 the finding of the book of the law by the high priest Hilkiah 
 in the eighteenth year of Josiah, about 90 years had elapsed, 
 whence it is clear that on chronological grounds Hilkiah cannot 
 well have been the successor of Azariah in the high-priesthood. 
 The Azariah of ver. 39 f ., therefore, cannot be identified with the 
 Azariah who was high priest under Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxi. 10) ; 
 and no explanation seems possible, other than the supposition that 
 between Ahitub and Zadok the begetting of Azariah has been 
 dropped out. On this assumption the Hilkiah mentioned in ver. 
 39 maybe the high priest in the time of Josiah, although between 
 him and the time when Jehozadak was led away into exile three 
 names, including that of Jehozadak, are mentioned, while from 
 the eighteenth year of Josiah till the destruction of the temple by 
 the Chaldseans only 30 years elapsed. For Hilkiah may have 
 been in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign very old ; and at the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, not Jehozadak, but his father Seraiah 
 the grandson of Hilkiah, was high priest, and was executed at 
 Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 18, 21), from which 
 we may conclude that Jehozadak was led away captive in his 
 early years. The order in which the names occur in our register, 
 moreover, is confirmed by Ezra vii. 1-5, where, in the statement 
 as to the family of Ezra, the names from Seraiah onwards to 
 Amariah ben- Azariah occur in the same order. The correspond- 
 ence would seem to exclude any alterations of the order, either 
 by transposition of names or by the insertion of some which had 
 been dropped ; but yet it only proves that both these genealogies 
 have been derived from the same authority, and does not at all 
 remove the possibility of this authority itself having had some 
 defects. The probability of such breaks as we suppose in the 
 case of Jehoiada and Azariah, who lived, under Hezekiah, is 
 shown, apart altogether from the reasons which have been already 
 brought forward in support of it, by the fact that our register has 
 only eleven generations from Zadok, the contemporary of Solo- 
 mon, to Seraiah, who was slain at the destruction of Jerusalem ; 
 while the royal house of David shows seventeen generations, viz. 
 the twenty kings of Judah, omitting Athaliah, and Jehoahaz and 
 Zedekiah, the last two as being brothers of Jehoiakiin (1 Chron.
 
 120 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 iii. 10-27). Even supposing that the king's sons were, as a rule, 
 earlier married, and begat children earlier than the priests, yet 
 the difference between eleven and seventeen generations for the 
 same period is too great, and is of itself sufficient to suggest that 
 in our register of the high priests names are wanting, and that 
 the three or four high priests known to us from the historical 
 books who are wanting Amariah under Jehoshaphat, Jehoiada 
 under Joash, (Urijah under Ahaz,) and Azariah under Hezekiah 
 were either passed over or had fallen out of the list made use of 
 by the author of the Chronicle. 1 Ver. 41. Jehozadak is the father 
 of Joshua who returned from .exile with Zerubbabel, and was 
 the first high priest in the restored community (Ezra iii. 2, v. 2 ; 
 Hagg. i. 1). After ^n, " he went forth," !"!?i33 is to be supplied 
 from "m nfyrQ, "he went into exile" to Babylon; cf. Jer.xlix. 3. 
 
 Chap. vi. The families and cities of the Levites. Vers. 1-34. 
 Register of the families of the Levites. This is introduced by an 
 enumeration of the sons and grandsons of Levi (vers. 1-4), which 
 is followed by lists of families in six lines of descent : (a) the 
 descendants of Gershon (vers. 5-7), of Kohath (vers. 1-13), and 
 of Merari (vers. 14 and 15) ; and (6) the genealogies of David's 
 chief musicians (vers. 16 and 17), of Heman the Kohathite (vers. 
 18-23), of Asaph the Gershonite (vers. 24-28), and of Ethan the 
 Merarite (vers. 29-32) ; and in vers. 33, 34, some notes as to the 
 service performed by the other Levites and the priests are added. 
 
 Vers. 1-4. The sons of Levi are in ver. 1 again enumerated as 
 in v. 27 ; then in vers. 2-4a the sons of these three sons, i.e. the 
 grandsons of Levi, are introduced, while in chap. v. 28 only the 
 sons of Kohath are mentioned. The only object of this enumera- 
 tion is to make quite clear the descent of the Levitic families which 
 follow. The name of the first son of Levi is in vers. 1, 2, 4, 
 etc. of this chapter D'^l?., which was the name of Moses' son, cf. 
 xxiii. 15 f. ; whereas in v. 27 and in the Pentateuch we find a 
 different pronunciation, viz. tfEnji. The names of Levi's grand- 
 sons in vers. 2-4a coincide with the statements of the Pentateuch, 
 Ex. vi. 17-19, and Num. iii. 17-20, cf. xxvi. 57 f. Bertheau and 
 other commentators consider the words in 45, " and these are the 
 
 1 The extra-biblical information concerning the prse-exilic high priests in 
 Josephus and the Seder Olam, is, in so far as it differs from the account of 
 the Old Testament, without any historical warrant. Vide the comparison of 
 these in Lightfoot, Ministerium tcmpli, Opp. ed. ii. vol. i. p. 682 sqq. ; Selden, 
 De success, in poniifa. lib. i. ; and Reland, Antiquitatt. ss. ii. c. 2.
 
 CHAP. VI. 5-15. 121 
 
 families of Levi according to their fathers," to be a " concluding 
 subscription" to the statements of vers. l-4a, and would remove 
 ] before n?^ as not compatible with this supposition. But in this 
 he is wrong : for although the similar statement in Ex. vi. 20 is a 
 subscription, yet it is in Num. iii. 20 a superscription, and must in 
 our verse also be so understood ; for otherwise the enumeration of 
 the descendants of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, which follows, 
 would be brought in very abruptly, without any connecting 
 particle, and the 1 before njs points to the same conclusion. 
 
 Vers. 5-15. The three lists of the descendants of Gershon, 
 Kohath, and Merari are similar to one another in plan, and in 
 all, each name is connected with the preceding by U3, " his son," 
 but they differ greatly in the number of the names. Vers. 5 and 
 6. The p before Bi&jh.ji. is introductory : " as to Gershom." Those 
 of his descendants who are here enumerated belong to the family 
 of his oldest son Libni, which is traced down through seven 
 generations to Jeaterai, a name not elsewhere met with. Of the 
 intermediate names, Johath, Zimmah, and Zerah occur also 
 among the descendants of Asaph, who is descended from the line 
 of Shimei, vers. 24-28. Vers. 7-13. The genealogy of the de- 
 scendants of Kohath consists of three lists of names, each of 
 which commences afresh with ^3, vers. 7, 10, and 13 ; yet we 
 Jearn nothing from it as to the genealogical connection of these 
 three lines. The very beginning, " The sons of Kohath, Am- 
 minadab his son, Korah his son, Assir his son," is somewhat 
 strange. For, according to Ex. vi. 18, 21, and 24, Kohath's 
 second son is called Izhar, whose son was Korah, whose sons 
 were Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph. Amminadab is nowhere 
 met with as a son of Kohath ; but among the descendants of 
 Uzziel, a prince of a fathers-house is met with in the time of 
 David who bore this name. The name Amminadab occurs also 
 in the time of Moses, in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, 
 chap. ii. 10, Num. i. 7, Ruth i. 19, as that of the father of the 
 prince Nahshon, and of Elisheba, whom Aaron took to wife, 
 Ex. vi. 23. But since the names Korah and Assir point to the 
 family of Izhar, the older commentators supposed the Amminadab 
 of our verse to be only another name for Izhar ; while Bertheau, 
 on the contrary, conjectures "that as an Amminadab occurs in 
 the lists of the descendants of Kohath as father-in-law of Aaron, 
 Amminadab has been substituted for Izhar by an ancient error, 
 which might very easily slip into an abridgment of more detailed
 
 122 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 lists." But we have here no trace of an abridgment of more 
 detailed lists. According to Ex. vi. 21 and 24, Korah was a 
 son of Izhar, and Assir a son of Korah ; and consequently in 
 our genealogies only the name Izhar is wanting between Korah 
 and Kohath, while instead of him we have Amminadab. An 
 exchange or confusion of the names of Izhar and Amminadab the 
 father-in-law of Aaron, is as improbable as the supposition that 
 Amminadab is another name for Izhar, since the genealogies of 
 the Pentateuch give only the name Izhar. Yet no third course 
 is open, and we must decide to accept either one or the other of 
 these suppositions. For that our verses contain a genealogy, or 
 fragments of genealogies, of the Kohathite line of Izhar there 
 can be no doubt, when we compare them with the genealogy 
 (vers. 18-23) of the musician Heman, a descendant of Kohath, 
 which also gives us the means of explaining the other obscurities 
 in our register. In vers. 7 and 8 the names of Assir, Elkanah, 
 and Abiasaph, and again Assir, follow that of Korah, with 132 
 after each. This iJ3 cannot be taken otherwise than as denoting 
 that the names designate so many consecutive generations ; and 
 the only peculiarity in the list is, that the conjunction 1 is found 
 before Abiasaph and the second Assir, while the other names do 
 not have it. But if we compare the genealogy in Ex. vi. with 
 this enumeration, we find that there, in ver. 24, the same three 
 names, Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph, which are here enumerated 
 as those of the son, grandson, and great-grandson of Korah, are 
 said to be the names of the sons of the Izharite Korah. Further, 
 from Heman's genealogy in ver. 22, we learn that the second 
 Assir of our list is a son of Abiasaph, and, according to ver. 22 
 and ver. 8, had a son Tahath. Assir, Elkanah, and Abiasaph 
 must consequently be held to have been brothers, and the follow- 
 ing Assir a son of the last-named Abiasaph, whose family is in 
 ver. "9 further traced through four generations (Tahath, Uriel, 
 Uzziah, and Shaul). Instead of these four, we find in vers. 22 
 and 21 the names Tahath, Zephaniah, Azariah, and Joel. Now 
 although the occurrence of Uzziah and Azariah as names of 
 the same king immediately suggests that in our register also 
 Uzziah and Azariah are two names of the same person, yet the 
 divergence in the other names, on the one hand Zephaniah 
 for Joel, and on the other Uriel for Shaul, is strongly opposed 
 to this conjecture. The discrepancy can scarcely be naturally 
 explained in any other way, than by supposing that after Tahath
 
 CHAP. VI. 5-15. 123 
 
 the two genealogies diverge, ours introducing his son Uriel and 
 his descendants ; the other, in ver. 21 f., mentioning a second 
 son of Tohath, Zephaniah, of whose race Heman came. Ver. 10. 
 "And the sons of Elkanah, Amasai and Ahimoth." As it is clear 
 that with 'P^X '321 a new list begins, and that the preceding 
 enumeration is that of the descendants of Abiasaph, it is at once 
 suggested that this Elkanah was the brother of the Abiasaph 
 mentioned in ver. 8. If, however, we compare the genealogy of 
 Heman, we find there (vers. 21 and 20) a list of the descendants 
 of Joel in an ascending line, thus, Elkanah, Amasai, Mahath, 
 Elkanah, Zuph ; from which it would seem to follow that our 
 Elkanah is the son of Joel mentioned in ver. 21, for Ahimoth 
 may be without difficulty considered to be another form of the 
 name Mahath. This conclusion would be assured if only the 
 beginning of ver. 11 were in harmony with it In this verse, 
 indeed, 132 n3p T 7K, as we read in the Kethibh, may be without 
 difficulty taken to mean that Elkanah was the son of Ahimoth, 
 just as in ver. 20 Elkanah is introduced as son of Mahath. But 
 in this way no meaning can be assigned to the n3p?X which 
 
 v o o T T : .* 
 
 follows "03, and Bertheau accordingly is of opinion that this 
 rwp^s has come into the text by an error. The Masoretes also 
 felt the difficulty, and have substituted for the Kethibh 132 the 
 Keri V. 3 , but then nothing can be made of the first H3pta in ver. 
 11. Beyond doubt the traditional text is here corrupt, and from 
 a comparison of vers. 20 and 19 the only conclusion we can draw 
 with any certainty is that the list from ''Si:? onwards contains the 
 names of descendants of Elkanah the son of Mahath, which is so 
 far favourable to the Keri njp/x ^3. The name Elkanah, on 
 the contrary, which immediately precedes 132, seems to point to a 
 hiatus in the text, and gives room for the conjecture that in ver. 
 10 the sons of Elkauah, the brother of Abiasaph and Assir, were 
 named, and that there followed thereupon an enumeration of the 
 sons or descendants of the Elkanah whom we meet with in ver. 
 21 as son of Joel, after which came the names Elkanah 133, 
 Zophai 133, etc. nnj and 2SvS we consider to be other forms 
 
 i : I / T v: 
 
 of nin and ?*?*> ver. 19, and ""Six is only another form of epv. 
 The succeeding names, Jeroham and Elkanah (ver. 12), agree 
 with those in ver. 19 ; but between the clauses " Elkanah his 
 son" (ver. 12), and "and the sons of Samuel" (ver. 13), the 
 connecting link 133 '^B^, cf. ver. 18, is again wanting, as is also, 
 before or after "ibsn (ver. 13), the name of the first-born, viz.
 
 124 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Joel ; cf. ver. 18 with 1 Sam. viii. 2. Now, although the two 
 last-mentioned omissions can be supplied, they yet show that the 
 enumeration in vers. 7-13 is not a continuous list of one Ivo- 
 hathite family, but contains only fragments of several Kohathite 
 genealogies. In vers. 14 and 15, descendants of Merari follow ; 
 sons of Mahli in six generations, who* are not mentioned else- 
 where. Bertheau compares this list of names, Mahli, Libni, 
 Shimei, Uzza, Shimea, Haggiah, and Asaiah, with the list con- 
 tained in vers. 29-32, Mushi, Mahli, Shamer, Bani, Amzi, Hil- 
 kiah, and Amaziah, and attempts to maintain, notwithstanding 
 the great difference in the names, that the two lists were origin- 
 ally identical, in order to find support for the hypothesis " that 
 the three lists in vers. 515 have not found a place in the 
 Chronicle from their own intrinsic value, or, in other words, have 
 not been introduced there in order to give a register of the 
 ancestors of Jeaterai, the sons of Samuel and Asaiah, but have 
 been received only because they bring us to Heman, Asaph, and 
 Ethan, vers. 19, 24, 29, in another fashion than the lists of 
 names in vers. 1832." But this hypothesis is shown to be 
 false, apart altogether from the other objections which might be 
 raised against it, by the single fact of the total discrepancy be- 
 tween the names of the Merarites in vers. 14 and 15 and those 
 found in vers. 29-32. Of all the six names only Mahli is found 
 in both cases, and he is carefully distinguished in both in 
 the genealogy of Ethan as the son of Mushi and grandson of 
 Merari ; in our list as the son of Merari. When we remember 
 that Merari had two sons, Mahli and Mushi, after whom the 
 fathers'-houses into which his descendants divided themselves 
 were named (Num. iii. 20, xxvi. 58), and that the same names 
 very frequently occur in different families, it would never sug- 
 gest itself to any reader of our register to identify the line of 
 Mushi with the line of Mahli, seeing that, except the name of 
 Mahli the son of Mushi, which is the same as that of his uncle, 
 all the other names are different. Vers. 14 and 15 contain a 
 register of the family of Mahli, while the ancestors of Ethan, 
 vers. 29-32, belonged to the family of Mushi. Our list then 
 absolutely cannot be intended to form a transition to Ethan or 
 Ethan's ancestors. The same may be said of the two other lists 
 vers. 5-7 and vers. 8-13, and this transition hypothesis is con- 
 sequently a mere airspun fancy. The three lists are certainly not 
 embodied in the Chronicle on account of the persons with whose
 
 CHAP. VI. 16-34. 125 
 
 names they end Jeaterai, the sons of Samuel, and Asaiah ; but 
 the author of the Chronicle has thought them worthy of being 
 received into his work as registers of ancient families of the three 
 sons of Levi which had been transmitted from ancient times. 
 
 Vers. 16-34. The genealogies of the Levite musicians Heman y 
 Asaphj and Ethan. These registers are introduced by an account 
 of the service of the Levites about the sanctuary (vers. 16, 17), and 
 conclude with remarks on the service of the remaining Levites 
 (vers. 33, 34). Ver. 16. " These are they whom David set for the 
 leading of the song in the house of Jahve, after the resting of the 
 ark," cf. 15, 17. 'T hy upon the hands," "to the hands ; " that 
 is, both for leading, and, according to arrangement. To the hands 
 of the song, i.e. to manage the singing, to carry it on, to conduct 
 it. }i"iNn ni3B, " from the resting of the ark," i.e. from the time 
 that the ark of the covenant, which in the prse-Davidic time had 
 been carried about from one place to another, had received a per- 
 manent resting-place on Zion, and had become the centre of the 
 worship instituted by David, 2 Sam. vi. 17. " And they served 
 before the dwelling of the tabernacle with song." PBTD \33?, " be- 
 fore the dwelling," for the sacrificial worship, with which the 
 singing of psalms was connected, was performed in the court 
 before the dwelling. The genitive "iJfiD 'nx is to be taken as 
 explanatory : " The dwelling (of Jahve), which was the tent of 
 the meeting (of God with His people)." "WO ?nk was the usual 
 designation of the tabernacle built by Moses, which was at first 
 set up in Shiloh, then in the time of Saul at Nob, and after the 
 destruction of that city by Saul (1 Sam. xxii.) in Gibeon (1 Chron. 
 xxi. 29). It denotes here the tent which David had erected upon 
 Mount Zion for the ark of the covenant, because from its con- 
 taining the ark, and by the institution of a settled worship in it 
 (cf. xvi. 1-4 ff.), it thenceforth took the place of the Mosaic 
 tabernacle, although the Mosaic sanctuary at Gibeon continued 
 to be a place of worship till the completion of the temple 
 (1 Kings iii. 4 ; 2 Chron. i. 3), " till Solomon built the house of 
 Jahve in Jerusalem," into which the ark was removed, and to 
 which the whole of the religious services were transferred. In 
 their services they stood DU3K'3j according to their right, i.e. 
 according to the order prescribed for them by David; cf. xvi. 
 37 ff. Vers. 18-23. "These (following three men, Heman, 
 Asaph, and Ethan) are they who stood (in service) with their 
 sons." The three were the heads of the three Levitic families, to
 
 126 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 whom the execution of the liturgic singing was entrusted. The 
 names of their sons, vide chap. xxv. 1-6. The object of the 
 following genealogies is to show their descent from Levi. " Of 
 the sons of the Kohathite family (is) Heman the singer." Tl^p, 
 6 i|raXT6)8o9 LXX. Heman is named first as being the head of 
 the choir of singers who stood in the centre, while Asaph and 
 his choir stood on his right hand, and on the left Ethan and his 
 choir, so that when they sang in concert the conducting of the 
 whole fell to Heman. His family is traced back in vers. 18-23 
 through twenty members to " Kohath the son of Levi, the son 
 of Israel " (Jacob). Vers. 24-28. " His brother Asaph," who is 
 Heman's brother only in the more general sense of being closely 
 connected with him, partly by their common descent from Levi, 
 partly by their common calling, was a descendant of Gershon 
 from his younger son Shimei. His genealogy contains only 
 fifteen names to Gershon, five less than that of his contemporary 
 Heman, probably because here and there intermediate names are 
 omitted. Vers. 29-32. " And the sons of Merari their brethren 
 (i.e. the brethren of the choirs of Heman and Asaph) on the left 
 (i.e. forming the choir which stood on the left hand) were Ethan 
 and his sons." As in the case of Asaph, so also in that of Ethan, 
 on^a (ver. 18) is omitted, but is to be supplied ; when the intro- 
 ductory clause " and the sons of Merari " is at once explained. 
 Ethan is a Merarite of the younger line of Mushi (see above). 
 The name of his father is here ^i?, and in chap. xv. 17 it is irra^ 
 which latter is clearly the original form, which has been shortened 
 into Kishi. Instead of the name Ethan (1^) as here and in 
 chap. xv. 19, we find in other passages a Jeduthun mentioned as 
 third chief-musician, along with Heman and Asaph (cf. xxv. 1 ; 
 2 Chron. xxxv. 15 ; Neh. xi. 17, cf. 1 Chron. vi. 41) ; from which 
 we see that Jeduthun was another name for Ethan, probably a 
 by-name ItfttT, " praiseman " which he had received from his 
 calling, although nothing is said in the Old Testament as to the 
 origin of this name. His genealogy contains only twelve names 
 to Merari, being thus still more abridged than that of Asaph. 
 Vers. 33 and 34. " And their brethren the Levites," i.e. the other 
 Levites besides the singers just mentioned, " were D^VU given for 
 every service of the dwelling of the house of God," i.e. given to 
 Aaron and his sons (the priests) for the performance of service 
 in the carrying on of the worship; cf. Num. iii. 9, viii. 16-19, 
 xviii. 6. But Aaron and his sons had three duties to perform :
 
 CHAP. VI. 35-C6. 127 
 
 (1) they burnt the offerings on the altar of burnt-offering and 
 on the altar of incense, cf. Num. xviii. 1-7 ; (2) they looked 
 after all the service of the holy place ; (3) they had to atone 
 for Israel by offering the atoning-sacrifices, and performing the 
 cleansings according to all that Moses commanded. This last 
 clause refers to all the three above-mentioned duties of the 
 priests. Moses is called the servant of God, as in Deut. xxxiv. 5, 
 Josh. i. 1, 13. 
 
 Vers. 35-38. The remarks as to the service of the priests 
 are followed by a catalogue of the high priests, which runs from 
 Eleazar to Ahimaaz the son of Zadok (cf. 2 Sam. xv. 27), who 
 probably succeeded his father in the high-priesthood even in 
 the time of Solomon. This genealogy is similar in form, to the 
 genealogies given in vers. 5-15, and has therefore most probably 
 been derived from the same source as this, and has been drawn 
 in here to form a transition to the enumeration of the cities of the 
 Levites ; for it begins in ver. 39 with the dwelling-places of the 
 sons of Aaron, and the fins ^np . . . DHUCno n?si of ver. 39 corre- 
 sponds to the jinx rn rbs\ O f ver. 35. The order of the names 
 coincides exactly with that of the longer register in chap. v. 30-34. 
 
 Vers. 39-66. Register of the cities of the Levites, which agrees 
 on the whole with the register in Josh, xxi., if we except different 
 forms of some names of cities, and many corruptions of the text, 
 but differing in many ways from it in form ; whence we gather 
 that it is not derived from the book of Joshua, but from some 
 other ancient authority. Ver. 39 contains the superscription, 
 " These are their dwelling-places according to their districts, in 
 their boundaries." So far the superscription belongs to the 
 whole catalogue of cities. The suffixes point back to the *}> V.?, 
 ver. 1. ni'B, from 1113, to surround in a circle, signifies in the older 
 language a " nomad village " (cf. Gen. xxv. 16; Num. xxxi. 10) ; 
 here, on the contrary, it is used in a derivative sense for " district," 
 to denote the circle of dwellings which were granted to the Levites 
 in the cities of the other tribes. The following words, " For the 
 sons of Aaron of the family of Kohath," etc., are the superscrip- 
 tion to vers. 42-45, and together with the confirmatory clause, 
 " for to him the (first) lot had fallen," are a repetition of Josh, 
 xxi. 10, where, however, rwfcq is found after ^^n, and has per- 
 haps been here dropped out. Vers. 40 and 41 correspond almost, 
 verbally with Josh. xxi. 11 and 12, as vers. 42-45 also do with 
 Josh. xxi. 13-19. As we have already in our remarks on Joshua
 
 128 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 commented upon the whole catalogue, it will not be necessary to 
 do more here than to group together the errors and defects of 
 our text. Ver. 42. The plural BPpsn "ny is incorrect, for only 
 one of the cities thereafter named, viz. Hebron, was a city of 
 refuge for homicides, and in Josh. xxi. 13 it is correctly written 
 t^pp Ttf. After ">W the usual addition rrEnjp-nsi is omitted, 
 ver. 44 f. Before Bethshemesh the name Juttah has been lost, 
 and before Geba (ver. 45) the name Gibeon, so that only eleven 
 cities are mentioned, but the sum is rightly given as thirteen. 
 Instead of the name j^n, ver. 43, there is found in Josh. xxi. 15 
 and xv. 51 f?'n ; instead of TV, Josh. xxi. 16, we have in ver. 44 
 the more correct name J^V ; and the name np?y, ver. 45, is in 
 Josh. xxi. 18 fi"?y. Vers. 46-48. Summary statements of the 
 number of cities which the remaining Kohathites, the Ger- 
 shonites, and the Merarites received in the domains of the va- 
 rious tribes, corresponding to vers. 5-7 in Josh. xxi. In ver. 46 
 occurs a hiatus ; between HBBn and n^nso the words " Ephraim 
 and of the tribe of Dan and " have been omitted. In ver. 48 the 
 words " of the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan " are quite intelligible 
 without ^n, which is found in Joshua. Vers. 49 and 50 are not 
 here in their proper place; for their contents show that they 
 should be in the middle of the thirty-ninth verse, after the 
 general superscription, and before the words "for the sons of 
 Aaron." They are found also in Josh. xxi. 8, 9, as a super- 
 scription before the enumeration by name of the cities assigned to 
 the priests ; but how the confusion has arisen in our text cannot 
 be certainly ascertained. Bertheau thinks "the wish to make 
 mention of the cities of the high-priestly family at the begin- 
 ning of the enumeration, has induced the author of the Chronicle 
 to communicate the introductory remarks belonging to the lists 
 of cities with their statements as to the tribal domains, only after 
 the enumeration of the cities of the sons of Aaron." By that 
 supposition the position of vers. 46-48 is certainly explained, but 
 not that of vers. 49 and 50 ; for even with the supposed desire, 
 vers. 49 and 50 should have been placed before vers. 46-48. 
 But besides this, the clause 'W PL!*? ""!?? in ver. 39 neither has 
 anything to connect it with the preceding superscription nor a 
 verb ; and the subject of ^0% ver. 40, is also wanting. That 
 which was missed before ver. 39& and in ver. 40 is contained in 
 vers. 49 and 50; whence it is manifest that vers. 49 and 50 ought 
 to stand before ver. 39Z>, and have by some inexplicable accident
 
 CHAP. VI. ifl-61. 129 
 
 fallen out of their proper place, and have come into an unsuit- 
 able position after ver. 48. The plurals W}\>\ and nitDB^ instead 
 of the singulars N^i?' and DE>, as in Josh. xxi. 96, bring the words 
 into more manifest correspondence with the circumstances, since 
 the subject of IN"!!?"!, " the sons of Israel," may be easily supplied 
 from ver. 48, and many names of cities are mentioned. The masc. 
 Cnnx instead of the fern, jnns is probably only an oversight. 
 With ver. 51 begins the enumeration of the cities of the other 
 Levitic families only summarily given in vers. 46-48, which forms 
 a very suitable continuation of ver. 48. 
 
 Vers. 5155. The cities of the remaining Kohathites; cf. Josh. 
 xxi. 20-26. For ninstropi we must read ItiriMefofa, for the pre- 
 position IP gives no suitable sense : it is never used to intro- 
 duce a subject. The sense is, " as regards the families of the 
 sons of Kohath, the cities of their dominion in the tribe of 
 Ephraira were (the following). They gave them." The plur. 
 D?jp&n "ny instead of the sing., as in ver. 42. As to the four 
 cities of the tribe of Ephraim, vers. 52, 53, see on Josh. xxi. 
 21, 22, where instead of oypipj we find the name D^?i?. Before 
 ver. 54 a whole verse has been lost, which was as follows : " And 
 of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh and her pastures, Gibbethon and her 
 pastures;" cf. Josh. xxi. 23. Then follows ver. 54, which con- 
 tains the names of the two other cities of the tribe of Dan. In 
 ver. 55 we have the names of the cities of half Manasseh, Aner 
 and Bileam, i.e. Ibleam (Josh. xvii. 11), correctly given ; but the 
 names Taanach and Gath-rimmon in Josh. xxi. 25 are incorrect, 
 and have been inserted through a transcriber's error, arising from 
 the copyist's eye having wandered to the preceding verse. The 
 singular nnBBW, ver. 55, is incorrect; and the plural rrinstsfo^ is 
 to be substituted (as in ver. 51). The words 'W ^ rftnifcfc& 
 
 \ / . ; * ii*; 
 
 are a subscription, which corresponds to Drp urw in ver. 52. 
 
 Vers. 56-61. The cities of the Gershonites; cf. Josh. xxi. 
 27-33. "To the sons of Gershon (they gave) out of the family 
 of the half-tribe of Manasseh, Golan and Ashtaroth ;" see on 
 Josh. xxi. 27. In ver. 57, B*ij> is a mistake for TO, Josh, 
 xxi. 28 (see on Josh. xix. 20) ; in ver. 58, niD&n for the more 
 correct nidT, Josh. xxi. 29, a city which was also called not, 
 Josh. xix. 21, or had been so called originally; and WJJ for 
 B "?rrj? (Josh.), as the city is called also in Josh. xix. 21. It 
 cannot be determined whether D;y is a transcriber's error, or 
 another name for D'srpy. In ver. 59, i>'f' (which should perhaps 
 
 I
 
 130 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 be pointed 7'f 0) is a contracted form of 7St?p, Josh. xxi. 30, xix. 
 26 ; and in ver. 60, ppin is probably an error for fii^n, Josh. 
 xxi. 31, xix. 25, occasioned by its being confounded with PJan 
 in the tribe of Naphtali, Josh. xix. 34. In ver. 61 the fact that 
 Kadesh was a city of refuge is not mentioned, as it is in Josh. 
 xxi. 32. |isn is a shortened form of TthTlton, Josh. xxi. 32 ; for 
 this city is called in Josh. xix. 35 nan, from the warm springs in 
 the neighbourhood. Finally, Kirjathaim is contracted in Josh. 
 xxi. 32 into IFnp. 
 
 Vers. 62-66. Tlie cities of the Merarites ; cf . Josh. xxi. 34-37. 
 " To the sons of Merari the remaining," sc. Levites. In Josh. 
 xxi. 34 it is more clearly put D'nnian D^i/n^ for the remaining 
 Merarites are not spoken of. What is intended to be said is, 
 that the Merarites, alone of the Levites, are still to be men- 
 tioned. In the tribe of Zebulun, in ver. 62, only two cities are 
 named, Rimmon and Tabor, instead of the four Jokneam, 
 Karthah, Dimnah, and Nahalal in Josh. xxi. 34. The first two 
 names have been dropped out of our text, while foi8"! corresponds to 
 the ""UOT. of Joshua, but is a more correct reading, since jiB"i occurs 
 in Josh. xix. 13 among the cities of Zebulun, while HJCl is not 
 mentioned ; and "riSfl must consequently correspond to the ^na 
 in Joshua. Nahalal occurs in Josh. xix. 15 and in Judg. i. 30, 
 in the form Nahalol, among the cities of Zebulun, and conse- 
 quently seems to be the more correct name, but has not yet been 
 pointed out with certainty, since its identification with Malul 
 
 (J^Lc<), south-west from Nazareth, rests upon very slender 
 
 foundation. Bertheau's conjecture that the name of the city 
 has been dropped out, and that of a more exact description of 
 its position, perhaps ~>2fl n?D3 7OJ PJJ, Josh. xix. 12, only the last 
 word has remained, is no more probable than that of Movers, 
 that instead of the name of the city, only the neighbourhood in 
 which the city lay, viz. Mount Tabor, is mentioned. Vers. 63 
 and 64 are wanting in some editions of the book of Joshua, but 
 are found in many MSS. and in the oldest printed copies, and 
 have been omitted only by an oversight ; see on Josh. xxi. 30 f ., 
 note 2. As to the city Bezer, see on Deut. iv. 43 ; and concern- 
 ing Jahzah, Kedemoth, Mephaath, vide on Josh. xiii. 18. Ver. 
 65 f. For Ramoth in Gilead, a city of refuge (Josh. xxi. 36), 
 and Mahanaim, see on Josh. xiii. 26; and for Heshbon and 
 Jazer, on Num. xxi. 28, 32.
 
 CHAP. VII. 1-5. 131 
 
 CHAP. VII. FAMILIES OF ISSACHAR, BENJAMIN, NAPHTALI, 
 HALF MANASSEH, EPHRAIM, AND ASHER. 
 
 Vers. 1-5. Sons and families of Issachar. Ver. 1. Instead of 
 Saw, we must certainly read ^a, as in vers. 14, 30, or ^M, as in 
 ver. 20, chap. v. 11, and elsewhere. The '*)'> has come into the 
 text only by the recollection of the copyist having dwelt on the 
 so frequently recurring ^nS in vi. 42, 46, 47, cf. vers. 48, 56, 62, 
 for it is not possible to take ? as the ? of introduction, because 
 the names of the sons follow immediately. The names of the 
 four sons are given as in Num. xxvi. 23 f., while in Gen. 
 xlvi. 13 the second is written rrc? and the third & ; vide on Gen. 
 loc. cit. Ver. 2. The six sons of Tola are not elsewhere met with 
 in the Old Testament. They were " heads of their fathers'-houses 
 of Tola." ifarb after Dfiinx rvif> (with the suffix) is somewhat 
 peculiar; the meaning can only be, "of their fathers'-houses 
 which are descended from Tola." It is also surprising, or 
 rather not permissible, that Dnilpin? should be connected with 
 
 L L' L 
 
 rn "niaa. Dnnpin? belongs to the following: "(registered) ac- 
 cording to their births, they numbered in the days of David 
 22,600." The suffixes a do not refer to D^'&n, but to the 
 niaxTVa, the fathers'-houses, the males in which amounted to 
 22,600 souls. As David caused the people to be numbered by 
 Joab (2 Sam. xxiv. ; 1 Chron. xxi.), this statement probably rests 
 on the results of that census. Ver. 3. From Uzzi, the first-born of 
 Tola, are descended through Izrahiah five men, all heads of groups 
 of related households (ver. 4) ; " and to them (i.e. besides these) 
 according to their generations, according to their fathers'-houses, 
 bands of the war host, 36,000 (men), for they (these chiefs) had 
 many wives and sons." From the fact that Izrahiah is intro- 
 duced as grandson of Tola, Bertheau would infer that vers. 3, 4 
 refer to times later than David. But this is an erroneous infer- 
 ence, for Tola's sous did not live in David's time at all, and 
 consequently it is not necessary that his grandson should be 
 assigned to a later time. The only assertion made is, that the 
 descendants of Tola's sons had increased to the number men- 
 tioned in ver. 2 in the time of David. By that time the 
 descendants of his grandson Izrahiah might have increased to 
 the number given in ver. 4. That the number, 36,000, of the 
 descendants of the grandson Izrahiah was greater than the 
 number of those descended from the sons of Tola (22,600), is
 
 132 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 explained in the clause, " for they had many wives and sons." 
 That the two numbers (in vers. 2, 4) refer to the same time, 
 i.e. to the days of David, is manifest from ver. 5, " and their 
 brethren of all the families of Issachar, valiant heroes ; 87,000 
 their register, as regards everything," i.e. the sum of those re- 
 gistered of all the families of Issachar. Whence we gather that 
 in the 87,000 both the 22,600 (ver. 2) and the 36,000 (ver. 4) are 
 included, and their brethren consequently must have amounted 
 to 28,400 (22,600 + 36,000 + 28,400 = 87,000). In the time of 
 Moses, Issachar numbered, according to Num. i. 29, 54,400; and 
 at a later time, according to Num. xxvi. 25, already numbered 
 64,300 men. 
 
 Vers. 611. Sons and families of Benjamin. In ver. 6 only 
 three sons of Benjamin Bela, Becher, and Jediael are men- 
 tioned ; and in vers. 7-11 their families are registered. Besides 
 these, there are five sons of Benjamin spoken of in chap. viii. 
 1, 2, Bela the first, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, 
 Nohah the fourth, and Kapha the fifth ; while in vers. 3-5 five 
 other D^a are enumerated, viz. "n, fcOjj (twice), }OJ?3, i^St?, and 
 D"vin. If we compare here the statements of the Pentateuch as 
 to the genealogy of Benjamin, we find in Gen. xlvi. 21 the fol- 
 lowing sons of Benjamin : Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, 
 Ehi ('ON) and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard (T^) ; 
 and in Num. xxvi. 3840 seven families, of which five are de- 
 scended from his sons Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shephupham, and 
 Hupham (BSin) ; and two from his grandsons, the sons of Bela, 
 Ard and Naaman. From this we learn, not only that of the 0^3 
 mentioned in Gen. xlvi. 21 at least two were grandsons, but also 
 that the names 'nx and D'SO (Gen.) are only other forms of E"^** 
 and DSISE> (Num.). It is, however, somewhat strange that among 
 the families (in Num.) the names 133, JO3, and ty'jo are wanting. 
 The explanation which at once suggests itself, that their descen- 
 dants were not numerous enough to form separate families, and 
 that they on that account were received into the families of the 
 other sons, though it may be accepted in the case of Gera and 
 Rosb, of whom it is nowhere recorded that they had numerous 
 descendants, cannot meet the case of Becher, for in vers. 8 and 
 9 of our chapter mention is made of nine sons of his, with a 
 posterity of 20,200 men. The supposition that the name of 
 Becher and his family has been dropped from the genealogical 
 register of the families in Num. xxvi., will not appear in the
 
 CHAP. VII. 6-11. 133 
 
 slightest degree probable, when we consider the accuracy of this 
 register in other respects. The only remaining explanation 
 therefore is, that the descendants of Becher were in reality not 
 numerous enough to form a nns:rp by themselves, but had after- 
 wards so increased that they numbered nine fathers'-houses, with 
 a total of 20,200 valiant warriors. The numbers in our register 
 point unquestionably to post-Mosaic times ; for at the second 
 numbering by Moses, all the families of Benjamin together 
 numbered only 45,600 men (Num. xxvi. 41), while the three 
 families mentioned in our verses number together 59,434 
 (22,034 + 20,200 + 17,200). The tribe of Benjamin, which 
 moreover was entirely destroyed, with the exception of 600 men, 
 in the war which it waged against the other tribes in the earlier 
 part of the period of the judges (Judg. xx. 47), could not have 
 increased to such an extent before the times of David and Solo- 
 mon. The name of the third son of Benjamin, Jediael, occurs 
 only here, and is considered by the older commentators to be 
 another name of Ashbel (Gen. xlvi. 21 and Num. xxvi. 38), 
 which cannot indeed be accepted as a certainty, but is very pro- 
 bable. Ver. 7. The five heads of fathers'-houses called sons of 
 Bela are not sons in the proper sense of the word, but more 
 distant descendants, who, at the time when this register was 
 made up, were heads of the five groups of related households of 
 the race of Bela. D v^n ^123 is synonymous with ?^n "niaa, ver. 9, 
 and is a plural, formed as if from a nomen compositum^ which 
 arose after the frequent use of the words as they are bound to- 
 gether in the status constructus had obscured the consciousness 
 of the relation between them. Ver. 8. Becher's descendants. 
 Of these nine names there are two, ninjJJ and n 9V> "^hich occur 
 elsewhere as names of cities (cf. for no?y in the form np.pV, vi. 
 45 ; and for ninw, Josh. xxi. 18, Isa. x. 30, Jer. i. 1). We 
 may, without doubt, accept the supposition that in these cases 
 the cities received their names from the heads of the families 
 which inhabited them. . In ver. 9, Dntax TV2 ^to stands in appo- 
 
 L ' L T 
 
 sition to, and is explanatory of, Drinpinp : " And their register, 
 according to their generations," viz. according to the genera- 
 tions, that is, the birth-lists, "of the heads of their fathers'- 
 houses, is (amounts to) in valiant heroes 20,200 men." Ver. 10 f. 
 Among the descendants of Jediael we find Benjamin and Ehud, 
 the first of whom is named after the patriarch ; but the second 
 is not the judge Ehud (Judg. iii. 15), who was indeed a Benjamite,
 
 134 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 but of the family of Gera. Chenaanah does not necessarily indi- 
 cate a Canaanite family. Tharshish, which is elsewhere a precious 
 stone, is here the name of a person ; Ahishahar, that is, Brother 
 of the Dawn, perhaps so named because sub auroram natus. In 
 ver. 11 the expression is contracted, as often happens in formulas 
 which frequently recur ; and the meaning is, " All these are sons 
 of Jediael (for as sons of Bilhan the son of Jediael, they are at 
 the same time sons of the latter), (registered) according to the 
 heads of their fathers'-houses, valiant heroes 17,200, going forth 
 in the host to war." niasn njfcn is contracted from ntaKTVa n?to, 
 vide on Ex. vi. 25 ; and the ? before ^N"^ which Bertheau from 
 a misinterpretation wishes to remove, depends upon the OJpiTnn 
 (ver. 9) to be supplied in thought. 
 
 Ver. 12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, " And Shup- 
 pim and Huppim, sons of Ir," would seem, if we may judge from 
 the 1 cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. 
 And besides, (1) the names D^SHI D^SO occur in Gen. xlvi. 21 
 among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Num. xxvi. 39, 
 among the families of Benjamin, one called ''DsHt? from C31DB>, 
 and another *own from B^ n , are introduced ; we must conse- 
 quently hold Q^SD to be an error for D3K> or Q5N&. And (2) the 
 name T"V is most probably identical with *"?% in ver. 7. The 
 peculiar forms of those names, viz. DSH 1 ) DfiB', seem to have 
 arisen from an improper comparison of them with D'aBO* D^anp 
 in ver. 15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim 
 and Shuppim of ver. 15 belong to the Manassites. Here, there- 
 fore, two other families descended from the Benjamite Ir or 
 Iri would seem to be mentioned, which may easily be reconciled 
 with the purpose (ver. 6) to mention none of the Benjamites but 
 the descendants of Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further 
 statement, " Hushim, sons of Aher," is utterly enigmatical. 
 The name D^n is found in Gen. xlvi. 23 as that of Dan's only 
 son, who, however, is called in Num. xxvi. 42 Dnit?, and who 
 founded the family of the Shuhami. But as the names D't^n and 
 D^n are again met with in chap. viii. 8, 11 among the Ben- 
 jamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our 
 D$n an( l that family. The word "inK ? alius, is not indeed found 
 elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may notwithstanding be so 
 here ; when we might, notwithstanding the want of the conjunc- 
 tion 1, take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another Benjamite 
 family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Dan would be omitted
 
 CHAP. VII. 13-19. 135 
 
 from our chapter ; but we must not allow that to lead us into 
 arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Dan but also Zebulun is 
 omitted. 1 
 
 Ver. 13. Tlie sons of Naphtali. Only the sons of Naphtali 
 are named, the families descended from them being passed over. 
 The names correspond to those in Gen. xlvi. 24 and Num. xxv. 
 48 f., except that there the first is ?Nyn?, and the last D^ instead 
 of Dfe 
 
 Vers. 14-19. Families of the half-tribe of Manasseh. The 
 families of Manasseh which dwelt in Gilead and Bashan have 
 already been mentioned in chap. v. 23, 14. Our verses deal with 
 the families of this tribe which received their inheritance in Canaan, 
 on this side Jordan. These were, according to Num. xxvi. 30, 34, 
 and Josh. xvii. 2, six families, of which, however, only two are here 
 spoken of Ashriel, ver. 14, and Shemidah, ver. 19 ; or perhaps 
 three, if Abiezer, ver. 18, be the same person as Jeezer (Num. 
 xxvi. 30), who is called Abiezer in Josh. xvii. 2. The statements 
 
 1 Bertheau's judgment in the matter is different. Starting from the facts 
 that D^n (Gen. xlvi. 27) is called a son of Dan, and that further, in the 
 enumeration of the tribes in Gen. xlvi. and Num. xxvi., Dan follows after 
 Benjamin ; that in Gen. xlvi. Dan stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, 
 and that in our chapter, in ver. 13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately ; 
 and that the closing words of this verse, " sons of Bilhah," can, according to 
 Gen. xlvi. 25, refer only to Dan and Naphtali, and consequently presuppose 
 that Dan or his descendants have been mentioned in our passage, he thinks 
 there can be no doubt that originally Danites were mentioned in our verse, and 
 that D>'n was introduced as the son of Dan. Moreover, from the word iriX, 
 u the other," he draws the further inference that it may have been, according 
 to its meaning, the covert designation of a man whose proper name fear, or 
 dislike of some sort, prevented men from using, and was probably a designa- 
 tion of the tribe of Dan, which set up its own worship, and so separated itself 
 from the congregation of Israel ; cf. Judg. xvii. f. The name is avoided, he 
 says, in our chapter, in chap. vi. 46 and 54, and is named only in chap. ii. 2 
 among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in chap. xii. 35. The conjecture, 
 therefore, is forced upon us, that "ins }2 DETI, " Hushim the son of the 
 other," viz. of the other son of Bilbah, whose name he wished to pass over in 
 silence, stands for c$n p 'J2V The name Aher, then, had so completely 
 concealed the tribe of Dan, that later readers did not mark the new com- 
 mencement, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction, and had no scruple 
 in adding the well-known names of the Benjamites, DBt? and DEfl, to 
 the similarly-sounding DKTI, though probably at first only in the margin. 
 This hypothesis has no solid foundation. The supposed dislike to mention 
 the name of Dan rests upon an erroneous imagination, as is manifest from 
 the thrice repeated mention of that name, not merely in chap. ii. 2 and xii. S5,
 
 136 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of vers. 14 and 15 are very obscure. At the head of the register 
 of the Manassites stands Ashriel, who, according to Num. xxvi. 
 31, belonged to the sons of Gilead the son of Manasseh and the 
 grandson of Joseph (cf. Gen. 1. 23), and founded one of the six 
 families of the cis-Jordanic Manassites. But the words which 
 follow are obscure ; the words are '131 rn?J "itJ>K, " whom his Ara- 
 maic concubine bore ; she bore Machir the father of Gilead." 
 But since Ashriel, according to this, was the great-grandson of 
 Manasseh, while Machir was his son, the relative clause can refer 
 only to Manasseh, to whom his concubine bore Machir. Movers 
 and Berth, would therefore erase T'N'ntJ'K, as a gloss arising out 
 of a doubling of the following ^ "IB>S. By this expedient the 
 difficulty as to the connection of the relative clause is certainly 
 got rid of, but the obscurities of the following verse (15) are not 
 thereby removed. The analogy of the other registers in our 
 chapter requires, rather, that immediately after n$:_D "03 there 
 should stand the name of a descendant, a fact which speaks 
 
 but also in chap, xxvii. 22. The omission of the tribe of Dan in chap. vi. 46, 
 54, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages ; for in ver. 
 46 the words, " Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan," and after ver. 54 a whole 
 verse, have been dropped out in the copying. In neither of these verses can 
 there be any idea of omitting the name Dan because of a dislike to mention it, 
 for in ver. 46 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in ver. 54 the names of two 
 cities are also omitted, where even Berth, cannot suppose any "dislike." 
 When Berth, quotes Judg. xviii. 30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, 
 where under the Keri ntt'JD the name nc>D is supposed to be concealed, he 
 has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage ntJ>)D has been altered into 
 ntWO from a foolish dislike, is one of the rabbinic caprices, which we cannot 
 attribute as a matter of course to the authors of the biblical writings. With 
 this groundless suspicion falls of itself the attempt which he bases upon it 
 " to solve the enigma of our verse." If the words in question do really con- 
 tain a remark concerning the family of Dan, we must suppose, with Ewald 
 (Gesch. i. S. 242), that the text has become corrupt, several words having been 
 dropped out. Yet the nr&3 '33 at the end of ver. 13 isnot sufficient to warrant 
 such a supposition. Had the register originally contained not only the sons of 
 Naphtali, but also the sons of Dan, so that nr63 ""33 would have to be referred 
 to both, the conj. 1 could not have been omitted before ^nsa 133. The want 
 of this conjunction is, however, in conformity with the whole plan of our 
 register, in which all the tribes follow, one after the other, without a con- 
 junction ; cf. vers. 6, 14, 30. \ is found only before D'HDK "OS? ver. 20, be- 
 cause Ephraim and Manasseh are closely connected, both continuing to form 
 the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold '23 133, ver. 13, without 
 } cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that nn?3 *J3 
 includes also the sons of Dan is at once disposed of.
 
 CHAP. VII. 1-1-13. 137 
 
 strongly in favour of the authenticity of pK^K. It is therefore 
 a much more probable suggestion, that after the name acnfeK, 
 some additional clause, such as rwbtrjl, has been dropped, or 
 regarded as superfluous by a copyist, and so omitted. To such an 
 omitted n&WD p, the relative sentence, which gives more details 
 as to the descent of Ashriel, would be attached in a simple and 
 natural manner, since it was known from Num. xxvi. 30 f. that 
 Ashriel was descended from Manasseh through Gilead. Ver. 15 
 is literally, " And Machir took a wife to Huppim and Shuppim, 
 and the name of his sister was Maachah, and the name of the 
 second Zelophehad." According to ver. 16, on the contrary, 
 Maachah is the wife of Machir, and we should consequently 
 expect to find in ver. 15 only the simple statement, " And Machir 
 took a wife whose name was Maachah." From the words D^sn? 
 nayo inns Dun D^BB^I no meaning which harmonizes with the con- 
 text can be obtained. Since j> n$x nj?? signifies " to take a wife 
 for one" (cf. Judg. xiv. 2), we can only suppose that by the 
 names Huppim and Shuppim Machir's sons are meant, to whom 
 he, as their father, gave wives. But we cannot suppose that the 
 sons of Machir are referred to, for the birth of the sons is first 
 mentioned in ver. 16. But we have found the names asn and 
 D2B> spoken of as descendants of Benjamin ; and Bertheau conse- 
 quently conjectures that these names have been brought thence into 
 our verse by some gloss, and that the beginning of our verse origin- 
 ally stood thus : natan inns DITI nayo nctri nt?x np6 TOOI, " And 
 Machir took a wife whose name is Maachah, and the name of his 
 sister is Hammoleketh" (the last according to ver. 18). By this 
 means we certainly bring some meaning into the words ; but we 
 cannot venture to maintain that this conjecture corresponds to 
 the original text, but rather incline to doubt it. For, in the first 
 place, the following words, " And the name of the second (is) 
 Zelophehad," do not suit the proposed reading. Berth, must 
 here alter wn into vns (the name of his brother). But even 
 after this alteration, the mention of the brother of Machir is not 
 suitable to the context ; and moreover Zelophehad was not a true 
 brother, but only a nephew of Machir, the son of his brother 
 Hepher ; cf. Num. xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1. And besides this, according 
 to the concluding formula, " These are the sons of Gilead, the son 
 of Machir, the son of Manasseh" (ver. 17), we should expect to 
 find in vers. 15, 16, not merely sons or descendants of Machir, 
 but rather descendants of Gilead. We therefore hold the state-
 
 138 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ment of ver. 155, " And the name of the second is Zelophehad, 
 and Zelophehad had (only) daughters," to be correct and beyond 
 criticism, and the first part of ver. 15 to be corrupt and defective ; 
 and conjecture that a son of Gilead's was mentioned in it, to 
 whose name the words, " And the name of the second," etc., 
 belonged. This son who was mentioned in the text, which has 
 been handed down to us only in a defective state, was probably 
 the Ashriel mentioned in ver. 14, a son of Gilead, whose descent 
 from Machir was given more in detail in the corrupt and conse- 
 quently meaningless first half of ver. 15. In vers. 16, 17, other 
 descendants of Machir by his wife Maachah are enumerated, 
 which favours the probable conjecture that the wife whom Machir 
 took, according to ver. 15, was different from Maachah, that 
 Machir had two wives, and that in ver. 15 originally the sons of 
 the first were enumerated, and in vers. 16, 17, the sons of the 
 second. Peresh and Shelesh are mentioned only here. V33j " his 
 sons" (that is, the sons of the last-named, Shelesh), were Ulam 
 and Rakem, names which are also met with only here. The 
 name P T ? is found in our Masoretic text, 1 Sam. xii. 11, as the 
 name of a judge, but probably P 1 ^ should be read instead. Ver. 
 18. A third branch of the descendants of Gilead were descended 
 from Machir's sister Hammoleketh, a name which the Vulgate 
 has taken in an appellative sense. Of her sons, Ishod, i.e. " man 
 of splendour," is not elsewhere mentioned. The name Abiezer 
 occurs, Josh. xvii. 2, as that of the head of one of the families 
 of Manasseh. In Num. xxvi. 30, however, he is called Jeezer, 
 which is probably the original reading, and consequently our 
 Abiezer is different from that in Josh. xvii. 2. Another circum- 
 stance which speaks strongly against the identification of the two 
 men is, that the family descended from Jeezer holds the first 
 place among the families of Manasseh, which is not at all con- 
 sonant with the position of the son of Machir's sister here 
 mentioned. Of the family of Abiezer came the judge Gideon, 
 Judg. xi. 15. A daughter of Zelophehad is called Mahlah in 
 Num. xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1, but she is not the person here mentioned. 
 Ver. 19. The sons of Shemida, the founder of the fourth family 
 of the Manassites, Num. xxvi. 32. His four sons are nowhere 
 else referred to, for C3P, the founder of a family of the Man- 
 assites (Num. xxvi. 31 and Josh. xvii. 2), is to be distinguished 
 from the Shechem of our verse ; nor is there any greater reason 
 to identify Likhi with Helek, Num. xxvi. 30 (Berth.), than there
 
 CHAP. VII. 20-29. 139 
 
 is for connecting 2JPJK with njfy the daughter of Zelophehad, 
 Num. xxvi. 33, Josh. xvii. 3. 
 
 Vers. 20-29. TAe families of Ephraim. Ver. 20 f. Among 
 the Ephraimites, the descendants of Shuthelah, the founder of 
 one of the chief families of this tribe, Num. xxvi. 35, are traced 
 down through six generations to a later Shuthelah. The names 
 1$W "W which follow foa nbnP, And his son Shuthelah," after 
 which iJ3 is wanting, are not to be considered descendants of the 
 second Shuthelah, but are heads of a family co-ordinate with that 
 of Slmthelah, or of two fathers'-houses intimately connected with 
 each other. These names are to be taken as a continuation of the 
 list of the sons of Ephraim, which commenced with npnv^. The 
 suffix in OU"jni refers to both these names : " The men of Gath, 
 that were born in the land, smote Ezer and Elead." These 
 " men born in the land " Ewald and Bertheau take to be the 
 Avvites, the aboriginal inhabitants of that district of country, 
 who had been extirpated by the Philistines emigrating from 
 Caphtor (Deut. ii. 23). But there is no sufficient ground for 
 this supposition ; for no proof can be brought forward that the 
 Avvseans (Avvites) had ever spread so far as Gath ; and the 
 Philistines had taken possession of the south-west part of Canaan 
 as early as the time of Abraham, and consequently long before 
 Ephraim's birth. "The men of Gath who were born in the 
 land" are rather the Canaanite or Philistine inhabitants of 
 Gath, as distinguished from the Israelites, who had settled in 
 Canaan only under Joshua. " For they (Ezer and Elead) had 
 come down to take away their cattle" (to plunder). The older 
 commentators assign this event to the time that Israel dwelt in 
 Egypt (Ewald, Gesch. i. S. 490), or even to the pre-Egyptian 
 time. But Bertheau has, in opposition to this, justly remarked 
 that the narratives of Genesis know nothing of a stay of the 
 progenitors of the tribe of Ephraim in the land of Palestine 
 before the migration of Israel into Egypt, for Ephraim was 
 born in Egypt (Gen. xlvi. .20). It would be more feasible to 
 refer it to the time of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, as 
 it is not impossible that the Israelites may have undertaken pre- 
 datory expeditions against Canaan from Goshen ; but even this 
 supposition is not at all probable. Certainly, if in vers. 23-27 
 it were said, as Ewald thinks, that Ephraim, after the mourning 
 over the sons thus slain, became by his wife the father of three 
 other sons, from the last named of whom Joshua was descended
 
 140 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 in the seventh generation, we should be compelled to refer the 
 expedition to the pre-Egyptian period. But the opinion that 
 Rephah and Resheph, ver. 25, were begotten only after that 
 misfortune has no foundation Moreover, the statement that 
 Ephraim, after he was comforted for the loss of his slain sons, 
 went in unto his wife and begat a son, to whom he gave the name 
 Beriah, because he was born in misfortune in his house, does not 
 at ail presuppose that the patriarch Ephraim was still alive when 
 Ezer and Elead were slain. Were that the case, the necessary 
 
 / *> 
 
 result would of course be, that this event could only be referred 
 to the time when the Israelites dwelt in Egypt. In opposition 
 to this, Bertheau's remark that the event in that case would be 
 per se enigmatical, as we would rightly have great hesitation in 
 accepting the supposition of a war, or rather a plundering ex- 
 pedition to seize upon cattle carried out by the Ephraimites 
 whilst they dwelt in Egypt, against the inhabitants of the Phili- 
 stine city of Gath, is certainly not all decisive, for we know far 
 too little about those times to be able to judge of the possibility 
 or probability of such an expedition. The decision to which we 
 must come as to this obscure matter depends, in the first place, 
 on how the words 'W IT^ n 3 are to be understood ; whether we 
 are to translate " for they had gone," or " when they had gone 
 down to fetch their cattle," i.e. to plunder. If we take the ^ 
 as partic. ration., for, because, we can only take the sons of 
 Ephraim, Ezer and Elead, for the subject of vrj^ and we must 
 understand the words to mean that they had gone down to carry 
 off the cattle of the Gathites. In that case, the event would 
 fall in the time when the Ephraimites dwelt in Canaan, and 
 went down from Mount Ephraim into the low-lying Gath, for a 
 march out of Egypt into Canaan is irreconcilable with the verb 
 "n\ If, on the contrary, we translate *Tn\ n 3 " when they had 
 gone down," we might then gather from the words that men of 
 Gath went down to Goshen, there to drive away the cattle of 
 the Ephraimites, in which case the Gathites may have slain 
 the sons of Ephraim when they were feeding their cattle and 
 defending them against the robbers. Many of the old com- 
 mentators have so understood the words ; but we cannot hold 
 this to be the correct interpretation, for it deprives the words 
 " those born in the land," which stand in apposition to ru <l ^*?, 
 of all meaning, since there can be absolutely no thought of men 
 of Gath born in Egypt. We therefore take the words to mean,
 
 CHAP. VII. 20-29. 141 
 
 that the sons of Ephraiin who are named in our verse attempted 
 to drive away the cattle of the Gathites, and were by them slain 
 in the attempt. But how can the statement that Ephraim after 
 this unfortunate event begat another son, Beriah, be reconciled 
 with such a supposition, since the patriarch Ephraim was dead 
 long before the Israelites came forth out of Egypt ? Bertheau 
 understands the begetting figuratively, of the whole of the tribe 
 of Ephraim, and would interpret the begetting of Beriah of 
 the reception either of a Benjamite family into the tribe of 
 Ephraim, or of a small Ephraimite family, which at first was 
 not numbered with the others, into the number of the famous 
 families of this tribe. But this straining of the words by an 
 allegorical interpretation is not worthy of serious refutation, 
 since it is manifestly only a makeshift to get rid of the diffi- 
 culty. The words, " And Ephraim went in unto his wife, and 
 she conceived and bare a son,' 5 are not to be interpreted allego- 
 rically, but must be taken in their proper sense ; and the solution 
 of the enigma will be found in the name Ephraim. If this be 
 taken to denote the actual son of Joseph, then the event is 
 incomprehensible ; but just as a descendant of Shuthelah in 
 the sixth generation was also called Shuthelah, so also might a 
 descendant of the patriarch Ephraim, living at a much later 
 time, have received the name of the progenitor of the tribe; 
 and if we accept this supposition, the event, with all its issues, is 
 easily explained. If Ezer and Elead went down from Mount 
 Ephraim to Gath, they were not actual sons of Ephraim, but 
 merely later descendants; and their father, who mourned for 
 their death, was not Ephraim the son of Joseph, who was born 
 in Egypt, but an Ephraimite who lived after the Israelites had 
 taken possession of the land of Canaan, and who bore Ephraim's 
 name. He may have mourned for the death of his sons, and 
 after he had been comforted for their loss, may have gone in 
 unto his wife, and have begotten a son with her, to whom he 
 gave the name Beriah, "because it was in misfortune in his 
 house," i.e. because this son was born when misfortune was in 
 his house. Ver. 24. " And his daughter Sherah," the daughter 
 of the above-mentioned Ephraim, " built Beth-horon the nether 
 and the upper," the present Beit-Ur-Foka and Tachta (see on 
 Josh. x. 10), " and Uzzen-sherah," a place not elsewhere referred 
 to, which she probably founded, and which was called after her. 
 The building of the two Beth-horons is merely an enlarging and
 
 142 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 fortifying of these towns. Sherah was probably an heiress, who 
 had received these places as her inheritance, and caused them to 
 be enlarged by her family. In vers. 2527 'the ancestors of 
 Joshua the son of Nun, who brought Israel into the land of 
 Canaan, are enumerated. As the word fo? is wanting after 
 *)<n> "we must hold Rephah and Resheph to be brothers, but 
 we are not informed from which of the four Ephraimite stocks 
 enumerated in Num. xxvi. 35 f . they were descended. " Telah 
 his son," Bertheau holds to be a son of Rephah. The name 
 Tahan occurs in Num. xxvi. 35 as that of the founder of one of 
 the families of Ephraim ; but he can hardly be identical with our 
 Tahan, who was probably a son of that Tahan from whom an 
 Ephraimite family descended. If this conjecture be correct, 
 Joshua would be of the family of Tahan. Ver. 26. Elishama 
 the son of Ammihud was a contemporary of Moses, Num. i. 10, 
 and prince of the tribe of Ephraim, Num. vii. 48, x. 22. )i3 
 (Non) is so pronounced only in this place; in the Pentateuch 
 and in the book of Joshua it is p3 (Nun). 
 
 In vers. 28 and 29 the possessions and dwelling-places of the 
 tribe of Ephraim (and as we learn from the superscription, ver. 
 29), also those of West Jordan Manasseh, are given, but in a 
 very general way ; only the chief places on the four sides being 
 mentioned. Bethel, now Beitin, on the frontier of the tribal 
 domains of Benjamin and Ephraim (Josh. xvi. 2, xviii. 13), and 
 assigned to the tribe of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 22), is here men- 
 tioned as an Ephraimite city on the southern frontier of the 
 Ephraimite territory, as it belonged to the kingdom of the ten 
 tribes ; whence we gather that this register was prepared after 
 that kingdom had come into existence. As to its position, see on 
 Josh. vii. 2. Her daughters are the smaller villages which be- 
 longed to Bethel. Naaran, without doubt the same place which 
 is called in Josh. xvi. 17 "^^ (with n Zoc.), is the eastern 
 frontier city lying to the north-east of Jericho ; see on Josh. xvi. 
 7. " And westward Gezer," according to Josh. xvi. 13, lying 
 between Beth-horon and the sea (see on Josh. x. 33), is the 
 frontier city on the south-west ; and Shechem and Avvah (V), 
 with their daughters, are places which mark the boundary on 
 the north-west. As to 03$, Shechem, the present Nabulus, see 
 on Josh. xvii. 7. Instead of HW, most of the editions of the 
 Bible agree with LXX. and Vulg. and Chald. in having !"% but 
 not the Philistine Gaza : it is only an error of the transcribers
 
 CHAP. VII. 30-40. 143 
 
 and printers, as all the more accurate MSS. and the better printed 
 copies have my ; see De Rossi, Varies Lectt. ad h. I. The locality 
 rrcy or ny is certainly met with nowhere else, but, if we may judge 
 by Josh. xvi. 6 and xvii. 17, is to be sought not far from Shechem 
 in a north-western direction, perhaps on the site of the there 
 mentioned Michmethah, the position of which has, however, not 
 yet been ascertained. Ver. 29. According to Josh. xvii. 11, the 
 Manassites had received the four cities here named, lying within 
 the territory of Issachar and Asher. This is attested also by 
 'D \n ^."vy, to the hands, i.e. in possession of the sons of Manasseh. 
 As to its position, see Josh. xvii. 11. These cities formed the 
 boundaries on the extreme north, of the dwellings " of the sous 
 of .Joseph," i.e. of the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. 
 
 Vers. 30-40. The sons and several families of Asher. Ver. 30. 
 The names of the four sons of Asher and that of their sister 
 coincide with the statement of Gen. xlvi. 17 ; but in Num. xxvi. 
 44-47, on the contrary, the name Ishuai does not occur among 
 the families of Asher. Ver. 31. The sons of Beriah, Heber and 
 Malchiel, are also to be found in Gen. xlvi. 17 and Num. xxvi. 
 45 as the heads of two families ; but the further statement, " he 
 (i.e. Malchiel) the father of Birzavith," is found only here. How 
 niPD, the Kethibh, is to be pronounced, cannot be with certainty 
 determined. Gesen. in Thes. p. 239 makes it nin.3, and considers 
 the word to be the name of a woman ; Bertheau, on the con- 
 trary, conjectures that it is a compound of "O = "iX2i and JVt^ "well 
 of the olive-tree," and so the name of a place. In vers. 32-34 
 the descendants of Heber are enumerated in three generations, 
 which are mentioned nowhere else. In ver. 32 we have four 
 sons and one daughter. The name &?>^ is not to be connected 
 with ^3!, Josh. xvi. 3, " because a family of Asher is not to be 
 sought for in the neighbourhood there referred to" (Berth.). In 
 ver. 33 we have four sons of Japhlet, and in ver. 34 the sons of 
 his brother Shemer. It is somewhat remarkable that ">BiB>, ver. 
 32, is called here "IBB>. 'ns is not an appellative, but a proper 
 name, as the i before the following name shows ; cf . another Alii 
 in v. 15. For narv we should read nam. Vers. 35-39. Descend- 
 ants of Helem in ver. 35 sons, in vers. 36-38 grandsons. As 
 Helem is called VPIK "his brother" (i.e. the brother of the 
 
 L 
 
 Shemer mentioned in ver. 34), D?n would seem to be the third 
 son of Heber, who is called in ver. 32 Drrin. If so, one of the 
 two names must have resulted from an error in transcription;
 
 144 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 but it is now impossible to determine which, is the original and 
 correct form of the name. Eleven names are introduced as those 
 of the sons of Zophah (vers. 36, 37) ; and in ver. 38 we have, 
 besides, three sons of Jether (TO? who is called in ver. 38 ]"$?.. 
 In ver. 39 there follow three names, those of the sons of Ulla ; 
 on which Bertheau rightly remarks, the whole character of our 
 enumeration would lead us to conjecture that N?JJ had already 
 occurred among the preceding names, although we find neither 
 this name nor any similar one, with which it might be identi- 
 fied, in the preceding list. Ver. 40 contains a comprehensive 
 concluding statement as to the descendants of Asher : " All 
 these (those just mentioned by name) were heads of fathers'- 
 houses, chosen valiant heroes (2v^n, as in ver. 5), chief of the 
 princes," Vulg. duces ducum, i.e. probably leaders of the larger 
 divisions of the army, under whom were other DWb'a. " And 
 their genealogical register is for service of the host in war," i.e. 
 was prepared with reference to the men capable of bearing arms, 
 and had not, like other registers, reference to the number of 
 inhabitants of the various localities ; cf. ix. 22. It amounted to 
 26,000 men. According to Num. i. 41, Asher numbered 41,500, 
 and according to Num. xxvi. 47, 53,000 men. But we must 
 observe that the number given in our verse is only that of the 
 men capable of bearing arms belonging to one of the greater 
 families of Asher, the family of Heber, of which alone a register 
 had been preserved till the time of the chronicler. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. FAMILIES OF BENJAMIN, AND GENEALOGY OF 
 THE HOUSE OF SAUL. 
 
 The families of Benjamin enumerated in this chapter were 
 probably separated from those in chap. vii. 6-11, merely on the 
 ground that all the registers which are grouped together in chap, 
 vii. were taken from another genealogical document than that 
 from which the registers in our chapter, which form a supple- 
 ment to the short fragments in chap. vii. 6-11, have been derived. 
 
 Vers. 1-5. Tlie sons of Benjamin and Bela. The manner 
 in which the five sons begotten by Benjamin are enumerated 
 is remarkable, "Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second," etc., 
 since, according to Gen. xlvi. 21, after the first-born Bela, 
 Becher follows as the second son, and Ashbel is the third ; while 
 Aharah, Nohah, and Eapha are not met with there, quite other
 
 CHAP. VIII. 6, 7. 145 
 
 names occupying their place. In rnnx we can easily recognise 
 the B^nx of Num. xxvi. 38, whence the enumeration in ver. 1 f. 
 harmonizes with the order in Num. xxvi. 38. It is therefore 
 clear, that in our genealogy only those sons are mentioned who 
 founded the families of Benjamin. The names nnia and Na"} are 
 nowhere else met with among the sons of Benjamin ; but we may 
 conclude, partly from the agreement of the first three names 
 with the heads of the families of Benjamin enumerated in Num. 
 xxvi. 38, and partly from the agreement as to the number, which 
 is five in both passages, that nnii and NSH are intended to corre- 
 spond to the DBiBtJJ and B31H of Num. xxvi. 39. The only ques- 
 tion which then remains is, whether the variation in the names 
 arises from these two sons of Benjamin having had different 
 names, or from the families which issued from Shephupham 
 and Hupham having afterwards perhaps received new names 
 from famous chiefs, instead of the original designations, so that 
 Nohah and Rapha would be later descendants of Shephupham 
 and Hupham. Even this second supposition seems possible, 
 since TW1 in such genealogical registers may denote mediate 
 procreation. If, e.g., Nohah were a grandson or great-grandson 
 of Shephupham the son of Benjamin, he might well be intro- 
 duced in the genealogical lists of the families as begotten by 
 Benjamin. Vers. 3-5. The sons of Bela. Of the six names borne 
 by these sons, N"i3 is twice met with ; JJ|3 is found in Gen. xlvi. 
 21 as the son, and in Num. xxvi. 40 as grandson of Benjamin ; 
 JSISB' is another form of Daiati>, Num. xxvi. 39 ; and Dijin may be 
 a transcriber's error for DSin ? Num. xxvi. 39, just as "H&? probably 
 stands for T! 5 *, Gen. xlvi. 21. The occurrence of the name Gera 
 would be incomprehensible only if 0^3 denoted sons in the 
 narrower sense of the word ; but if D 11 ^ are sons in the wider 
 sense, i.e. descendants who founded fathers'-houses (groups of re- 
 lated households), two cousins might have the same name. In 
 that case, Addar, Shephuphan, and Huram also may be different 
 persons from Ard, Shephupham, and Hupham. Abihud and 
 Abislma are met with as descendants of Benjamin only here, 
 and nins may be connected with n>nN, ver. 7. 
 
 Vers. 6, 7. Sons of Ehud. The descent of Ehud from the 
 sons, grandsons, and descendants of Benjamin, enumerated in 
 vers. 1-5, is not given. The names of Ehud's sons follow only 
 at the end of the 7th verse, " And he begat Uzza and Ahihud," 
 while the intermediate clauses contain historical remarks. These
 
 146 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 sons were " heads of fathers' -houses of the inhabitants of Geba," 
 i.e. Geba of Benjamin (1 Sam. xiii. 16), the Levite city, vi. 
 45, which still remains as the half -ruinous village Jeba, 
 about three leagues to the north of Jerusalem ; see on Josh, 
 xviii. 24. "And they led them captive to Manahath, viz. 
 Naarnan and Ahiah and Gera, this man led them captive." The 
 subject to DvW are the men mentioned in the following verse, 
 while the N^n which follows shows that, of the three above 
 mentioned, the last, Gera, was the author of their captivity. 
 The place Manahath is not known, but is conjectured to be 
 connected with Hazi-Hammanahti and Hazi-Hammenuhoth, ii. 
 54 and 52 ; but we cannot ascertain with certainty whether the 
 name denotes a city or a district, and the situation of it has not 
 yet been discovered. Of the hostile collision of these Benjamite 
 families also, no more detailed accounts have come down to us. 
 
 Vers. 8-12. The descendants of Shaharaim. The descent of 
 Shaharaim from the sons and grandsons named in vers. 1-3 is 
 obscure, and the conjecture which connects him with Ahishahar of 
 chap. vii. 10 is unsupported. He was the father of a considerable 
 number of heads of fathers'-houses, whom his two or three wives 
 bore to him. According to ver. 8, he begat " in the country of 
 Moab after he had sent them, Hushim and Baara his wives, 
 away ; (ver. 9) there begat he with Hodesh his wife, Jobab," etc. 
 When and how Shaharaim, a Benjamite, came into the country 
 of Moab, is not known ; all that can be gathered from our verse 
 is that he must have lived there for a considerable time. inp&$> is 
 in/in. Pi., the " i" being retained, and the Daghesh forte omitted 
 with Sheva (cf. as to this formation, Ew. 238, d). DfiK, accus. 
 of the pronoun, which, as it precedes its noun, is in gen. masc., 
 although the names of women follow (cf. for this use of the 
 pronoun, Ew. 309, c). fi^n and nnjja are women, as we learn 
 from the following VBO. By this parenthesis, the beginning of 
 the main sentence has been lost sight of, and the lyin is taken 
 up again in *w?. As to T?in with ft?, cf. the remark on ii. 8. 
 tjnn is the third wife, which he took instead of those he had sent 
 away. The seven names in vers. 9, 10 are grouped together 
 as sons or descendants of the last-named wife, by the concluding 
 remark, "These his sons are heads of fathers'-houses." Then, 
 further, in vers. 11, 12, the sons and grandsons of the first 
 (divorced) wives, one of whom built the cities Ono and Lydda, 
 are enumerated ; but we have no means of determining whether
 
 CHAP. VIII. 13-28. 147 
 
 the "133 Kin refers to Shemer, the last mentioned, or to Elpaal 
 the father of the three sons, Eber, and Misliam, and Shemer. It 
 would, however, naturally suggest itself, that the words referred 
 to the first, n*> (Lod) is without doubt the city Lydda, where 
 Peter healed the paralytic (Acts ix. 32 ff.). It belonged in the 
 Syrian age to Samaria, but it was added to Judea by the King 
 Demetrius Soter, and given to Jonathan for a possession (1 Mace, 
 xi. 34, cf. with x. 30, 38). In the Jewish war it was destroyed 
 by the Roman general Cestius (Joseph, de Bell. Jud. ii. 19. 1), 
 but was rebuilt at a later time, and became the site of a toparchy of 
 Judea. In still later times it was called Diospolis, but is now a 
 considerable Mohammedan village, lying between Jafa and Jeru- 
 salem to the north of Ramleh, which bears the old name Ludd, 
 by the Arabs pronounced also Lidd. See v. Raumer, Pal. S. 10 ; 
 Robins. Pal. sub voce ; and Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, S. 69 f. 
 Ono is mentioned elsewhere only in Ezra ii. 33, Neh. vii. 37 
 and xi. 35, along with Lod, and must have been a place in the 
 neighbourhood of Lydda. 
 
 Vers. 13-28. Heads of fathers' -houses of the tribe of Benjamin, 
 who dwelt partly in Aijalon (ver. 13) and partly in Jerusalem. 
 Their connection with the heads of fathers'-houses already men- 
 tioned is not clear. The names Jtt?en ny/na might be taken for 
 a fuller enumeration of the sons of Elpaal (ver. 12), were it 
 not that the names enumerated from ver. 14 or 15 onwards, are 
 at the end of ver. 16 said to be those of sons of Beriah ; whence 
 we must conclude that with ny*!^, ver. 13, a new list of heads 
 of Benjamite fathers'-houses begins. This view is supported by 
 the fact that the names from ver. 14 or 15 to ver. 27 are divided 
 into five groups of families : the sons of Beriah (ver. 16), of 
 Elpaal (ver. 18), of Shimhi (ver. 21), of Shashak (ver. 25), and 
 of Jeroham (ver. 27). But as two of these, Beriah and Shashak, 
 occur in vers. 13, 14, and t| y&$ is probably another form of 
 yBB>, Bertheau conjectures that the last two names, Shashak and 
 Jeroham, are represented by Vns and niT| (ver. 14). Drrv and 
 nto"Vj may be explained by the supposition of a transcriber's 
 error, or by one person having two names ; but the word i^is is 
 rendered by the LXX. by 6 dSeX^o? avrov (= VriK) ; and the 
 view that ITIN is a nom. prop, is opposed, as in ver. 31, by the 
 fact that the 1 cop. is not found before the following PW, for 
 here, throughout, the names are all connected with each other by 
 the 1 cop. Bertheau therefore conjectures that the text originally
 
 148 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ran thus, PWI vnx ?yspx^ and that the name Elpaal was dropped 
 out ; and that in consequence of that, VJ1K had been punctuated 
 as a nom. prop. These conjectures seem satisfactory, especially 
 as it may be adduced in their favour that Vns has been added to 
 the name Elpaal to connect the names in ver. 14 with the enume- 
 ration (ver. 13) interrupted by the parenthetical remarks. No 
 certainty, however, can be attained in a matter so obscure. If a 
 new series of groups of families begins with ver. 13, we should 
 expect an introductory formula, as in ver. 6. Beriah and Shema 
 are called heads of the f athers'-houses of the inhabitants of Aijalon, 
 i.e. heads of the groups of related households inhabiting Aijalon, 
 the present Jalo to the west of Gibeon (see on Josh. xix. 42). 
 It is quite consistent with this that their sons or descendants 
 dwelt in Jerusalem. Next a heroic deed of theirs is related, viz. 
 that they (in some war or other) turned to flight the inhabitants 
 of Gath (without doubt Philistines). This remark reminds us 
 of the statement in chap. vii. 21, that sons of Ephraim were 
 slain by those born in Gath, because they had gone down to 
 drive away the herds of the inhabitants. But Bertheau draws 
 an erroneous conclusion from this fact, when he says that because 
 in both passages the name Beriah occurs, both refer to the same 
 event, and thereafter attempts by various hypotheses to make 
 the Benjamites mentioned in our verse into Ephraimites. For 
 the name Beriah is not at all so rare as to allow of our 
 inferring from that alone that the various persons so called are 
 identical, for Jacob's son Asher also named one of his sons 
 Beriah ; cf. vii. 30 with Gen. xlvi. 17. The notion that the 
 Benjamites Beriah and Shema defeated those inhabitants of Gath 
 who had slain the sons of Ephraim (vii. 21) is quite unsupported, 
 as the Philistines lived at war and in feud with the Israelites 
 for hundreds of years. Vers. 15, 16. Several of the names of 
 these six sons of Beriah who are mentioned in our verse occur 
 elsewhere, but nowhere else are they met with as sons of Beriah. 
 Vers. 17, 18. Bertheau would identify three of the sons of 
 Elpaal Meshullam, Heber, and Ishmerai with Misham, Eber, 
 and Shemer, ver. 12, but without any sufficient reason ; for it is 
 questionable if even the Elpaal whose sons are named in our 
 verses be the same person as the Elpaal mentioned in ver. 12. 
 Of these descendants of Elpaal, also, nothing further is known, 
 and the same may be said of the nine sons of Shimhi, vers. 19-21 ; 
 of the eleven sons of Shashak, vers. 22-25 ; and of the six sons
 
 CHAP. VIII. 29-40. 149 
 
 of Jeroham, vers. 26, 27, although some of these names are met 
 with elsewhere singly. The concluding remark, ver. 28, "These 
 are heads of fathers' -houses," refers, without doubt, to all the 
 names from ver. 15 or 14 to ver. 27. "According to their gene- 
 rations heads" is in apposition to the preceding, as in ix. 24, but 
 the meaning of the apposition is doubtful. The word D^ : &n can 
 hardly be repeated merely for emphasis, as the old commentators 
 understood it, in harmony with the Vulgate principes inquam, 
 for why should this word be so emphasized ? Bertheau thinks 
 that " according to their births heads " is to be taken to mean 
 that those who are enumerated by name are not the heads living 
 at the time of the preparation of this register, but the individual 
 families, with the name of their progenitor after whom they were 
 named in the genealogical lists. But how this meaning can be 
 found in the words in question, I at least cannot understand. 
 Can the individual families be called nias ^'iO, " heads of fathers'- 
 houses"? The families are the fathers'-houses themselves, i.e. 
 they are made up of the groups of related households compre- 
 hended under the name fathers'-houses. These groups of related 
 households have, it is true, each of them their head, but cannot 
 possibly be themselves called heads. The meaning seems rather 
 to be that the persons named in the family registers, or registers 
 of births, are introduced as heads (of fathers'-houses) ; and the 
 reason why this is remarked would seem to be, to prevent those 
 who are enumerated as the sons of this or that man from being 
 regarded simply as members of fathers'-houses. The further 
 remark, " these dwelt in Jerusalem," is manifestly not to be 
 taken to mean that the heads alone d\velt there, while the house- 
 holds that were subordinated to them lived elsewhere ; for it 
 signifies that they dwelt in Jerusalem with the households which 
 composed their respective fathers'-houses. That the households 
 dwelt there also is not stated, merely because the register contains 
 only the names of the heads. 
 
 Vers. 29-40. The genealogy of Saul Vers. 29-38 recur in 
 chap. ix. 35-44 (see on that passage). Vers. 29-32. The an- 
 cestors of Saul. They dwelt mainly in Gibeon, but a branch of 
 them were settled in Jerusalem, ver. 32 f. In Gibeon, now El 
 Jib, two hours north-west from Jerusalem (see on Josh ix. 3), 
 dwelt the father of Gibeon, with his wife and his sons. The 
 plural toi is used because there dwelt there, besides the father 
 of Gibeon, also his wife and his sons. The father, i.e. the lord
 
 150 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 and possessor of Gibeon, was called, according to ix. 35, Jehiel 
 (?NT!> Keth. taiy), and his wife Maachah, a not uncommon female 
 name (see on ii. 48). The descent of Jehiel from Benjamin is 
 not given. In ver. 30 eight names are given as those of his 
 sons, while in ix. 36 f. ten are mentioned, the latter statement 
 being correct ; for a comparison of the two passages shows that 
 in our verse two names have been dropped out, Ner between 
 Baal and Nadab, and Mikloth at the end, which must have 
 originally stood in our register also, for in vers. 32, 33 their 
 descendants are mentioned, "ttt is called in ix. 37 n^3T. These 
 names are evidently those of actual sons of Jehiel who were pro- 
 genitors of fathers'-houses (groups of related households), but in the 
 case of only two is the race descended from these further noticed. 
 In ver. 32 we have that of the youngest Mikloth, who begat 
 Shimeah, called in ix. 38 Shimeam. These also (viz. Shimeah 
 and his family) dwelt in Jerusalem E^D*? ^?.) "before their 
 brethren," i.e. over against them, and Q'THN D V> "with their 
 brethren." The brethren are the other Benjamites in the first 
 clause, those dwelling outside of Jerusalem and inhabiting the 
 neighbouring country as far as Gibeon (ver. 30) ; in the second, 
 those dwelling in Jerusalem (ver. 28). From this it is clear 
 that of the descendants of Abi-Gibeon only that branch which 
 was descended from Mikloth went to Jeusalem. Ver. 33. The 
 family of Ner. Ner begat Kish, and Kish Saul. According to 
 1 Sam. ix. 1 and xiv. 51, Kish was a son of Abiel. This state- 
 ment, on account of which Bertheau proposes to make alterations 
 in the text, may be reconciled with that in our verses, by the 
 simple supposition that in our verse intermediate names men- 
 tioned in 1 Sam. ix. 1, and probably others besides, are passed 
 over, and Ner the son of Abi-Gibeon is named only because he 
 was the progenitor of the line by which Saul was descended 
 from him. Saul ('IN^) is King Saul. Only three of his four 
 sons, 1 Sam. xiv. 49, are mentioned, those, namely, who fell with 
 him in the battle against the Philistines, 1 Sam. xxxi. 2. The 
 second is called, in 1 Sam. xiv. 49, Ishui, but in xxxi. 2 Abinadab, 
 as in our register, whence we gather that Ishui is another name 
 for Abinadab. The fourth, Eshbaal, is the same who is called 
 in 2 Sam. ii. 8, and elsewhere, Ishbosheth, who was set up as 
 king in opposition to David by Abner (see on 2 Sam. ii. 8). 
 Ver. 34. Jonathan's sons and grandsons. His son is called here 
 and in ix. 40 Meribbaal, while in 2 Sam. iv. 4, ix. 6, xvi. 1 ff.,
 
 CHAP. VIII. 29-40. 151 
 
 six. 25, he is called Mephibosheth, because the name " striver 
 with Baal" has been changed into riea'ao, exterminans idolum. 
 This Meribbaal, who was lame in his feet (cf. 2 Sam. iv. 4), had 
 a son Micha (^p, in 2 Sam. ix. 12 written N? S B), of whom came 
 a numerous race. He had four sons (ver. 35), and the family 
 of the last-named of these (Ahaz) is traced down, in vers. 36-40, 
 through ten generations to the great-grandson of Eshek. First 
 it is traced from Ahaz to Alemeth (ver. 36) ; then through Zimri, 
 brother of this latter, to Binea, by Tvifl ; then further by faa (his 
 son) to Azel, of whom in ver. 38 six sons are enumerated ; and 
 finally, in ver. 39, the sons of his brother Eshek are named, and 
 the sons and grandsons of the first-born of this latter are then 
 enumerated. The last two verses are wanting after ix. 44. The 
 names in the two registers correspond, except at one point, where 
 we cannot get rid of the discrepancy that for rnjnrr> (ver. 36) 
 there stands in ix. 42 nnj both times, probably through an error 
 of transcription, by which out of the shortened form rnjp there 
 arose my, n and n being interchanged. Besides this, instead of 
 the jn^n of ver. 35, we have in ix. 41, according to the harder 
 pronunciation of the gutturals, jnnn ; and for nan, ver. 37, we 
 have in ix. 41 the longer original form van. Now since Ahaz, 
 whose posterity is traced down to the tenth generation, was 
 descended from Jonathan in the third generation, and his grand- 
 father Mephibosheth was a boy of five years of age at the death 
 of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. iv. 4), the grandsons of Ulam, 
 mentioned in ver. 40, will be the thirteenth generation of Jona- 
 than's descendants. Now Jonathan fell along with Saul in the 
 year 1055 B.C. (see the chronological table of the period of the 
 judges, p. 217), and consequently this thirteenth generation of 
 Jonathan's descendants lived probably about 700 B.C., i.e. about 
 100 years before the Babylonian exile; for, according to the 
 analogy of the royal race of David, we cannot reckon more than 
 twenty-five years on an average for each generation. 1 Ver. 40. 
 
 1 Bertheau holds a contrary opinion to that given in the text, and thinks 
 that by the numerous sons and grandsons of Ulam the son of Eshek we are 
 brought down to post-exilic times, seeing that if Saul lived abont 1080 B.C., 
 and thirty years are reckoned to each one of the thirteen generations (Eshek 
 being a descendant of Saul in the thirteenth generation), Azel and Eshek 
 must have lived about 690 B.C. But this estimate is too high, for we cannot 
 reckon sixty years to Saul and Jonathan from 1080 onwards, since Jonathan 
 fell along with Saul in 1055, and his son Meribbaal was then hardly five years 
 old, and must consequently have beea born in 10CO. For the following
 
 152 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 The sons of Ulam are called valiant heroes and archers, and 
 must have shown the same capability for war by which the 
 tribe of Benjamin had been distinguished at an earlier time ; cf. 
 Judff. xx. 16. and for ntfp mM, cf. 1 Chron. v. 16. The sub- 
 
 O f f "*" " " * 
 
 scription '0 n ^"?|, refers back to the superscription in ver. 1, and 
 binds all the names in our chapter together. 
 
 CHAP. IX. THE FORMER INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM, AND 
 THE FAMILY OF SAUL. 
 
 Vers. 1-3 form the transition from the genealogies to the 
 enumeration of the former inhabitants of Jerusalem in vers. 4-34. 
 Ver. 1. " And all the Israelites were registered ; and, behold, 
 they were written in the book of the kings of Israel, and Judah 
 was led away to Babylon for her transgressions." The LXX. 
 and Vulg. have erroneously connected rnsrw with the preceding 
 words, and render, " in the book of the kings of Israel and 
 Judah," and then have translated the following words 'W vJH 
 arbitrarily. Not less incorrect is Bertheau's opinion, that Israel 
 here denotes only the tribes of the northern kingdom, because 
 Israel is contrasted with Judah, and kings of Israel are spoken 
 of, for both reasons are quite worthless. " The book of the kings 
 of Israel" is cited in 2 Chron. xx. 34 (cf. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18), 
 and is declared by Bertheau himself to be identical with the 
 historical work cited as the " book of the kings of Israel and 
 Judah" (2 Chron. xxvii. 7, xxxv. 27, xxxvi. 8), or as the "book 
 of the kings of Judah and Israel" (2 Chron. xvi. 11, xxv. 26, 
 and elsewhere). How then can it be inferred from the shortened 
 title, " book of the kings of Israel," that kings of the northern 
 kingdom are spoken of ? Then, as to the contrast between Israel 
 and Judah, it might, when looked at by itself, be adduced in 
 favour of taking the name in its narrower sense ; but when we 
 
 generations, moreover, not more than twenty-five years on an average should 
 be reckoned. That being the case, the children's children of Ulam's sons, 
 who were the twelfth generation of Micha's descendants, may have lived 
 from 760 B.C. onwards, and during this period, from 760 to 700, may have 
 increased to the troop of blooming grandchildren of Ulam mentioned in ver. 
 40. But even supposing that thirty years should be reckoned for each genera- 
 tion, the last-named generation of 150 grandsons and great-grandsons of 
 Ulam would have lived in the period from 660 to 600, i.e. before the exile, 
 or at least before the first great deportation of the people with Jehoiakim in 
 the year 599 B.C.
 
 CHAP. IX. 1-3. 153 
 
 consider the grouping together in ver. 10 of " Israel, the priests, 
 the Levites, and the Nethinim," we see clearly that Israel in ver. 2 
 incontrovertibly denotes the whole Israel of the twelve tribes. 
 In ver. 1, Israel is used in the same sense as in ver. 2 ; and the 
 contrast between Israel and Judah, therefore, is analogous to 
 the contrast " Judah and Jerusalem," i.e. Israel is a designation 
 of the whole covenant people, Judah that of one section of it. 
 The position of our verse also at the end of the genealogies of 
 all the tribes of Israel, and not merely of the ten tribes of the 
 northern kingdom, requires that the name Israel should be under- 
 stood to denote the whole covenant people. That ver. 1 forms 
 the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so is properly the conclusion of the 
 genealogies in chap, ii.-viii., is so manifest that Bertheau cannot 
 adduce a single tenable ground for his assertion to the contrary, 
 that " the verse forms clearly quite a new beginning." For 
 the assertion, "We recognise in it a short introduction to the 
 historical statements regarding the tribe of Judah or the Israelites 
 after the exile," cannot be adduced in support of his view, since 
 it not only contradicts his former assertion that Israel here 
 denotes the northern kingdom, but is also irreconcilable with the 
 words of the verse. 1 The statement, "Judah was led captive to 
 Babylon for her transgressions," corresponds to the statement 
 chap. v. 25 f., 41. But when, after this statement, our writer 
 continues, " And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their 
 possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, 
 and the Nethiuim ; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of 
 Judah," etc., the " former inhabitants" can only be those who 
 dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into 
 Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any com- 
 mentator, if the right interpretation of our passage were not 
 obscured by the similarity of the register of the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem which follows to that contained in Neh xi., a simi- 
 larity which has led some to believe that both registers treat of 
 
 1 Bertheau's further remark, " Ver. 1 cannot have been written by our 
 historian, because he did not consider it sufficient to refer his readers to the 
 work he quotes from, but thought himself bound to communicate genealogical 
 registers of the tribes of the northern kingdom (chap, v.-vii.), which he must 
 have extracted from older registers prepared in the time of the kings (cf. v. 
 27), perhaps even out of the work here named," is quite incomprehensible by 
 me. Notwithstanding repeated consideration of it clause by clause, I have 
 not succeeded in comprehending the logic of this argument.
 
 154 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. Bertheau, e.g., comes 
 to the following decision as to the relation of our register, vers. 
 2-34, to that in Neh. xi. 3-24 : a As the result of the comparison, 
 we have found that both registers correspond exactly in their 
 plan, and agree as to all the main points in their contents." 
 The first point in this result has some foundation ; for if we turn 
 our attention only to the enumeration of chiefs dwelling in Jeru- 
 salem, then the registers in vers. 4-17 of our chapter and in 
 Neh. xi. 3-19 are identical in plan. But if we consider the 
 whole of the registers, as found in 1 Chron. ix. 234 and Neh. 
 xi. 324, we see that they do differ in plan ; for in ours, the 
 enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is introduced by 
 the remark, ver. 2, " The former inhabitants in their possessions 
 in their cities, were Israel, the priests," etc., according to which 
 the following words, ver. 3, " And in Jerusalem there dwelt of 
 the sons of Judah," etc., can only be understood of the pre- 
 exilicr inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in opposition to this, 
 to Neh. v. 15, where the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra is 
 called the time of the former governors (D^btein ninsn), -with 
 whom Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later governor, to prove 
 that according to that the former inhabitants in our passage may 
 very well denote the inhabitants of the land in the first century 
 of the restored community, he forgets that the governors were 
 changed within short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily 
 call his predecessors in the office "former governors ;" while the 
 inhabitants of the cities of Judah, on the contrary, had not 
 changed during the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to 
 allow of earlier and later inhabitants being distinguished. From 
 the fact that the inhabitants " of their cities" are not contrasted 
 as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the later, 
 but that both are placed together in such a way as to exclude 
 such a contrast, it is manifest that the conclusion drawn by 
 Movers and Bertheau from Neh. xi. 1, that the " former inhabit- 
 ants in their possessions in their cities" are those who dwelt in 
 Jerusalem before it was peopled by the inhabitants of the sur- 
 rounding district, is not tenable. In Neh. xi., on the contrary, 
 the register is introduced by the remark, ver. 3, " These are the 
 heads of the province who. dwelt in Jerusalem ; and they dwelt in 
 the cities of Judah, each in his possession in their cities, Israel, 
 the priests," etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a 
 register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the other cities
 
 CHAP. IX. 4-9. 155 
 
 of Judah, at that time, i.e. at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 To this corresponds the manner in which the register has been 
 made out, as in vers. 3-24 the inhabitants of Jerusalem are 
 enumerated, and in vers. 25-36 the inhabitants of the other 
 cities. The register in our chapter, on the contrary, deals only 
 with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vers. 3-19a), while in vers. 
 196-34 there follow remarks as to the duties devolving upon the 
 Levites. No mention is made in the register of the inhabitants 
 of other cities, or of Israelites, priests, and Levites, who dwelt in 
 their cities outside of Jerusalem (ver. 2), because all that was 
 necessary had been already communicated in the preceding 
 genealogies (chap, ii.-viii.). Ver. 3, too, is not, as Bertheau and 
 others think, " the superscription of the register of those dwelling 
 in Jerusalem ;" for were it that, mention must have been made in 
 it of the priests and Levites, the enumeration of whom fills up 
 the greater part of the following register, vers. 10-33. Ver. 3 
 corresponds rather to ver. 35, and serves to introduce the contents 
 of the whole chapter, and with it commences the enumeration 
 itself. In Neh. xi., consequently, we have a register of the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, while our 
 chapter contains only a register of the former inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem. Only in so far as it treats of the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem does Nehemiah's register resemble ours in plan ; that 
 is, to this extent, that the sous of Judah, the sons of Benjamin, 
 priests and Levites, are enumerated seriatim as dwelling in 
 Jerusalem, that is, the heads of the fathers'-houses of these in- 
 habitants, as is stated by Nehemiah in the superscription xi. 3, 
 and in our chapter, at the end of the respective paragraphs, vers. 
 9, 13, and in the subscription, vers. 33 and 34. 
 
 But if we examine the contents of the two catalogues more 
 minutely, their agreement is shown by the identity of several of 
 the names of these heads. On this point Bertheau thus speaks : 
 " Of the three heads of Judah, Uthai, Asaiah, and Jeuel, vers. 
 4-6, we recognise the first two in Athaiah and Maaseiah, Neh. 
 xi. 4, 5 ; only the third name, Jeuel, is omitted. Of the five 
 heads of Benjamin, vers. 5-7, it is true, we meet with only two, 
 Sallu and Hodaviah, in Neh. xi. 7-9 ; but it is manifest that there 
 was no intention to communicate in that place a complete enume- 
 ration of the hereditary chiefs of Benjamin. The names of the 
 six heads of the divisions of the priests, Jedaiah and Jehoiarib, 
 Jachin, Azariah (Seriah occupies his place in the book of Nehe-
 
 156 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 miah), Adaiah and Maasiai (represented in Nehemiah by Ama- 
 shai), are enumerated in both places in the same order. Among 
 the Levites there occur the names of Shemaiah and Mattaniah 
 as representatives of the great Levitic divisions of Merari and 
 Gershon-Asaph, and we easily recognise our nH3'y in the t&py 
 of the book of Nehemiah. Only the two first of the four chiefs 
 of the doorkeepers, Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, and Ahiman, are 
 named in the abridged enumeration of the book of Nehemiah, 
 while the two others are only referred to in the added DrPfiKI." 
 Now, even according to this statement of the matter, the differ- 
 ence is seen to be almost as great as the agreement ; but in reality, 
 as a more exact comparison of the catalogues shows, the true state 
 of the case is very different. According to ver. 3, there dwelt in 
 Jerusalem also sons of Ephraim and Manasseh ; but the catalogue 
 from ver. 4 onwards contains only sons of Judah and Benjamin, 
 and not a single Ephraimite or Manassite. The reason of that 
 is probably this, that only single families and individuals from 
 among the latter dwelt there, while the register only makes men- 
 tion of the heads of the larger family groups in the population of 
 Jerusalem. Vers. 4-6. In the same place there dwelt, of the 
 sons of Judah, three chiefs of the three most important families 
 of Judah, that of Pharez, that of Shelah, and that of Zerah ; cf . 
 ii. 3, 4. Of the family of Pharez was Uthai, whose descent is 
 traced back in ver. 4 to Bani, of the children of Pharez. The 
 Kethibh <I J2~}D <I 33')1 is clearly to be read according to the Keri 
 VQ'jl? ^2"$. The name Bani occurs, vi. 31, among the Merarites ; 
 while in the genealogies of Judah, chap, ii. iv., neither Bani nor 
 Uthai, nor any one of his ancestors who are here named, is men- 
 tioned. In Neh. xi. 4, on the contrary, there is named of the 
 sons of Pharez, Athaiah ( n ^J(, perhaps only another form of 
 VTW), -with quite other ancestors ; while not a single one of the 
 five names of the persons through whom his race is traced 
 back to Mahalaleel, of the sons of Pharez, coincides with the 
 ancestors of Uthai. Ver. 5. Of the family of Shelah, Asaiah 
 the first-born, and his (other) sons. VJ3 ? after "to^L 1 , can only be 
 understood of the other sons or descendants. But the epithet 
 given to Asaiah, W#n, is surprising, for it is a formation from 
 n>B> or fo&, and appears to denote a native of Shiloh, a well- 
 known city of Ephraim. This derivation, however, is not suit- 
 able, since here the sons (descendants) of Judah are enumerated; 
 and no connection between the inhabitants of Judah and the
 
 CHAP. IX. 4-9. 157 
 
 Ephraimite city Shiloh can either be proved or is at all likely. 
 The older commentators, therefore, have suggested the reading 
 ^?&fy as in Num. xxvi. 20, where the family of Shelah, the third 
 son of Judah, is so called. This suggestion is doubtless correct, 
 and the erroneous punctuation *&&>} has probably arisen only 
 from the scriptio plena of the word OW instead of n?K>. This 
 
 f . T " 
 
 supposition is confirmed by the fact that the form ^^n is found 
 in Neh. xi. 5, although it also is pointed *&&}. In Neh. loc. cit., 
 instead of Asaiah, Maaseiah is introduced as ^H&Tta in the seventh 
 generation, while no ancestors whatever of our Asaiah are men- 
 tioned. The name 1 " 1 ^J>, moreover, is not unfrequent, and occurs 
 in iv. 36 among the Simeonites; in vi. 15, xv. 6, 11, among the 
 Levites ; in 2 Kings xxii. 12, 14 and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 20, as 13V of 
 the King Josiah. fWJ/D is the name of many persons, e.g. in xv. 
 18, 20, and likewise in 2 Chron. xxiii. 1, Jer. xxi. 1, xxix. 21, 
 xxxv. 4 ; and elsewhere it is used of men of other tribes : so that 
 even should Maaseiah have been written instead of Asaiah merely 
 by an error of transcription, we are not warranted in identifying 
 our Asaiah with the Maaseiah of Nehemiah. Ver. 6. " Of the 
 sons of Zerah, Jeuel ;" also the name of various persons; cf. v. 7, 
 2 Chron. xxvi. 11 : the register in Neh. xi. notices no descend- 
 ants of Zerah. " And their brethren, 690 (men)." The plural 
 suffix in nn^nx cannot be referred, as Bertheau thinks, to Jeuel, 
 for that name, as being that of the head of a father' s-house, 
 cannot be a collective. The suffix must consequently refer to the 
 three heads mentioned in vers. 4-6, Uthai, Asaiah, and Jeuel, 
 whose brethren are the other heads of fathers'-houses of the three 
 families descended from Judah ; cf . ver. 9, where the number of 
 the D^nx mentioned refers to all the heads who had formerly been 
 spoken of. Vers. 7-9. Of the sons of Benjamin, i.e. of the Ben- 
 jamites, four heads are named, Sallu, Ibneiah, Elah, and Meshul- 
 lam ; and of the first and fourth of these, three generations of 
 ancestors are mentioned, of the second only the father, of the 
 third the father and grandfather. " And their brethren accord- 
 ing to their generations, 956;" cf. on ver. 6. "All these men" 
 are not the brethren whose number is given, but the heads 
 who have been mentioned by name. Now, if we compare this 
 with Neh. xi., we meet in vers. 7-9 with only one of the four 
 heads of Benjamin, Sallu, and that too, as in the Chronicle, as 
 a son of Meshullam, while the ancestors of both are different. 
 Instead of the three others in ver. 8, we have ^? ^??, 928 ; and in
 
 158 THE FlfiST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ver. 9, Joel as overseer (prefect), and Jehudah as ruler over the 
 city. 
 
 Vers. 10-13. The priests. The three names Jedaiah, Jehoia- 
 rib, and Jachin (ver. 10) denote three classes of priests (cf. xxiv. 
 7, 17), who accordingly dwelt in Jerusalem. There also dwelt 
 there (ver. 11) Azariah the son of Hilkiah, etc., the prince of the 
 house of God ; cf. 2 Chron. xxxi. 13. This is the Azariah men- 
 tioned in chap. v. 40, the son of Hilkiah, etc., the grandfather of 
 the Jehozadak who was led captive into Babylon. Then in ver. 
 12 we have two other heads of the priestly fathers'-houses, with 
 an enumeration of their ancestors, through whom they are traced 
 back to the classes of priests to which they belonged respectively, 
 viz. Adaiah to the class Malchijah (1 Chron. xxiv. 9), and Maa- 
 siai to the class Immer (1 Chron. xxiv. 14). According to this, 
 therefore, there dwelt at Jerusalem, of the priesthood, the three 
 classes Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin, Azariah the prince of the 
 temple, and of the classes Malchijah and Immer, the fathers'- 
 houses Adaiah and Maasiai. In ver. 13 the whole number is 
 estimated at 1760. A difficulty is raised by the first words of 
 this verse, " And their brethren, heads of their fathers'-houses, 
 1760," which can hardly be taken in any other sense than as 
 denoting that the number of the heads of the fathers'-houses 
 amounted to 1760. This, however, is not conceivable, as " fathers'- 
 houses " are not single households, but larger groups of related 
 families. Moreover, 0^**, which is co-ordinate with the heads of 
 the fathers'-houses, can only denote, as in vers. 6, 9, the heads of 
 the families which belonged to or constituted the fathers'-houses. 
 To arrive at this meaning, however, we must transpose the words 
 D! ? and Dni3S-n^ D^JO, connecting Dnns-n-^ 'i with ver. 12, 
 and DrrriK with the number, thus : heads of fathers'-houses, etc., 
 were those mentioned in ver. 12, and their brethren 1760 (men), 
 valiant heroes in the work of the service of the house of God. 
 Before n?*&9 one wou ^ expect the word ^y, as in 1 Chron. 
 xxiii. 24 and Neh. xi. 12, but its presence is not so absolutely 
 necessary as to warrant us in supposing that it has been dropped 
 out, and in inserting it. 1T3N7O may be also taken as an accusa- 
 tive of relation, " valiant heroes in reference to the work ;" or at 
 most a ? may be supplied before, rosta, as it might easily have 
 been omitted by a clerical error after the immediately preceding 
 7|n. On comparing our passage with Neh. xi. 10-14, we find 
 there, if ^T^'t? in ver. 10 be altered into ^"ViiV, the same three
 
 CHAP. IX. 14-17. 159 
 
 classes of priests ; but instead of Azariah, Seraiah is prince of the 
 house of God, ver. 11 : thereafter \ve have 822 brethren, perform- 
 ing the work of the house (of God). Then follows Adaiah of 
 the class Malchijah (as in the Chronicles), but with the addition, 
 "his brethren 242;" and then Amashai of the class Immer, bat 
 with other ancestors than those of the Maasiai of the Chronicles, 
 and with the addition, " and their brethren, valiant heroes, 128 ;" 
 nnd finally, Zabdiel Ben Hagdolim as overseer (president over 
 them). The sum of the three numbers is 1192, as contrasted 
 with the 1760 of the Chronicle. 
 
 Vers. 14-17. The Levites. Of these there dwelt in Jerusalem, 
 Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of, etc., a Merarite ; and 
 (ver. 15) Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal ; and Mattaniah the son 
 of Micah, a descendant of Asaph, and consequently a Gershonite 
 (ver. 16) ; and Obadiah the son of Shemaiah, a descendant of 
 Jeduthun, consequently also a Merarite ; and Berechiah the son 
 of Asa, the son of Elkanah, who dwelt in the villages of the Neto- 
 phathite, i.e. of the lord or possessor of Netopha, a locality in the 
 neighbourhood of Bethlehem ; cf. Neh. vii. 26. This remark 
 does not refer to Shemaiah, who cannot have dwelt at the same 
 time in Jerusalem and in the village of the Netophathite, but to 
 his grandfather or ancestor Elkanah, who is thereby to be dis- 
 tinmiished from the other men who bore this name, which often 
 
 o / 
 
 occurs in the family of Kohath. All these men are, according 
 to the analogy of the other names in our register, and according 
 to the express statement of the superscription, ver. 34, to be 
 regarded as heads of Levitic fathers'-houses, and were probably 
 leaders of the music, since those mentioned in vers. 15, 16 were 
 descendants of Asaph and Jeduthun, and may therefore with 
 certainty be assumed to have belonged to the Levitic musicians. 
 A confirmation of this supposition is found in the superscription, 
 ver. 33, inasmuch as the mention of the singers in the first line 
 goes to show that the enumeration of the Levites began with the 
 singers. If we compare Neh. xi. 15-18 with our passage, we find 
 that these two, Shemaiah and Mattaniah, are mentioned, and on 
 the whole their forefathers have the same names, vers. 15 and 17 ; 
 but between the two we find Shabbethai and Jozabad of the chief 
 of the Levites set over the external service of the house of God. 
 After Mattaniah, who is chief of the Asaphites there also, men- 
 tion is made of Bakbukiah as the second among his brethren, 
 and Abda the son of Shammua, a descendant of Jeduthun (ver.
 
 160 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 17) ; according to which, even if we identify Bakbakkar with Bak- 
 bukiah, and Abda with Obadiah, the Heresh, Galal, and Berechiah 
 of the Chronicles are wanting in Nehemiah, and instead of these 
 three, only Jozabad is mentioned. Ver 17. " The doorkeepers, 
 Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, Ahiman, and their brethren : Shallum 
 the chief." The service was so divided among the four just 
 named, that each along with his brethren performed the duty of 
 watching by one of the four sides and chief entrances of the 
 temple (cf. vers. 24 and 26), and these four were consequently 
 heads of those divisions of the Levites to whom was committed 
 the duty of the watch. In Neh. xi. 20, on the contrary, the 
 doorkeepers mentioned are Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren, 
 172 (men) ; but the other two chiefs named in the Chronicle are 
 there omitted, while in the Chronicle no number is given. Here 
 the agreement between the two registers ceases. In the Chronicle 
 there follows first of all, in vers. 18-26a, some remarks on the 
 service of the doorkeepers ; and then in 266-32 the duties of the 
 Levites in general are spoken of ; and finally, in vers. 32 and 34 
 we have subscriptions. In Nehemiah, on the other hand, we find 
 in ver. 20 the statement that the remaining Israelites, priests, and 
 Levites dwelt in their cities ; and after some statements as to the 
 service of the Levites, the enumeration of these cities is intro- 
 duced. 
 
 In glancing back over the two catalogues, it is seen that the 
 differences are at least as great as the coincidences. But what 
 conclusions are we to deduce from that fact ? Bertheau thinks 
 " from this it is certain that both catalogues cannot have been 
 drawn up independently of each other," and " that both have 
 been derived from one and the same source, which must have 
 been much more complete, and much richer in names, than 
 our present catalogues; cf. Movers, S. 234." We, however, 
 judge otherwise. The discrepancies are much too great to 
 allow us to refer them to free handling by epitomizers of some 
 hypothetical more detailed catalogue, or to the negligence of 
 copyists. The coincidence, in so far as it actually exists, does 
 not justify us in accepting such far-fetched suppositions, but 
 may be satisfactorily explained in another way. It consists 
 indeed only in this, that in both registers, (1) sons of Judah and 
 Benjamin, priests and Levites, are enumerated ; (2) that in each 
 of these four classes of the inhabitants of Jerusalem some names 
 are identical. The first of these coincidences clearly does not in
 
 CHAP. IX. 14-17. 161 
 
 the least prove that the two catalogues are derived from the same 
 source, and treat of the same time ; for the four classes enume- 
 rated constituted, both before and after the exile, the population 
 of Jerusalem. But neither does the identity of some of the 
 names prove in the slightest degree the identity of the two cata- 
 logues, because the names denote, partly classes of inhabitants, 
 and partly heads of fathers'-houses, i.e. of groups of related 
 households, which did not change with each generation, but 
 sometimes continued to exist for centuries ; and because, a priori, 
 we should expect that those who returned from exile would, as 
 far as it was possible, seek out again the dwelling-places of their 
 pre-exilic ancestors ; and that consequently after the exile, on 
 the whole, the same families who had dwelt at Jerusalem before 
 it would again take up their abode there. In this way the iden- 
 tity of the names Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin in the two 
 catalogues may be accounted for, as these names do not denote 
 persons, but classes of priests, which existed both before and 
 after the exile. A similar explanation would also apply to the 
 names of the doorkeepers Akkub and Talmon (ver. 17 ; Neh. ver. 
 19), as not merely the priests, but also the other Levites, were 
 divided for the service according to their fathers'-houses into 
 classes which had permanent names (cf. chap. xxv. and xxvi.). 
 Of the other names in our register only the following are iden- 
 tical : of the Benjamites, Sallu the son of Meshullam (ver. 7 ; 
 Neh. ver. 7) ; of the priests, Adaiah (ver. 12 ; Neh. ver. 12), with 
 almost the same ancestors ; and of the Levites, Shemaiah and 
 Mattaniah (ver. 10 f. ; Neh. vers. 15, 17). All the other names 
 are different ; and even if among the priests Maasiai (ver. 12) 
 should be identical with Amashai (Neh. ver. 13), and among the 
 Levites Bakbakkar and Obadiah (vers. 16 and 15) with Bakbukiah 
 and Abtla (Neh. ver. 17), we cannot identify the sons of Judah, 
 Uthai and Azaiah (ver. 4 f.), with Athaiah and Maaseiah (Neh. 
 ver. 4 f.), for their ancestors are quite different. The simi- 
 larity or even the identity of names, were it in two or three 
 generations, cannot of itself prove the identity of the persons, as 
 we have already seen, in the genealogy of the line of Aaron 
 (v. 29 ff.), that, e.g., the series Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok 
 recurs at various times ; cf. ver. 33 f. and ver. 37 f. Every- 
 where in the genealogical lines the same names very often recur, 
 as it was the custom to give the children the names of their 
 ancestors ; cf. Tob. i. 9, Luke i. 59. Win. Ubl R. W. ii. S. 133 ; 
 
 L
 
 162 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Havern. Einl. ii. 1, S. 179 f. But if, on the one hand, the 
 identity of these names in the two catalogues is not at all a valid 
 proof of the identity of the catalogues, and by no means justifies 
 us in identifying similarly-sounding names by supposing errors 
 of transcription, on the other hand we must hold that the register 
 refers to the pre-exilic population of Jerusalem, both because of 
 the wide discrepancies in all points, and in accordance with the 
 introductory statements in ver. 2 f. This interpretation is also 
 demanded by the succeeding remarks in reference to the service 
 of the Levites, since they throughout refer to the pre-exilic 
 time. 
 
 Vers. 18-34. The duties of the Levites. Ver. 18. The first 
 half of this verse, " And until now (is he) in the king's gate 
 eastward," must be referred to Shallum (Berth.). To imagine 
 a reference to all the doorkeepers, " until now are they," does 
 not suit vers. 24-26, according to which the doorkeepers kept 
 guard upon all the four sides. The eastern gate of the temple 
 was called the king's gate, because by this gate the king went in 
 and out to the temple ; cf. Ezek. xlvi. 1, 2, xli. 3. The remark, 
 " until now is Shallum watcher," etc., presupposes the existence 
 of the temple at the time of the preparation of this register, and 
 points to the pre-exilic time. Against this Bertheau has raised 
 the objection that the name king's gate may have been retained 
 even in the post-exilic times for the eastern gate. This must of 
 course be in general admitted, but could only be accepted if it 
 were proved that Shallum lived after the exile. This proof 
 Bertheau obtains by taking the words, " until now is Shallum 
 in the king's gate," to mean, "that, according to the ancient 
 arrangement, Shallum, the chief of all the doorkeepers, had still 
 to guard the eastern entrance ; according to which Shallum would 
 be the collective designation of the whole series of the chiefs of 
 the doorkeepers who lived from David's time till after the exile;" 
 but the words cannot be thus interpreted. Such an interpretation 
 cannot be made plausible by identifying the name Shallum with 
 Meshelemiah or Shelemiah, to whose lot it fell in the time of 
 David to be doorkeeper to the eastward (xxvi. 1, 14) ; for in 
 doing so, we would overlook the fact that in ver. 21 of our 
 chapter also he bears the name Meshelemiah. The circum- 
 stance that both Shallum and Meshelemiah are called Ben-Kore, 
 of the sons of Abiasaph, by no means justifies the identification 
 of these two quite different names ; for it is neither necessary nor
 
 CHAP. IX. 18-34. 163 
 
 probable that |3 should here be taken in its narrower sense, and 
 Kore regarded as the immediate father of both. The name sop 
 is repeated in the family of the east doorkeepers, as we learn 
 from 2 Chron. xxxi. 14, where it is stated that this office was 
 held by a Kore ben Jimna. " These (who are named in ver. 17) 
 are the doorkeepers for the camp of the sons of Levi " (of the 
 Levites), an antiquated expression, bringing to remembrance 
 the time of Moses, when the Levites, on the journey through 
 the wilderness, were encamped about the tabernacle (Num. iii. 
 21 ff.). Ver. 19 gives more exact information as to Shallum's 
 person and his official position. He, the descendant of Kore, 
 the son (descendant) of Abiasaph, a Korahite, and his brethren 
 according to his father's-house (i.e. called brethren because they, 
 like him, belonged to the father's-house of Korah), we're over the 
 work of the service, viz. keepers of the thresholds of the tent, i.e. 
 of the house of God, of the temple, which, according to the 
 ancient custom, was called tent, because God's house was for- 
 merly a tent the tabernacle. " And his fathers (the ancestors of 
 Shallum) were by the encampment of Jahve, guardians of the 
 entrance." With these words the author of this register goes 
 back into the ancient time ; and we learn that Shallum's ances- 
 tors, of the father's-house of the Korahite Abiasaph, had held 
 the office of guardian of the entrance to the house of God from 
 the time of the conquest of Canaan and the setting up of the 
 tabernacle in Shiloh. The remark in ver. 20, that Phinehas the 
 son of Eleazar was prince over them in time past, points to the 
 same period. In the book of Joshua and the older books there 
 is no record of the matter ; but since the Korahites were de- 
 scended through Ishhar from Kohath, and the Kohathites held, 
 according to Num. iv. 4 ff., the first place among the servants of 
 the holy place, and were responsible for the holiest vessels, we 
 cannot doubt that the statement here rests upon accurate histo- 
 rical tradition. The u encampment of Jahve " is the holy place 
 of the tabernacle, the dwelling of Jahve in the midst of His 
 people. This designation also is derived from the circumstances 
 of the Israelites in their wandering in the Arabian desert, 
 and is likewise employed in 2 Chron. xxxi. 2 in reference to 
 Solomon's temple ; but in our verse the tabernacle is intended. 
 It had only one entrance, NUD, the guarding of which was en- 
 trusted to the above-mentioned Korahites. Ver. 20. Phinehas 
 was prince over them, not as high priest, but during the high-
 
 164 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 priesthood of his father Eleazar, i.e. in the time of Joshua, just 
 as Eleazar, under the high-priesthood of Aaron in the time of 
 Moses, had the oversight of the keepers of the holy place, as 
 prince of the princes of Levi (Num. iii. 32). The words iBV ^^ 
 do not contain a historical remark, " Jahve was with him," 
 for then the conjunction 1 would stand before it, as in xi. 9 ; 
 they are a blessing " Jahve be with him" in reference, pro- 
 bably, to the covenant of peace entered into with him and his 
 descendants by Jahve (Num. xxv. 11-13). Ver. 21 is quite un- 
 connected with the preceding context, the conjunction l being 
 omitted, and its contents also present considerable difficulties. 
 Zechariah, the son of Meshelemiah, can only be the Zechariah 
 who is mentioned in xxvi. 2 as the first-born of Meshelemiah, 
 and who lived in the time of David ; for at the time when David 
 divided the porters, into classes, there fell to him the lot towards 
 midnight, i.e. the duty of waiting at the door on the north side 
 of the holy place (xxvi. 14). With this, indeed, the general 
 statement of our verse, " he was porter of the door (or the en- 
 trance) of the tent of the covenant," is not inconsistent. But 
 what purpose does this general statement serve? With what 
 design is Zechariah, and he alone, mentioned? We have no 
 means of giving a definite answer to this question ; but he may 
 perhaps be named as being the person who, before David's divi- 
 sion of the Levites into classes was carried out, had charge of 
 the porters' service in the tabernacle. But even if this conjec- 
 ture be accepted as well grounded, the abrupt way in which it is 
 mentioned still remains enigmatical. 
 
 With ver. 22 the narrative seems to return to the enumera- 
 tion begun in vers. 17-19a, so that the reflections on the earlier 
 times, vers. 19J 21, are to be regarded as a parenthesis. Ver. 
 22 runs: "They all who were chosen for doorkeepers for the 
 thresholds, 212 (men) : they, in their villages were they registered; 
 they were ordained by David and Samuel the seer on their 
 fidelity." The infinitive BWnn is used substantively, " in refer- 
 ence to them, in their villages was their genealogical registration 
 accomplished." If ver. 22 be the continuation of vers. 17-21a, 
 then the number given (212) will refer to the doorkeepers in 
 active service at the time of the preparation of the register. 
 With this hypothesis, however, the last clause of the verse, 
 which states that David and Samuel had appointed them, does 
 not seem to harmonize. But if we consider that the four men
 
 CHAP. IX. 18-34. 165 
 
 mentioned in ver. 17 are heads of fathers' -houses, and that their 
 fathers'-houses were not extinguished at the death of their tem- 
 porary heads, and performed the same service from generation 
 to generation, it might well be said of the generation performing 
 the service at the time of the preparation of our register, that 
 David had appointed them to their office. The case would of 
 course be similar, if, as we have above supposed, the four names 
 in ver. 17 are designations of the classes of doorkeepers, for 
 these classes also performed the same service continually. The 
 statements of our 22d verse cannot be referred to the time of 
 David, for in chap. xxvi. 8-10 the number of the doorkeepers 
 appointed by David amounted only to eighty, viz. sixty-two of 
 the sons of Obed-Edom, and eighteen of the sons of Meshele- 
 miah, which, with the addition of thirteen Merarites (xxvi. 10, 
 11), gives a total of ninety-three, while in our verse the number 
 is 212. According to Ezra ii. 42, the number of doorkeepers 
 who returned with Zerubbabel was 139 men ; and in the register, 
 Neh. xi. 19, the number is stated to be 172. From the remark 
 that they were registered in their villages (DfV'ii'n, as in vi. 41, 
 Josh. xiii. 23, and elsewhere), we learn that the doorkeepers 
 dwelt in villages near Jerusalem, whence they came to the city 
 so often as their service required, as the singers also did in the 
 post-exilic time, Neh. xii. 29 f. 13^, to found, set, ordain, and so 
 appoint to an office. " David and Samuel the seer : " " 1 ^">^, the 
 ancient designation of the prophets, for which at a later time 
 N^3 was the more usual word ; cf. 1 Sam. ix. 9. Nowhere else 
 do we find any record of Samuel's having taken any part in 
 David's arrangement of the service of the Levites in the holy 
 place. Samuel, moreover, was no longer living when David 
 began to arrange the worship at the time when the ark was 
 brought to Jerusalem, for he died before Saul, and consequently 
 before the beginning of David's reign ; cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 1 with 
 xxviii. 3. Bertheau is consequently of opinion that this state- 
 ment of our historian rests merely upon the general recollection, 
 according to which the worship was organized afresh, and estab- 
 lished in its newer form, in the time of David and Samuel. 
 This is of course possible, but there is no cogent reason against 
 accepting the much less remote supposition that the chronicler 
 took this remark from his authority. The mention of Samuel 
 after David has not a chronological signification, but David is 
 named first on account of his connection with the matter in
 
 166 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 hand ; for the thorough re-organization of the worship, and the 
 classification of the persons engaged in carrying it on, originated 
 with David. For these arrangements of David, however, Samuel 
 had prepared the way in his struggle for the restoration of the 
 theocracy, and of the worship which had fallen into desuetude 
 under Eli and his profligate sons. To do this in any measure, 
 he must have, without doubt, ordained trustworthy men to the 
 individual offices, and thus have prepared the way for King 
 David. Dn3}BK3 is found in vers. 26, 31 without the suffix, 
 with the meaning "in good faith" (cf. 2 Kings xii. 16, xxii. 7, 
 2 Chron. xxxi. 12), and accordingly is here upon their fidelity, 
 i.e. because they had been recognised to be faithful. Ver. 23 f. 
 They (those ordained by David) and their sons (descendants) were 
 at the doors of the house of Jahve of the tent-house (^xn JV3 
 is added to mrP'TVa, in order that the latter might not be confined 
 to Solomon's temple) ; for the watch (rriiD^O of persons, as in 
 Neh. xii. 9, iv. 3, 16), according to the four winds (quarters) 
 were they, i.e. the doorkeepers stood so, in accordance with the 
 arrangement made by David; cf. xxvi. 14 ff. Ver. 25. "And 
 their brethren in their villages (cf. ver. 22) were bound to come 
 the seventh day, from time to time, with these." The infinitive 
 Ki3 with ? expresses duty, as in v. 1. The seventh day is the 
 Sabbath of the week, on which each class in order had to take 
 charge of the services. n?K DJJ are the chiefs mentioned in ver. 17 
 who dwelt in Jerusalem, and of whom it is said in ver. 26, " for 
 they are on their fidelity, the four mighty of the doorkeepers." 
 In explanation of the ^aa, Bertheau very fittingly compares 
 o-rparrj^ol rov iepov } Luke xxii. 52. The words 0*1?^ Bn ? which 
 may be translated, "they are the Levites," or "they (viz. the 
 Levites)," are somewhat surprising. The Masoretic punctuation 
 demands the latter translation, when the words would be an 
 emphatic elucidation of the preceding nisri. Were they a sub- 
 scription, we should expect n?K instead of Dn ; while, on the 
 other hand, the circumstance noticed by Bertheau, that in the 
 following verses the duties not merely of the doorkeepers, but 
 of the Levites in general, are enumerated, would seem to favour 
 that sense. Even in the second half of the 22d verse it is not 
 the doorkeepers who are spoken of, but the Levites in general. 
 May we not suppose that the text originally stood vn DW \m 
 (cf. ver. 14) instead of vni D^pn Dni, and that the reading of our 
 present text, having originated in a transcriber's error, found
 
 CHAP. IX. 18-34. 167 
 
 acceptance from the circumstance that ver. 27 apparently still 
 treats of, or returns to, the service of the doorkeepers ? So much 
 is certain, that from ver. 2Qb onward the duties of the Levites in 
 general, no longer those of the doorkeepers, are spoken of, and 
 that consequently we must regard the Levites (GMOp), and not 
 the before-mentioned four doorkeepers, as the subject of vrri: 
 " and the Levites were over the cells of the storehouses of the 
 house of God." The cells in the outbuildings of the temple 
 served as treasure-chambers and storehouses for the temple 
 furniture. nvixixn with the article in the stat. constr. (Ew. 
 290, (7), because of the looser connection, since the genitive 
 'Nmra also belongs to fitotJ'pn. Ver. 27 refers again to the 
 doorkeepers. They passed the night around the house of God, 
 because the care of or watch over it was committed to them, and 
 " they were over the key, and that every morning," i.e. they had 
 to open the door every morning, HflSD occurs again in Judg. 
 iii. 25 and Isa. xxii. 22, in the signification key, which is 
 suitable here also. Ver. 28. And of them (the Levites), some 
 were over the vessels of the service, by which we are probably to 
 understand the costly vessels, e.g. the golden cups for the liba- 
 tions, etc., which were brought from the treasure-chamber only 
 for a short time for use in the service. They were brought, 
 according to the number, into the place where the service took 
 place, and after being again numbered, were again carried forth ; 
 and according to ver. 29, other Levites were set over By?? and 
 over EH.PD ;?? Ver. 29. And of them, others were set over the 
 vessels (in general), and over all the holy vessels which were 
 used for the daily sacrificial service, and over the fine flour 
 (rpb, vide on Lev. ii. 1), wine, oil, and incense which was 
 required therein for the meat and drink offerings, and the 
 D^p^a, spicery, for the holy perfumes (frankincense, cf. Ex. 
 xxv. 6). Ver. 30. And of the priests' sons were preparers of 
 the ointments for the spices. It is the preparation from various 
 spices of the holy anointing oil, Ex. xxx. 23-25, which is meant, 
 and which consequently was part of the priest's duty. Ver. 31. 
 Mattithiah, the first-born of the Korahite Shallum (vide ver. 19), 
 was on good faith over the panbakings (pastry) for the meat- 
 offerings, over the preparation of which he was to watch. To 
 the name Mattithiah B^jTiP is added, in contrast to the V.?"IP 
 D'orpn in ver. 30. The word Q'fiSnn (pastry, panbaking) occurs 
 here only; cf. ranOj pan of sheet iron, Ex. iv. 3. Ver. 32.
 
 168 m THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Finally, to some of the Kohathites was committed the preparation 
 of the shew-bread, which required to be laid on the table fresh 
 every Sabbath ; cf. Lev. xxiv. 5-8. The suffix BrVflK refers back 
 to the Levites of the father' s-house of Korah in ver. 32. Vers. 
 33, 34 contain subscriptions to the section 14-32. Since the 
 enumeration of the Levites dwelling in Jerusalem in vers. 
 14-16 began with the Levitic singer families, so here \ve find 
 that the singers are mentioned in the first subscription, " these 
 are the singers, heads of fathers'-houses of the Levites," with an 
 additional remark as to their service : " In the cells free, for day 
 and night it is incumbent upon them to be in service," which is 
 somewhat obscure. D'niBS, from "1E3, in later Hebrew, let loose, 
 set free. Kashi and Kimchi have already translated it, immune s 
 ab aliis nempe mimsteriis, or ab omni olio officio. Adopting this 
 linguistically assured translation, we must supply with fbtfaj 
 dwelling or waiting in the cells of the courts of the temple, 
 freed from every other business in order that they may apply 
 themselves wholly to their service, for they are wholly busied 
 therewith day and night. Day and night is not to be pressed, 
 but signifies perpetually, continually. Bertheau translates crppjr 
 raj6i33, " they were over them in the service," i.e. had to take the 
 oversight of the singers subordinate to them. But this can hardly 
 be correct; and the passage quoted to justify this translation, 
 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12, proves nothing, because there "Ji?2E is used 
 along with it. We therefore prefer to take onvi> in the signi- 
 fication "it is incumbent upon them," although we should then 
 expect nation instead of nat&pa ; cf. ver. 27. Yet nastes can 
 in this connection quite well be used elliptically or concisely 
 for "to be in service," i.e. to carry on their musical duties. 
 The second subscription (ver. 34) refers to all the Levites, and 
 is similar in contents and form to that in chap. viii. 28. 
 
 Vers. 35-44. The family of King Saul. This register has already 
 occurred in chap. viii. 29-38, along with those of other families 
 of the tribe of Benjamin, and is repeated here only to connect the 
 following history of the kingship with the preceding genealogical 
 lists. It forms here the introduction to the narrative of Saul's 
 death in chap, x., which in turn forms the transition to the king- 
 ship of David. The deviations of this register from that in chap, 
 viii. 29-38, show that it has been derived from another document 
 in more complete preservation than that in chap, viii., which had 
 been handed down in connection with other genealogies of the
 
 CHAP. X.-XXIX. 169 
 
 Benjamite families, and had suffered considerably in its text. 
 See the commentary on viii. 29-38. 
 
 II. THE HISTORY OF DAVID'S KINGSHIP. CHAP. X.-XXIX. 
 
 The account of the ruin of Saul and his house in chap, x., cf. 
 1 Sam. xxxi., forms the introduction to the history of the king- 
 ship of David, which is narrated in two sections. In the first, 
 chap, xi.-xxi., we have a consecutive narrative of the most 
 important events of David's life, and his attempts to settle the 
 kingship of Israel on a firmer basis, from the time of his being 
 anointed king over all Israel to the numbering of the people in 
 the latter years of his reign. The second, chap, xxii.-xxix., con- 
 tains an account of the preparations made towards the end of his 
 reign for the building of the temple, of the arrangement of the 
 service of the Levites and the army, and the last commands of 
 the grey-haired king as to the succession of his son Solomon to 
 the kingdom, and matters connected with it. The first section 
 runs parallel to the account of the reign of David in 2d Samuel ; 
 the second is peculiar to the Chronicle, and has no parallel in the 
 earlier historical books, Samuel and Kings. Now, if we compare 
 the first section with the parallel narrative in 2d Samuel, it is mani- 
 fest that, apart from that omission of David's seven years' reign 
 over the tribe of Judah in Hebron, and of all the events having 
 reference to and connection with his family relationships, of which 
 we have already spoken in p. 12, in the Chronicle the same inci- 
 dents are recounted as in the second book of Samuel, and with 
 few exceptions the order is the same. The main alterations in 
 the order of the narrative are : (a) that the catalogues of David's 
 heroes who helped him to establish his kingdom (xi. 10-47), and 
 of the valiant men of all the tribes, who even in Saul's lifetime 
 had joined themselves to David (chap, xii.), follow immediately 
 upon the account of the choosing of Jerusalem to be the capital 
 of the kingdom, after the conquest of the fortress Jebus (xi. 1-9), 
 while in 2d Samuel the former of these catalogues is found in 
 
 O 
 
 chap, xxiii. 839, in connection with the history of his reign, and 
 the latter is entirely omitted ; and (6) the account of his palace- 
 building, his wives and children, and of some battles with the 
 Philistines, which in 2 Sam. v. 11-25 follows immediately after 
 the account of the conquest of the citadel of Zion, is inserted
 
 170 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 in the fourtenth chapter of Chronicles, in the account of the bring- 
 ing of the ark of the covenant from Kirjath-jearim (chap, xiii.), 
 and its transfer to Jerusalem (ch'ap. xv. f .). Both these transpo- 
 sitions and the before-mentioned omissions are connected with 
 the peculiar plan of the Chronicle. In the second book of Samuel 
 the reign of David is so described as to bring out, in the first 
 place, the splendidly victorious development of his kingship, and 
 then its humiliation through great transgression on David's part ; 
 the author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, designed to portray 
 to his contemporaries the glories of the Davidic kingship, so that 
 the divine election of David to be ruler over the people of Israel 
 might be manifest. In accordance with this purpose he shows, 
 firstly, how after the death of Saul Jahve bestowed the king- 
 ship upon David, all Israel coming to Hebron and anointing him 
 king, with the confession, " Jahve thy God hath said to thee, 
 Thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel ;" how the heroes of 
 the whole nation helped him in the establishing of his kingdom 
 (chap, xi.) ; and how, even before the death of Saul, the most 
 valiant men of all the tribes had gone over to him, and had helped 
 him in the struggle (chap. xii.). In the second place, he narrates 
 how David immediately determined to bring the ark into the 
 capital of his kingdom (chap, xv.) ; how, notwithstanding the 
 misfortunes caused by a transgression of the law (chap. xiii. 7, 
 9 ff.), so soon as he had learned that the ark would bring a 
 blessing (chap. xiii. xiv.), and that God would bless him in his 
 reign (chap, xiv.), he carried out his purpose, and not only brought 
 the ark to Jerusalem, but organized the public worship around 
 this sanctuary (chap. xv. and xvi.) ; and how he formed a resolu- 
 tion to build a temple to the Lord, receiving from God, because 
 of this, a promise that his kingdom should endure for ever (chap, 
 xvii.). Then, in the third place, we have an account of how he, so 
 favoured by the Lord, extended the power of his kingdom by vic- 
 torious wars over all the enemies of Israel (chap, xviii. xx.) ; and 
 how even the ungodly enterprise of the numbering of the people, 
 to which Satan had tempted him, David, had by the grace of 
 God, and through his penitent submission to the will of the Lord, 
 such an issue, that the place w r here the Lord should be thereafter 
 worshipped in Israel was determined by the appearance of the 
 angel and by the word of the prophet Gad (chap. xxi.). And so 
 the grey-haired king was able to spend the latter part of his reign 
 in making preparations for the building of the temple, and in
 
 CHAP. X. 1-7. 171 
 
 establishing permanent ordinances for the public worship, and 
 the protection of the kingdom : gave over to his son Solomon, his 
 divinely chosen successor on the throne, a kingdom externally and 
 internally well ordered and firmly established, and closed his life 
 at a good old age, after a reign of forty years (chap, xxii. xxix.). 
 
 CHAP. X. THE RUIN OF SAUL AND OF HIS HOUSE. 
 
 (CF. 1 SAM. CHAP. XXXI.) 
 
 The account of Saul's struggle with the Philistines, in which 
 he fell together with his sons, vers. 1-7, exactly coincides with 
 the narrative in 1 Sam. xxxi. 1-7 ; and the statements as to the 
 fate of the fallen king, vers. 8-12, differ from 1 Sam. xxxi. 8-13 
 only to this extent, that both narratives make mention only of 
 the main points, and mutually supplement each other. In vers. 
 13 and 14 there follow reflections on the ruin of the unfortunate 
 king, which show that the account of the death of Saul is only 
 intended to form an introduction to the history of David. 
 
 Vers. 1-7. In 1 Sam. xxxi. this narrative forms the con- 
 clusion of Saul's last war with the Philistines. The battle was 
 fought in the plain of Jezreel ; and when the Israelites were com- 
 pelled to retire, they fell back upon Mount Gilboa, but were hard 
 pressed by the Philistines, so that many fell upon the mountain. 
 The Philistines pressed furiously after Saul and his sons, and slew 
 the latter (as to Saul's sons, see on viii. 33) ; and when the archers 
 came upon Saul he trembled before them (/>rv from ^ ), and 
 ordered his armour-bearer to thrust him through. Between D^ian 
 and nrrijO the superfluous O^N is introduced in Samuel, and in the 
 last clause "INE is omitted ; and instead of D^iSHO we have the 
 unusual form D'ni'n'Jtp (cf. 2 Chron. xxxv. 23). In Saul's request 
 to his armour-bearer that he would thrust him through with the 
 sword, ^"!P*? (1 Sam. ver. 4) is omitted in the phrase which gives 
 the reason for his request ; and Bertheau thinks it did not origin- 
 ally stand in the text, and has been repeated merely by an over- 
 sight, since the only motive for the command, " Draw thy sword, 
 and thrust me through therewith," was that the Philistines might 
 not insult Saul when alive, and consequently the words, ft that they 
 may not thrust me through," cannot express the reason. But that 
 is scarcely a conclusive reason for this belief ; for although the 
 Philistines might seek out Saul after he had been slain by his 
 armour-bearer, and dishonour his dead body, yet the anxiety lest
 
 172 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 they should seek out his corpse to wreak their vengeance upon 
 it could not press so heavily upon him as the fear that they 
 would take vengeance upon him if he fell alive into their hands. 
 It is therefore a more probable supposition that the author of 
 the Chronicle has omitted the word ^i?!' only as not being 
 necessary to the sense of the passage, just as itSJJ is omitted at 
 the end of ver. 5. In ver. 6 we have foVSl"^ instead of the 
 NSfclffe D3 vb Ktfcl of Samuel, and in ver. 7 Wf* nw is omitted 
 after the words 1DJ '2 (Samuel). From this Bertheau concludes 
 that the author of the Chronicle has designedly avoided speaking 
 of the men of Saul's army or of the Israelites who took part in 
 the battle, because it was not his purpose to describe the whole 
 course of the conflict, but only to narrate the death of Saul 
 and of his sons, in order to point out how the supreme power 
 came to David. Thenius, on the contrary, deduces the variation 
 between the sixth verse of the Chronicles and the corresponding 
 verse in Samuel from " a text which had become illegible." Both 
 
 L 
 
 are incorrect ; for V20&T73 are not all the men of war who went 
 with him into the battle (Then.), or all the Israelites who took 
 part in the battle (Berth.), but only all those who were about the 
 king, i.e. the whole of the king's attendants who had followed him 
 to the war. ^srps is only another expression for VEOS~?3, in 
 which the 1v3 Kbo is included. The author of the Chronicle has 
 merely abridged the account, confining himself to a statement 
 of the main points, and has consequently both omitted ^tf 
 btTW\ in ver. 7, because he had already spoken of the flight of 
 the warriors of Israel in ver. 1, and it was here sufficient to 
 mention only the flight and death of Saul and of his sons, and 
 has also shortened the more exact statement as to the inhabitants 
 of that district, " those on the other side of the valley and on the 
 other side of Jordan " (Samuel), into P&V3. "IPK. In this abridg- 
 ment also Thenius scents a " defective text." As the inhabitants 
 of the district around Gilboa abandoned their cities, they were 
 taken possession of by the Philistines. 
 
 Vers. 813. On the following day the Philistines, in their 
 search among the fallen, found and plundered the bodies of Saul 
 and of his sons, and sent the head and the armour of Saul 
 round about the land of the Philistines, to proclaim the news of 
 their victory to their people and their gods. That for this pur- 
 pose they cut off Saul's head from the trunk, is, as being a matter 
 of course, not specially mentioned. In regard to the other dis-
 
 CHAP. XI. 1-0. 173 
 
 crepancies between the two texts, both in vers. 8-10 and in the 
 account of the burial of Saul and of his sons by valiant men of 
 Jabesh, vers. 11, 12, cf. the commentary on 1 Sam. xxxi. 8-13. 
 In the reflection on Saul's death, vers. 13 and 14, a double 
 transgression against the Lord on Saul's part is mentioned : first, 
 the 7JJ (on the meaning of this word, vide on Lev. v. 15) of not 
 observing the word of Jahve, which refers to the transgression 
 of the divine command made known to him by the prophet 
 Samuel, 1 Sam. xiii. 8 ff. (cf. with x. 8), and xv. 2, 3, 11, cf. 
 xxviii. 18 ; and second, his inquiring of the nix, the summoner 
 of the dead (vide on Lev. xix. 31), ^"H?, i.e. to receive an oracle 
 (cf. in reference to both word and thing, 1 Sam. xxviii. 7). 
 Ver. 14. And because he inquired not of the Lord, therefore He 
 slew him. According to 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, Saul did indeed inquire 
 of Jahve, but received no answer, because Jahve had departed 
 from him (xxviii. 15) ; but instead of seeking with all earnestness 
 for the grace of Jahve, that he might receive an answer, Saul 
 turned to the sorceress of Endor, and received his death-sentence 
 through her from the mouth of Samuel, 1 Sam. xxviii. 19. 
 
 CHAP. XI. THE ANOINTING OF DAVID TO BE KING IN HEBRON, 
 AND THE CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM. A LIST OF DAVID'S 
 HEROES. 
 
 In the second book of Samuel there are passages parallel to 
 both sections of this chapter; vers. 19 corresponding to the 
 narrative in 2 Sam. v. 1-10, and vers. 10-47 to the register in 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 8-39. 
 
 Vers. 13. The anointing of David to be king over the whole of 
 Israel in Hebron; cf. 2 Sam. v. 1-3. After Saul's death, in obe- 
 dience to a divine intimation, David left Ziklng, whither he had 
 withdrawn himself before the decisive battle between the Philistines 
 and the Israelites, and betook himself with his wives and his warriors 
 to Hebron, and was there anointed by the men of Judah to be 
 king over their tribe (2 Sam. ii. 14). But Abner, the captain 
 of Saul's host, led Ishbosheth, Saul's son, with the remainder of 
 the defeated army of the Israelites, to Mahanaim in Gilead, and 
 there made him king over Gilead, and gradually also, as he 
 reconquered it from the Philistines, over the land of Israel, over 
 Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and all (the remainder of) Israel, 
 with the exception of the tribal domain of Judah. Ishbosheth's
 
 174 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 kingship did not last longer than two years, while David 
 reigned over Judah in Hebron for seven years and a half (2 
 Sam. ii. 10 and 11). When Abner advanced with Ishbosheth's 
 army from Mahanaim against Gibeon, he was defeated by Joab, 
 David's captain, so that he was obliged again to withdraw beyond 
 Jordan (2 Sam. ii. 1232) ; and although the struggle between 
 the house of Saul and the house of David still continued, yet 
 the house of Saul waxed ever weaker, while David's power 
 increased. At length, when Ishbosheth reproached the powerful 
 Abner because of a concubine of his father's, he threatened 
 that he would transfer the crown of Israel to David, and 
 carried his threat into execution without delay. He imparted 
 his design to the elders of Israel and Benjamin ; and when they 
 had given their consent, he made his way to Hebron, and 
 announced to David the submission of all Israel to his sway 
 (2 Sam. iii. 1-21). Abner, indeed, did not fully carry out the 
 undertaking; for on his return journey he was assassinated by Joab, 
 without David's knowledge, and against his will. Immediately 
 afterwards, Ishbosheth, who had become powerless and spiritless 
 through terror at Abner's death, was murdered in his own house 
 by two of the leaders of his army. There now remained of Saul's 
 family only Jonathan's son Mephibosheth (2 Sam. iv.), then not 
 more than twelve years old, and lame in both his feet, and all the 
 tribes of Israel determined to anoint David to be their king. 
 The carrying out of this resolution is narrated in vers. 1-3, in 
 complete agreement as to the facts with 2 Sam. v. 13, where 
 the matter has been already commented upon. In chap. xii. 
 23-40 there follows a more detailed account of the assembly of 
 the tribes of Israel in Hebron. The last words in ver. 3, "ttl_3 
 '131 niif, are a didactic addition of the author of the Chronicle, 
 which has been derived from 1 Sam. xvi. 13 and 1 Sam. xv. 28. 
 In 2 Sam. v. 4, 5, in accordance with the custom of the author 
 of the books of Samuel and Kings to state the age and duration 
 of the reign of each of the kings immediately after the announce- 
 ment of their entry upon their office, there follows after the 
 preceding a statement of the duration of David's reign; cf. 
 1 Sam. xiii. 1, 2 Sam. ii. 10 f., 1 Kings xiv. 21, xv. 2, etc. 
 This remark is to be found in the Chronicle only at the close of 
 David's reign; see xxdx. 29, which shows that Thenius' opinion 
 that this verse has been omitted from the Chronicle by a mistake 
 is not tenable.
 
 CIIAP. XI. 4-47. 175 
 
 Vers. 4-9. Tlie capture of the citadel of Zion, and Jerusalem 
 chosen to be the royal residence under the name of the city of David; 
 cf. 2 Sam. v. 6-10, and the commentary on this section at that 
 place. rrnij ver. 8, to make alive, is used here, as in Neh. iii. 34, 
 of the rebuilding of ruins. The general remark, ver. 9, "and 
 David increased continually in might," etc., opens the way for 
 the transition to the history of David's reign which follows. As 
 a proof of his increasing greatness, there follows in 
 
 Vers. 1047. A register of the heroes who stood by him in the 
 establishment of his kingdom. The greater part of this register 
 is found in 2 Sam. xxiii. 839 also, though there are many 
 divergences in the names, which for the most part have found 
 their way into one or other of the texts by errors of transcription. 
 The conclusion (vers. 41-47 of the Chronicle) is not found in 
 2 Sam. xxiii., either because the author of the Chronicle followed 
 another and older register than that used by the author of the 
 book of Samuel, or because the latter has not communicated all 
 the names contained in his authority. The former of these is the 
 more probable supposition. In the Chronicle the superscription 
 of the register is enlarged by the insertion in ver. 10, before the 
 simple superscription in ver. lla, cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 8a, of a further 
 superscription informing us of the design which the chronicler 
 had in introducing the register at this place. "These are the 
 chiefs of David's heroes who stood by him strongly (DV P?.D 1 ?'?j as 
 Dan. x. 21) in his kingdom, with the whole of Israel to make 
 him king, according to the word of Jahve, over Israel." The 
 collocation D'n'aan "EW is accounted for by the fact that "itoan 
 is a designation of a valiant or heroic man in general, without 
 reference to his position, whether co-ordinate with or subordinate 
 to others. Among David's D^lM who helped to establish his 
 kingdom, are not merely those who are mentioned by name in 
 the following register, but also, as we learn from chap, xii., the 
 great number of valiant men of all the tribes, who, even during 
 his persecution by Saul, crowded round him, and immediately 
 after Saul's death came to him in Hebron to hail him king. The 
 enumeration in our passage contains only the chiefs, BV X !) of 
 those valiant men, i.e. those who held the first rank among them, 
 and who were in great part leaders in the army of David, or 
 became so. toy^n? is not to be confined to the mere appoint- 
 ment to the kingship, but includes also his establishment in it ; 
 for there follows an account of the heroic deeds which the
 
 176 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 men enumerated by name performed in the wars which David 
 waged against his enemies in order to maintain and increase his 
 kingly power, run" 1 ill concerning Israel is the word of the 
 Lord, the import of which is recorded in ver. 3, that David 
 should feed His people Israel, and be ruler over them. The 
 ipsissima verba are not found in the earlier history of David, but 
 the substance of them has been deduced from 1 Sam. xvi. 13 
 and xv. 28 ; cf. herewith the remarks on 2 Sam. iii. 18. The 
 enumeration of these heroes is introduced in ver. 11 by a short 
 supplementary superscription, " these the number of the heroes." 
 That "iBp should be used instead of the J"iiDE> of Samuel is sur- 
 prising, but is explained by the fact that these heroes at first 
 constituted a corps whose designation was derived from their 
 number. They originally amounted to thirty, whence they are 
 still called the thirty, D^Kv^n ; cf. ver. 12, and the discussion on 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 8 ff. In both narratives three classes are distin- 
 guished. 
 
 Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah hold the first place, and 
 specially bold and heroic deeds performed by them are recorded, 
 vers. 11-14, and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8-12. For details as to themselves 
 and their deeds, see on the last cited passage. There we have 
 already remarked 3 that in ver. 13 of the text of the Chronicle, the 
 three lines which in Samuel come between BE> ^SpiO DTitJ>752 (Sam. 
 
 . T . v .*:. \ 
 
 ver. 9) and BW.iJpa *3P5, ver. 11, have been, through wandering 
 of the copyist's eye, omitted ; and with them the name of the third 
 hero, HBB'j has also been dropped, so that the heroic deed done by 
 him, vers. 136, 14, appears, according to our present text, to have 
 been performed by Eleazar. In place of the words, " And the 
 Philistines had gathered themselves together there to battle, and 
 there was a parcel of ground full of barley," ver. 13, the text, ac- 
 cording to the narrative in 2 Sam. xxiii. 11, must have stood origin- 
 ally thus : "The Philistines had gathered themselves together there 
 to battle, and the men of Israel went up (sc. retreating from the 
 Philistines up the mountain) ; he, however, stood firm, and smote 
 the Philistines till his hand was wearied, and cleaved unto the sword 
 (i.e. clung crampedly to his sword through fatigue) : there wrought 
 Jahve a great deliverance on that day, and the people returned 
 (from their flight) behind him only to spoil. And after him was 
 Shammah the son of Aga the Hararite, and the Philistines had 
 gathered themselves together to battle," etc. In ver. 14 the 
 plural forms ^JV, n&JH, W^, are incorrect, and should be changed
 
 CHAP. XI. 15-25. 177 
 
 into singulars, as in Sara. vers. 12 and 70, since only the deed of 
 the hero Sliammah is here spoken of. The plurals were probably 
 introduced into the text after the missing lines had been dropped 
 out by a reader or copyist, who, on account of the TYH Dy rrn sin 
 (ver. 13), understood the three clauses of ver. 14 to refer to 
 Eleazar and David. J^ s !!, on the contrary, is here perfectly 
 appropriate, and is not to be altered to suit the i?3W of Samuel, 
 ver. 14, for the /cat eVot'^cre of the LXX. is not of itself a suffi- 
 cient reason for doing so. 
 
 In vers. 15-19 (cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 13-17) there follows an 
 exploit of three others of the thirty, whose names have not been 
 handed down. ti'Ni OTWBfrl, the thirty chiefs (not, as Thenius 
 wrongly interprets the words, these three knights the chief parts, 
 i.e. these three chief knights), are David's heroes hereafter men- 
 tioned, the thirty-two heroes of the third class named in vers. 
 26-40 (or vers. 24-39 of Samuel). That three others, different 
 from the before-mentioned Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah 
 are intended, is plain from the omission of the article with nwbw j 
 for if these three were spoken of, we would have ntJn?Bfy as in 
 ver. 18. For further remarks on this exploit, which was pro- 
 bably performed in the war treated of in chap. xiv. 8 ff., and in 
 2 Sam. v. 17 ff., see on 2 Sam. xxiii. 13-17. The words 
 'Ul D'tMn flirt, ver. 19, are to be translated, " The blood of these 
 men shall I drink in their souls ? for for their souls (i.e. for the 
 price of their souls, at the risk of their life) have they brought 
 it." The expression " blood in their souls " is to be understood 
 according to Gen. ix. 4 and Lev. xvii. 14 (Nlrt it5>333 icn, "his 
 blood is in the soul," is that which constitutes his soul). As 
 there blood and soul are used synonymously (the blood as seat 
 of and container of the soul, and the soul as floating in the 
 blood), so here David, according to our account of his words, 
 compares the water, which those heroes had brought for the price 
 of their souls, to the souls of the men, and the drinking of the 
 water to the drinking of their souls, and finally the souls to the 
 blood, in order to express his abhorrence of such a draught. The 
 meaning therefore may be thus expressed : " Shall I drink in 
 this water the souls, and so the blood, of these men ; for they have 
 brought the water even for the price of their souls ? " 
 
 In vers. 20-25 the second class of heroes, to which Abshai 
 (Abishai) and Benaiah belonged, cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 18-23, is 
 spoken of. They were not equal to the preceding three in heroic 
 
 M
 
 178 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 deeds, but yet stood higher than the list of heroes which follows 
 in ver. 26 and onwards. "Kbit, as ii. 16 and 2 Sam. x. 10, while 
 in 2 Sam. xxiii. 18 and elsewhere he is called ^3N, was one of 
 the three sons of Zeruiah (ii. 16). It is difficult to explain 
 n2>i7E>n ty*O, ft he was the chief of the three," instead of which 
 we find in Sam. ver. 18 H?^n, i.e. >> vh&n ) chief of the body- 
 guard " (knights). But owing to the succeeding Dt? (i?l) NT) 
 sa, where Samuel also has ntptfci, and to the recurrence of 
 n on two occasions in ver. 21 (cf. Sam. ver. 19), it does not 
 seem possible to alter the text with Thenius. Bertheau proposes 
 to get rid of the difficulty by taking the word rc&hw in two dif- 
 ferent significations,- on the one hand as denoting the numeral 
 three, and on the other as being an abstract substantive, " the 
 totality of the thirty." He justifies the latter signification by 
 comparison of ver. 21 with ver. 25, and of 2 Sam. xxiii. 19 with 
 ver. 23, from which he deduces that ntPiPK/ and WWOW denote a 
 larger company, in which both Abishai and Benaiah held a pro- 
 minent place. But this signification cannot be made good from 
 these passages. In both clauses of ver. 25 (and ver. 23 in Sara.) 
 D'BOtfn and ncwn are contrasted, which would rather go to prove 
 the contrary of Bertheau's proposition, viz. that HEOl^n, the 
 three, cannot at the same time denote the whole of the thirty, 
 D'EOt^n. The truth of the matter may be gathered from a com- 
 parison of ver. 18 with ver. 15. In ver. 18 ntJWn is synonymous 
 with D^T^n }p nBJwn, ver. 15 ; i.e., the three in ver. 18 are the 
 same men who in ver. 15, where they are first met with, are 
 called three of th.e thirty ; and consequently ntpB'n, the three 
 (triad), vers. 21 and 25, can only denote the triad of heroes 
 previously named. This is placed beyond doubt by a comparison 
 of ver. 24 with ver. 25, since the Dni-ian nenbe/, the triad of 
 heroes, ver. 24, corresponds to the simple newn of ver. 25. The 
 only remaining question is, whether by this triad of heroes we 
 are to understand those spoken of in vers. 11-14, Jashobeam, 
 Eleazar, and Shammah, or the three whose names are not 
 given, but whose exploit is narrated in vers. 15-19. But the 
 circumstance that the names of the three latter are not men- 
 tioned goes decidedly to show that ntP^n in vers. 20-25 does 
 not denote that nameless triad, whose exploit is manifestly 
 adduced incidentally only as a similar case, but the three most 
 valiant, who held the first rank among David's heroes. Ber- 
 theau's opinion, that in vers. 20-25 one triad of heroes is dis-
 
 CHAP. XI. 2G-47. 179 
 
 tinguished from another, cannot be regarded as well-founded, 
 for the three of whom Abishai was chief are not distinguished, 
 
 o / 
 
 and are not different from the three to whom, according to ver. 
 21, he did not attain. Nor is there greater reason to believe 
 that the triad of vers. 20 and 21 is different from that in vers. 
 24 and 25, among whom Benaiah made himself a name, and to 
 whom he did not attain. The fact of being chief or prince over 
 the three is not irreconcilably contradictory to the statement 
 that he did not attain to them, i.e. did not come up to them in 
 heroic strength, as is shown by the two classes being connected 
 in ver. 216. As to the rank which the triad held in the regular 
 forces of David, We know nothing further than that Jashobeam 
 was, according to chap, xxvii. 2, leader of that part of the army 
 which w T as on duty during the first month. Eleazar the son of 
 Dodo, and the Hararite Shammah the son of Aga, are not men- 
 tioned anywhere but in our list. Abishai, on the contrary, who 
 had already distinguished himself by his audacious courage in 
 David's struggle with Saul (1 Sam. xxvi. 6 ff.), conducted to- 
 gether with Joab the war against Abner (2 Sam. ii. 24-iii. 30). 
 Afterwards, in David's war with the Ammonites, he was under 
 Joab in command of the second half of the host (2 Sam. x. 10 ff.) -, 
 in the war against Absalom he commanded a third part of the 
 host (xviii. 2 ff.) ; and in the struggle with the rebel Sheba he 
 commanded the vanguard of the royal troops sent against the 
 rebel (xx. 6 ff.) ; and in general held, along with Joab the corn- 
 man der-in-chief, the first place among David's captains. In 
 this position he was chief of the three heroes before mentioned, 
 and their leader ("^), and among them had made himself a 
 name. JO"), ver. 20, is an orthographical error for vl., as in fif- 
 teen other passages, according to the Masora. See on Ex. xxi. 
 10 and Isa. Ixiii. 9. Ver. 21a should be translated : honoured 
 before the three as two; i.e. doubly honoured he became to 
 them prince, leader. With regard to B^Ea, which, as meaningless, 
 Bertheau would alter so as to make it correspond with ^n (Sam.), 
 cf. Ew. Lehrb. 269, b. For Benaiah and his exploits, vers. 
 22-25, see the commentary on 2 Sam. xxiii. 20-23. 
 
 No special deeds of the heroes enumerated in vers. 26-47 are 
 related, so that we may regard them as a third class, who are not 
 equal to the first triad, and to the second pair, Abishai and 
 Benaiah, and consequently occupied a subordinate place in the 
 collective body of the royal body-guards. In 2 Sam. xxiii.
 
 180 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 thirty-two names are mentioned, which, with the above-men- 
 tioned three and two of the first and second classes, amount in 
 all to thirty-seven men, as is expressly remarked in 2 Sam. xxiii. 
 39 at the conclusion. In the text of the Chronicle no number is 
 mentioned, and the register is increased by sixteen names (vers. 
 41-47), which have been added in the course of time to the 
 earlier number. The words Ev^n *ni3Ji, ver. 26, are to be 
 regarded as a superscription : And valiant heroes were, etc. ; 
 equivalent to, But besides these, there remain still the follow- 
 ing valiant heroes. The words B y^nri niaa are not synonymous 
 with D^qn *?#, leaders of the host, 1 Kings xv. 20, Jer. xl. 7, 
 (Berth.), but signify heroes in warlike strength, i.e. heroic 
 warriors, like D^n ^iaa (vii. 5, 7, 11, 40). That D^q has here 
 the article, while it is not found in the passages quoted from the 
 seventh chapter, does not make any difference in the meaning of 
 the words. The article is used here, as with D' l "}i2;in j vers. 10,11, 
 because the heroes of David are spoken of, and TVi? *1B>K is to be 
 mentally supplied from ver. 10 f. As to the names in vers. 
 2641, which are also found in the register in the book of 
 Samuel, see the commentary to 2 Sam. xxiii. 24-39. This list, 
 which is common to both books, begins with Asahel, a brother of 
 Joabj who was slain by Abner in the war which he waged 
 against David (2 Sam. ii. 19-23), and concludes in the book of 
 Samuel with Uriah the Hittite, so well known from 2 Sam. xi. 
 3 ff. (Chron. ver. 41a), with whose wife David committed adul- 
 tery. But to the continuation of the register which is found in 
 vers. 416-47 of our text, there is no parallel in the other writings 
 of the Old Testament by which we might form an idea as to the 
 correctness of the names. The individual names are indeed to 
 be met with, for the most part, in other parts of the Old Testa- 
 ment, but denote other men of an earlier or later time. The 
 names ^JfT, ver. 45, and -^X, ver. 46 f., are found also in 
 chap. xii. 20, 11, among those of the valiant men who before 
 Saul's death went over to David, but we cannot with any cer- 
 tainty ascertain whether the persons meant were the same. The 
 expression t^tJW voyi (ver. 42) is also obscure, " and to him in 
 addition," i.e. together with him, thirty, since the thought that 
 with Adina the chief of the Reubenites, or besides him, there 
 were thirty (men), has no meaning in this register. The LXX. 
 and the Vulgate read Ivy, while the Syriac, on the contrary, 
 makes use of the periphrasis, " And even he was a ruler over
 
 CHAP. XII. 1-7. 181 
 
 thirty heroes ;" and Bertheau accordingly recommends the emen- 
 dation D^BJn ^y, and thence concludes that the tribe of Reuben 
 had thirty leaders in its army, a conjecture as bold as it is im- 
 probable. Were DVPtj'n hy to be read, we could not but refer 
 the words to the thirty heroes of ver. 11, and hold Adina to be 
 their leader, which could not be easily reconciled with ver. 11. 
 See on xii. 4. Ver. 43. rnjJO'ja is perhaps the same as <l Jn3jN3n > 2 
 Sam. xxiii. 34. Ver. 44. Vmtfyn, he of the city Ashtaroth (vi. 
 56), in the trans-Jordanic domain of Manasseh. v ")J>~iy : '?, he of 
 Aroer, of Reuben or Gad (Josh. xiii. 16, 25). Ver. 46. Bertheau 
 conjectures that the somewhat strange E^njsn (LXX. o Macal, 
 Vulg. Mahumites) denotes ^D? 1 ?, he of Mahanaim, in the East- 
 Jordan land ; see Josh. xiii. 26. Ver. 47. n^iran, which, so far 
 as the form is concerned, is not a nomen gentil., Reland (Palcest. 
 ill. p. 899) holds for a contraction of K'ynx InaiD, Migdal Zebu- 
 jah, a place which, according to the rabbins, is said to have been 
 somewhere in the neighbourhood of Hebron. Bertheau's opinion 
 is, that the article has come into the text by mistake ; and when 
 it has been struck out, the remaining consonants, rP2, recall 
 the rnsfD of 2 Sam. xxiii. 36 (?). 
 
 CHAP. XII. REGISTERS OF THE VALIANT MEN WHO HELPED 
 DAVID TO THE KINGDOM. 
 
 This chapter contains two somewhat long registers, viz. : 
 (1) a register of the valiant men who before Saul's death went 
 over to David, vers. 1-22 ; and (2) a register of the fighting 
 men who anointed him king in Hebron. The first is divided 
 into three smaller registers : (a) that of the valiant Benjamites 
 who came to David during his stay in Ziklag (vers. 1-7) ; (b) 
 that of the Gadites and the men of Judah and Benjamin who 
 went over to him while he remained in the mountain fastnesses ; 
 and (e) that of the Manassites who, on his return to Ziklag be- 
 fore Saul's last battle with the Philistines, joined themselves to 
 him (vers. 19-22). 
 
 Vers. 1-7. The Benjamites who came to David to Ziklag. 
 Ver. 1. Ziklag was originally allotted to the Simeonites by Joshua 
 (Josh. xix. 5 ; 1 Chron. iv. 30), but at a later time came into 
 possession of the Philistines, and was assigned and presented by 
 king Achish to David, who had fled for refuge to him, as a 
 dwelling-place for himself and his followers ; see 1 Sam. xxvii.
 
 182 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 1-7. As to its situation, which has not yet been with certainty 
 ascertained, see the discussion on Josh. xv. 31. In it David 
 dwelt for a year and four months, until he went to Hebron on 
 the death of Saul. During this time it was that the warriors 
 of the tribe of Benjamin mentioned in the succeeding register 
 went over to him, as we learn from the words "Wtf liV, " he was 
 still held back before Saul," a concise expression for " while he was 
 still held back before Saul." This last expression, however, does 
 not signify, "hindered from coming before Saul" (Berth.), but 
 inter Israelitas piiblice versari prohibitus (J. H. Mich.), or rather, 
 " before Saul, imprisoned as it were, without being able to appear 
 in a manner corresponding to his divine election to be ruler over 
 Israel." '333 riDni, and they were among the heroes, i.e. belonged 
 to the heroes, the helpers of the war, i.e. to those who helped him 
 in his former wars ; cf. vers. 17 f., 21 f. Ver. 2. ns?p ''pBO, those 
 preparing bows," i.e. those armed with bows, synonymous with 
 nt$> <rn (viii. 40) ; cf . 2 Chron. xvii. 17, Ps. Ixxviii. 9. " With 
 the right and left hand practised upon stones," i.e. to hurl stones, 
 cf. Judg. xx. 16; "and in arrows on the bow," i.e. to shoot 
 therewith. 7)XE> 'nso, of Saul's brethren, i.e. of the men of the 
 tribe, not "of his nearer relatives," and consequently of Benjamin, 
 has been added as an explanation; cf. ver. 29, where t^J3 ^a and 
 Ttxty ""PiK. are synonyms. In ver. 3 et seq. we have the names. 
 K'&orij the head, i.e. the leader of this host of warriors ; compare 
 chap. v. 7, 12. *nj?3an, cf. Gibeah of Saul or Benjamin, cf. xi. 31 ; 
 and for its situation, see on Josh, xviii. 28. ^^n, from the 
 priests' city Anathoth, now Anata ; see on Josh, xviii. 24. In 
 ver. 4 the Gibeonite Ismaiah is called " hero among the thirty, 
 and over the thirty," words which can hardly have any other 
 sense than that Ismaiah belonged also to David's corps of thirty 
 heroes (chap, xi.), and was (temporarily) their leader, although 
 his name does not occur in chap. xi. It is probable that the 
 reason of the omission was, that at the time when the list was 
 prepared he was no longer alive, ^n^an, of Gedera, a city of the 
 tribe of Judah in the Shephelah, which, according to Van de 
 Velde (Eeise, ii. S. 166), was probably identical with the village 
 Ghedera, which lies to the left of the road Tel-es-Safieh to Akir, 
 about an hour to the south-west of Jabne. In any case, it corre- 
 sponds well with the statements of the Onom. As to Gedrus, or 
 Gaedur, see on Josh. xv. 36. Immediately afterwards in ver. 7 
 Gedor is mentioned, a city in the mountains of Judah, to the
 
 CHAP. XII. 1-7. 183 
 
 westward of the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem 
 (see on Josh. xv. 58) ; and from that fact Bertheau imagines we 
 must conclude that the men of Judah are enumerated as well as 
 the Benjamites. But this conclusion is not valid ; for from the 
 very beginning, when the domains and cities were assigned to 
 the individual tribes under Joshua, they were not the exclusive 
 possession of the individual tribes, and at a later period they 
 were still less so. In course of time the respective tribal do- 
 mains underwent (in consequence of wars and other events) 
 many alterations, not only in extent, but also in regard to their 
 inhabitants, so that in Saul's time single Benjamite families 
 may quite well have had their home in the cities of Judah. 
 Ver. 5. ""Bvnn (Keri ^inn) is a patronymic, which denotes either 
 one descended from Haruph, or belonging to the *nn V.? men- 
 tioned in Neh. vii. 34 along with the Gibeonites. The <I T!^ 
 Korahites, in ver. 6 are, without doubt (cf . Delitszch, Ps. S. 300), 
 descendants of the Levite Korah, one division of whom David 
 made guardian of the thresholds of the tent erected for the ark 
 of the covenant on Zion, because their fathers had been watchers 
 of the entrance of the camp of Jahve, i.e. had in that earlier 
 time held the office of watchers by the tabernacle ; see on ix. 18 f . 
 The names Elkanah and Azareel are thoroughly Levitic names, 
 and their service in the porter's office in the holy place may have 
 roused in them the desire to fight for David, the chosen of the 
 Lord. But there is no reason why we should, with Bertheau, 
 interpret the words as denoting descendants of the almost un- 
 known Korah of the tribe of Judah (ii. 43), or, with the older 
 commentators, refer it to some other unmentioned Benjamite 
 who bore this name. The explanation of the connection existing 
 between these Levitic Korahites and the Benjamites, which is 
 presupposed by the mention of them among the Benjamites, 
 may be found in the fact that the Levites received no tribal 
 domain of their own, and possessed only cities for dwelling in in 
 the domains of the other tribes, with whom they were consequently 
 civilly incorporated, so that those who dwelt in the cities of 
 Benjamin were properly reckoned among the Benjamites. At the 
 partition of the land under Joshua, it is true, only the priests 
 received their cities in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin ; while, on 
 the contrary, the Kohathites, who were not priests, among whom 
 the Korahites were, received their cities in the tribal domain 
 of Epliraim, Dan, and half-Manasseh (Josh. xxi. 9-26). But
 
 184 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 when the tabernacle was transferred from Shiloh to Nob, and 
 afterwards to Gibeon, the Korahite doorkeepers must, without 
 doubt, have migrated to one of the Levitic cities of Benjamin, 
 probably for the most part to Gibeon, and so were reckoned 
 among the Benjamites. As to "iVian }*?, vide ver. 4. If this be 
 so, there remains no cogent reason for supposing that in our 
 register, besides the Benjamites, men out of other tribes are also 
 introduced. With that there falls away at once Bertheau's 
 further conclusion, that the author of the Chronicle has consider- 
 ably abridged the register, and that from ver. 46 onwards men 
 of Judah also are named, the list of whom must certainly (?) 
 have been originally introduced by special superscription similar 
 to those in vers. 8, 16, 19. His further reason for his conjec- 
 ture namely, that our register makes use of the qualificative 
 epithets, "the Gibeathite," "the Anathothite," etc., only in a 
 few special cases is of no force whatever; for we are not justified 
 in assuming that we may expect to find here, as in the register 
 in chap. xi. 26-47, such qualificatives after every individual 
 name. The character of our register cannot be arrived at by a 
 comparison with the list of David's heroes in chap. xi. ; it should 
 rather be sought for by comparing it with the succeeding list, 
 whose contents are of a similar kind with its own. David's 
 chosen corps of thirty heroes was much more important for the 
 history of his reign, than the lists of the men who joined them- 
 selves to him and fought on his behalf before he ascended the 
 throne. For that reason the thirty heroes are not only men- 
 tioned by name, but their descent also is told us, while that more 
 detailed information is not given with regard to the others just 
 mentioned. Only the names of the Gadites and Manassites are 
 mentioned ; of the Benjamites and men of Judah, who came to 
 him in the mountain fastness (vers. 16-18), the name of only 
 one, Amasai, is given ; while of the Benjamites who came to 
 Ziklag, vers. 3-7, such qualificative statements are made in 
 reference to only a few individuals, and in these cases the 
 object probably was to distinguish them from other well-known 
 persons of the same name. 
 
 Vers. 8-18. The Gadites, Benjamites ', and men of Judah ivlio 
 joined themselves to David during his sojourn in tJie mountain 
 fastness. Ver. 8. David's sojourn in the mountain hold falls in 
 the first years of his flight from Saul, 1 Sam. xxii. ff. "TCO, pointed 
 with Pathach instead of with Kamets PV*?, cf. ver. 16), on account
 
 CHAP. XII. 8-18. 185 
 
 of its intimate connection with n 7?l^> * s synonymous with 
 (1 Sam. xxiv. 23, etc.). The addition ^fio, " towards the 
 wilderness," shows that "TCO denotes a mountain-top or mountain- 
 fortress in the wilderness of Judah. If we compare the account 
 in 1 Sam. xxii.-xxiv., we learn that David at that time did not hide 
 himself in one single definite mountain-fortress, but sought and 
 found resting-places, now here, now there, in the wilderness, on the 
 summits of the hills (cf . ni"TC2 "I2*lt23, 1 Sam. xxiii. 14, xxiv. 1) ; so 
 that iro here is to be understood, as n'J'Msn, 1 Sam. xxiv. 3, also is, 
 generally of the fastnesses in the mountains of Judah. At that 
 time there gathered round David a great company of discontented 
 and oppressed men, to the number of about 400, men dissatisfied 
 with Saul's rule, whose leader he became, and who soon amounted 
 to 600 men (1 Sam. xxii. 2 and xxiii. 13). To these belong the 
 Gadites, and the men out of Benjamin and Judah, whose adhesion 
 to David is noticed in our verses. &IH, they separated them- 
 selves from the other Gadites who were on Saul's side, " strong 
 heroes," as in Josh. viii. 3 ; cf. *>v? < ni23, v. 24, vii. 2, 9, etc. 
 nonpsp Nlttf *C'3N, men for service in the host for the war, i.e. 
 combatants practised in war. noil H3V ''in'y, preparing shield and 
 spear, i.e. wielding shield and spear, practised in their use : the 
 preparing of these weapons includes the handling of them. 
 Instead of ncnl, Veneta and many of the older copies have 
 $3} ; but it is not supported by MS. authority, and moreover is 
 not congruous with the passage. Lions' faces their faces, i.e. 
 lion-like in appearance, thoroughly warlike figures ; cf. 2 Sam. i. 
 23. "As roes running swiftly on the mountains;" cf. 2 Sam. 
 ii. 18. This description of the strength and swiftness of these 
 warriors recalls, as Bertheau remarks, the similar expressions 
 used in the historical books concerning heroes of David's time. 
 It has manifestly been drawn from the original documents, not 
 added by the chronicler. In vers. 9-13 the names are enume- 
 rated individually. "i^V ''fMV, at the end of a series of ordinal 
 numbers, denotes the eleventh ; cf . xxiv. 12. Ver. 14. N3i*n *EW, 
 heads of the war-host, i.e. chief warriors, not leaders of the host. 
 '131 nsop inx, one for a hundred, (viz.) the small and the greater 
 for a thousand," i.e. the smaller (weaker) could cope with a hun- 
 dred, the stronger with a thousand men ; cf. Lev. xxvi. 8. This, 
 which is the only correct interpretation, is that received by 
 Bertheau and the older Jewish commentators. The Vulgate, on the 
 contrary, translates, novissimus centum militibus prceerat et maximus
 
 186 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 mille, which is inadmissible, for in that case ?JJ must have been 
 used instead of *?. The THK belongs to both the clauses which 
 it precedes, to JBjsn and to Tinsr^ and is placed immediately 
 before nxop to emphasize the contrast between one and a hun- 
 dred. In ver. 15 we have a proof of their valour, in an account 
 of a bold exploit performed by them. In the first month of the 
 year, that is, in spring, when the Jordan overflows all its banks, 
 they crossed the river and put to flight all the dwellers in the 
 valleys towards the east and towards the west. This happened, 
 probably, when they separated themselves from their brethren 
 and went over to David, when they must have had to cut their 
 way through the adherents of Saul (Berth.). The Piel N^? with 
 /$ denotes to make full, to make to run over, in the signification 
 to overflow. The Kethibh vn s *T3 comes from nH3j elsewhere only 
 the plural l" 1 ^" 1 ?, so also here in the Keri. In the dry summer 
 season the Jordan may be crossed by wading at various points 
 (fords) ; while in spring, on the contrary, when it is so swollen 
 by the melting snows of Lebanon, that in some parts it overflows 
 its banks, it is very dangerous to attempt to cross. See on Josh, 
 iii. 15. B <l ipOjn ) " the valleys," for the inhabitants of the valleys. 
 Vers. 16-18. There came to David in the mountain-fastness also 
 men of Benjamin and Judah (cf. ver. 8). Their names are not 
 in the lists, possibly because they were not handed down in. the 
 historical works made use of by the chronicler. At their head, 
 as we learn from ver. 18, stood Amasai, chief of the thirty, i.e. 
 of the corps formed of the thirty heroes (see xi. 11), although 
 his name does not occur in the catalogue, chap. xi. According to 
 this, Amasai must have occupied a very important position under 
 David ; but since the name 'sttDJJ is not elsewhere mentioned in 
 the history of David, the older commentators have conjectured 
 that ''teftV. may have been the same person as Kboy, son of Abigail 
 (ii. 17), whom Absalom made captain in Joab's place, and whom 
 David, after the victory over the rebels, wished to make com- 
 mander-in-chief in the room of Joab, and whom for that reason 
 Joab afterwards murdered (2 Sam. xvii. 25, xix. 14, xx. 4, 8 if.) ; 
 or identical with WZR the son of Zeruiah, ii. 16 and xi. 20. Of 
 these conjectures the first is much more probable than the second. 
 To meet these men, David went forth from his fastness, and 
 asked them with what purpose they came to him. " If for peace," 
 to stand by him, "then shall there be to me towards you a heart 
 for union," i.e. I will be with you of one heart, be true to you.
 
 CHAP. XII. 19-22. 187 
 
 n^ 32^ is plainer than in* 3$, ver. 38. " But if ^ni~6, to prac- 
 tise deceit against me (to be guilty of a ni ?"]) for mine enemies 
 (to deliver me to them), although there be no wrong in my hands, 
 the God of our fathers look thereon and punish;" cf. 2 Chron. 
 xxiv. 22. The God of our fathers, i.e. of the patriarchs (cf. Ezra 
 vii. 27, 2 Chron. xx. 6, and Ex. iii. 13 f.), who rules in and 
 over Israel, who shields the innocent and punishes the guilty. 
 Ver. 18. Then came the Spirit upon Amasai, so that he proclaimed 
 himself enthusiastic for David and his cause. With nB>:6 rvn cf. 
 Judg. vi. 34. Usually nirp or GTOWj is found with this expression 
 (2 Chron. xxiv. 20), and here also the Spirit of God is meant ; and 
 D'ni>s is omitted only because all that was of importance here was 
 to show that the resolution announced by Amasai was an effect 
 of higher spiritual influence, v, to thee, David (do we belong), 
 thine are we. ^y, "with thee," sc. will we remain and fight. "Peace 
 be to thee, and peace be to thy helpers ; for thy God helpeth thee." 
 T?W, He has helped thee in the fortunate combats in which you 
 have heretofore been engaged (1 Sam. xviii. 12 ff.), and He will 
 help still further. David thereupon received them and made 
 them captains of his band. IVian, the warrior-band, which had 
 gathered round David, and were still gathering round him, 1 
 Sam. xxii. 2, xxvii. 8, cf. also ver. 21 ; 1 Sam. xxx. 8, 15, 23, etc. 
 Vers. 19-22. The Manassites who loent over to David before 
 the last battle of the Philistines against Saul. ty ??3, to fall to one, 
 is used specially of deserters in war who desert their lord and go 
 over to the enemy : cf. 2 Kings xxv. 11 ; 1 Sam. xxix. 3. ?K Tis 1 ., 
 in the last clause of the verse, is a synonymous expression. The 
 Manassites went over " when David went with the Philistines 
 against Israel to the war, and (yet) helped them not ; for upon 
 advisement ( n -$3, cf. Prov. xx. 18), the lords of the Philistines 
 had sent him away, saying, * For our heads, he will fall away to 
 his master Saul.'" 1 Sam. xxix. 2-11 contains the historical 
 commentary on this event. When the lords of the Philistines 
 collected their forces to march against Saul, David, who had 
 found refuge with King Achish, was compelled to join the host 
 of that prince with his band. But when the other Philistine 
 princes saw the Hebrews, they demanded that they should be 
 sent out of the army, as they feared that David might turn upon 
 them during the battle, and so win favour by his treachery with 
 Saul his lord. See the commentary on 1 Sam. xxix. yj'soa, 
 for our heads, i.e. for the price of them, giving them as a price
 
 188 THE FIEST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 to obtain a friendly reception from Saul (cf. 1 Sam. xxix. 4). 
 In consequence of this remonstrance, Achish requested David to 
 return with his warriors to Ziklag. On this return march (" as 
 he went to Ziklag," cf. with foob the n$h of 1 Sam. xxix. 11), 
 and consequently before the battle in which Saul lost his life 
 (Berth.), and not after Saul's great misfortune, as Ewald thinks, 
 the Manassites whose names follow went over to David. The 
 seven named in ver. 20 were " heads of the thousands of 
 Manasseh," i.e. of the great families into which the tribe of 
 Manasseh was divided, and as such were leaders of the Manassite 
 forces in war : cf. Num. xxxi. 14 with Ex. xviii. 25, and the 
 commentary on the latter passage. Ver. 21. These l helped 
 David IVian ty, against the detachment of Amalekites, who dur- 
 ing David's absence had surprised and burnt Ziklag, and led 
 captive the women and children (1 Sam. xxx. 1-10). This in- 
 terpretation, which Rashi also has (contra turmam Amalekitarum) , 
 and which the Vulgate hints at in its adversus latrunculos, rests 
 upon the fact that in 1 Sam. xxx. 8, 15, the word "man, which in 
 
 1 "We take nsm to refer to the Manassites named in ver. 20, like the 
 
 T : . 
 
 of ver. 1 and the DP! H;>SI of ver. 15. Bertheau, on the contrary, 
 thinks on various grounds that nan refers to all the heroes who have been 
 spoken of in vers. 1-20. In the first place, it was not the Manassites alone 
 who took part in the conflict with Amalek, for David won the victory with 
 his whole force of 600 men (1 Sam. xxx. 9), among whom, without doubt, 
 those named in vers. 1-18 were included. Then, secondly, a clear distinction 
 is made between those who gave in their adhesion to and helped David at 
 an earlier period (vers. 1, 7, 22), and those who came to him in Hebron (ver. 
 23). And finally, the general remark in ver. 22 is connected with ver. 21 by 
 the grounding 13, so that we must regard vers. 21 and 22 as a subscription 
 closing the preceding catalogues. But none of these arguments are very 
 effective. The grounding 13 in ver. 22 does not refer to the whole of ver. 21, 
 but only to the last clause, or, to be more accurate, only to fc<32*3, showing 
 that David had an army. The second proves nothing, and in the first only 
 so much is correct, that not merely the seven Manassites named in ver. 20 
 took part in the battle with Amalek, but also the warriors who had formerly 
 gone over to David ; but from that there is not the slightest reason to con- 
 clude that this is expressed by msflV It is manifest from the context and 
 the plan of the register, that 'lii njy ntSfTj can only refer to those of whom 
 it is said in ver. 20 that they went over to David as he was returning to 
 Ziklag. If vers. 21 and 22 were a subscription to all the preceding registers, 
 instead of nsni another expression which would separate the verse somewhat 
 more from that immediately preceding would have been employed, perhaps
 
 CHAP. XII. 23-40. 189 
 
 general only denotes single detachments or predatory bands, is 
 used of the Amalekite band ; whence the word can only refer to 
 the march of David against the Amalekites, of which we have an 
 
 O 
 
 account in 1 Sam. xxx. 9 ff., and not to the combats which he 
 had with Saul. "For they were all valiant heroes, and were 
 &~fy) captains in the army," sc. which gathered round David. 
 Vcr. 22. "For every day" (Dta DV ny^, at the time of each day) 
 " came (people) to David to help him, until to a great host, like 
 a host of God," i.e. until his band grew to a camp like to a host 
 of God. O^tf n i?n'?j a host which God has formed, and in which 
 the power of God shows itself ; cf. hills and cedars of God, Ps. 
 xxxvi. 7, Ixxx. 11. In these concluding remarks to the enumera- 
 tion by name of the valiant men who during Saul's lifetime 
 went over to David, there is no exaggeration which would betray 
 an idealizing historian (Movers, S. 270). The greatness of a 
 host of God is to be estimated according to the power and the 
 spirit, not according to the number, of the warriors, so that we 
 need not take the words to mean a host of thousands and tens of 
 thousands. David had at first 400, afterwards 600, valiant 
 warriors, against whom Saul with his thousands could accomplish 
 nothing. The increase in their number from 400 to 600 shows 
 that the host increased from day to day, especially when we keep 
 in mind the fact that after Saul's defeat considerable bands of 
 fugitives must certainly have gone over to David before he was 
 anointed in Hebron to be king over Judah. The expression is 
 only rhetorical, not idealizing or exaggerating. 
 
 Vers. 23-40. List of the icarriors who made David king in 
 Hebron. The superscription (ver. 23) runs: "These are the 
 numbers of the bands of the men equipped for war, who came," 
 etc. P'nn is a collective noun, denoting the equipped manhood. 
 T N 1 signifies here, not principes exercitus, as the Vulgate ren- 
 ders it, heads, i.e. leaders of the army (Berth.), but literally 
 denotes sums, i.e. companies, bands of soldiers, as in Judg. vii. 
 16, 20, ix. 34, 37, 44, 1 Sam. xi. 11; or it may perhaps also 
 be heads for individuals, as p'iO in Judg. v. 30. Both these 
 
 7 O 
 
 meanings are linguistically certain ; so that we cannot say, with 
 Bertheau, that ""EW before P-'nn denotes, according to the well- 
 ascertained use of language, leaders of the army, and that rb>3 
 would have been used had it been wished to express the number by 
 heads, e.g. xxiii. 3-24. That use of the word is indeed also found, 
 but it cannot be proved to be the only proper one. If we take
 
 190 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ^'fcO here to denote leaders, we bring the superscription into 
 irreconcilable contradiction with the contents of the following 
 catalogue, which gives the names of the heads and the number 
 of the warriors (ver. 27 f.) only in the case of the families of 
 Aaron, and in that of Issachar the number of the princes ; while 
 in the case of the other tribes we have only the numbers of the 
 bands or detachments. This contradiction cannot be got rid of, 
 as Bertheau imagines, by the hypothesis that the superscription 
 referred originally to a catalogue which was throughout similar 
 in plan to that which we find in vers. 26-28, and that the author 
 of the Chronicle has very considerably abridged the more de- 
 tailed statements of the original documents which he used. This 
 hypothesis is a mere makeshift, in which we have the less need 
 " to take refuge," as the catalogue has neither the appearance of 
 having been abridged or revised by the author of our Chronicle. 
 It is shown to be a faithful copy of a more ancient authority, 
 both by the characteristic remarks which it contains on the indi- 
 vidual tribes, and by the inequality in the numbers. Bertheau, 
 indeed, derives support for his hypothesis " from the inequality 
 of the statements of number, and their relation to each other," 
 and upon that ground throws doubt upon the accuracy and cor- 
 rectness of the numbers, but in both cases without sufficient 
 warrant. If we place the respective statements together synop- 
 tically, we see that there came to David to Hebron 
 
 Of the tribe of Judah, 6,800 men. 
 
 Simeon, .... 7,100 
 
 Levi, 4,600 
 
 With Jehoiada the prince of Aaron, 3,700 
 
 With Zadok and his father's-house, 
 
 Of the tribe of Benjamin, .... 3,000 
 
 Ephraim, .... 20,800 
 
 half -tribe of Manasseh, . . 18,000 
 
 ,, tribe of Issachar, .... 
 
 Zebulun, .... 50,000 
 
 Naphtali, .... 37,000 
 
 Dan, 28,000 
 
 Asher, 40,000 
 
 Of two and a half trans- Jordanic tribes, 120,000 
 
 Total, 339,600 men, with 1222 heads and 
 captains. 
 
 The total is not objected to by Bertheau, and its correctness 
 is placed beyond a doubt by the recollection that we have here 
 
 22 D^li? (captains). 
 
 200 chiefs and all their 
 [brethren. 
 
 with looo
 
 CHAP. XII. 23-40. 191 
 
 to do not with the representation of the various estates of the 
 kingdom, but with a declaration of the will of the whole nation, 
 who wished to make David their king. We must, if we are to 
 estimate these statements, endeavour to go back in imagination 
 to the circumstances of that time when Israel, although settled 
 in the land, had not quite laid aside the character of a nation of 
 warriors, in which every man capable of bearing arms marched 
 to battle with, and for, his king. Now if the total number of 
 fighting men in Israel was 600,000 in the time of Moses, and if, 
 when the people were numbered in the last year of David's reign, 
 there were in Israel 800,000, and in Judah 500,000 (2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 9) the Levites being excluded in both cases the 340,000 
 men of all the tribes, except Issachar, in reference to which no 
 number is given, or after subtracting Judah and Levi, the 
 324,500 men out of the remaining tribes, is not much more than 
 a half of the men capable of bearing arms in Moses' time, and 
 about a fourth part of the fighting population towards the end 
 of David's reign. But the relation of the numbers in the re- 
 spective tribes, on the contrary, is somewhat surprising, and calls 
 forth from Bertheau the following remarks : " To Judah, David's 
 tribe, which from the earliest time had been famous for its 
 numbers and its powers, 6800 are assigned ; to Zebulun, on the 
 contrary, 50,000 ; to Naphtali, 1000 princes at the head of 37,000 
 warriors; to the two and a half East-Jordanic tribes, 120,000 
 men, etc. How does it happen that Zebulun and Naphtali, for 
 example, two tribes that play no great part in Israel's history, 
 are so strongly represented, while Judah sends only a relatively 
 small number of warriors?" To this question we answer, that 
 Judah's being represented by a number of warriors relatively so 
 small, is accounted for simply by the fact that David had already 
 been king over Judah for seven years, and consequently that 
 tribe did not need to make him king by coming with the whole 
 of its warriors, or the majority of them, when the other tribes 
 were doing homage to David, but sent only a small number of 
 its male population to this solemn act, who were witnesses in the 
 name of the whole tribe to the homage proffered by the others. 
 The same remark applies to the tribe of Simeon, whose domain 
 was enclosed by that of Judah, and which had consequently 
 recognised David as king at the same time as the larger tribe. 
 In regard to the numbers of the other tribes, Levi had in the 
 last year of David's reign 38,000 men from thirty years old and
 
 192 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 upwards (xxiii. 3) ; and when here only 4600 Levites, besides the 
 priestly families, are spoken of, the question arises, whether this 
 number is to be understood to refer to the Levites in all the tribes, 
 or only to those dwelling outside of Judah and Simeon, in the 
 cities assigned to them by Moses and Joshua. The smallness of 
 the number (3000) from the tribe of Benjamin is explained by 
 the remark that the majority of this tribe still held to the house 
 of Saul (ver. 29). The only thing which is at all remarkable 
 about the other numbers is, that the Ephraimites are so few 
 (20,800 men) in contrast to the 180,000 men brought into the 
 field by the half-tribe of Manasseh. But if we consider that 
 Ephraim, which at the first census under Moses at Sinai had 
 40,500 men, had decreased to 32,500 at the second census in the 
 wilderness of Moab, it is not improbable that at the time now 
 treated of that tribe may not have been very strong in fighting 
 men. For in Saul's last war with the Philistines, when they 
 had pressed forward so far as Mount Gilboa, and also in Abner's 
 struggle on behalf of King Ishbosheth for the re-conquest of the 
 territory occupied by them, it probably suffered more, and was 
 more weakened, than any of the other tribes. Perhaps also we 
 may add that Ephraim, owing to its jealousy of Judah, which 
 dates from the time of the judges, was not very much disposed 
 to make David king over all Israel. That Zebulun and Naphtali 
 are here so numerously represented, although they do not other- 
 wise play an important part, is no reason for suspecting that 
 the numbers given are incorrect. Since Zebulun under Moses 
 numbered 57,400 men, and at a later time 60,500, and Naphtali 
 53,400 and 45,400 men capable of bearing arms respectively on 
 the same occasions (see t. i. 2, S. 192) ; the first named tribe 
 may easily have sent 50,000, the other 37,000 men to David, as 
 the tribes dwelling in the north had been least affected by the 
 wars which Israel carried on in the second half of the period 
 of the judges and under Saul. Both of these tribes, too, are 
 praised in the song of Deborah as a people ready to risk their 
 lives for their fatherland (Judg. v. 18), and may have very 
 much increased in the succeeding time. And besides all this, 
 the tribes Asher, Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh 
 are indeed more feebly represented than Zebulun, but more 
 strongly than Naphtali. There therefore remains no reason for 
 doubting the historical accuracy of the numbers given ; but it is 
 of course to be understood that the numbers, which are stated
 
 CIIAP. XII. 23-40. 193 
 
 only in hundreds, are not the result of an enumeration of the 
 individual persons, but only of an estimate of the various detach- 
 ments, according to the military partition of the tribes. 
 
 In regard to 'o 3pnp , cf . x. 14 ; and as to nirp >S3, see the 
 remark on mrr inns, xi. 3, 10. Ver. 24 f. For nphj rax \xbo, 
 cf. ver. 8, v. 18. *9^> ^n niaa, valiant men for the war ser- 
 vice. Ver. 26. Jehoiada is thought by Kashi, Kimchi, and 
 others, to be the father of Benaiah, xi. 22. He was TJ3 for 
 Aaron, i.e. prince of the house of Aaron, head of the family of 
 the Aaronites, not princeps sacerdotum, which was a title apper- 
 taining to the high-priesthood, an office held at that time by 
 Abiathar (1 Sam. xxiii. 9). Ver. 28. Zadok, a youth, i.e. then 
 still a youth, may be the same who was made high priest in 
 place of Abiathar (1 Kings ii. 26, but see on v. 34). "And 
 his father' s-house, twenty-two princes." The father' s-house of 
 Zadok is the Aaronite family descended from Eleazar, which 
 was at that time so numerous that it could muster twenty-two 
 C^ib' family chiefs, who went with Zadok to Hebron. Ver. 29. 
 
 L * 
 
 From the tribe of Benjamin, to which Saul belonged (7)NB> ""HK, 
 see on ver. 2), only 3000 men came, for until that time (nan ijn, 
 cf. ix. 18) the greater number of them were keeping the guard 
 of the house of Saul, i.e. were devoted to the interests of the 
 fallen house. For fty&Q ""?V'> see on Gen. xxvi. 5 and Lev. 
 viii. 35. From this we learn that the attachment of the Ben- 
 jamites to Saul continued even after the death of his son 
 Ishbosheth, and that it was with difficulty that they could 
 bring themselves to recognise David as king. Ver. 30. Of 
 Ephraim 20,800 famous men (nilOtt 5 *B>JK, see on Gen. vi. 4) ; 
 'ajovnb, in their fathers'-houses." Ver. 31. Of half Manasseh, 
 this side Jordan (cf. ver. 37), 18,000, who were appointed by 
 name, i.e. chosen as famous men to go thither and make David 
 king. niB>'a 13JD3, as in Num. i. 17, vide on Lev. xxiv. 16. The 
 tribe of Manasseh had consequently held a general consultation 
 on the matter, and determined upon sending their representatives. 
 Ver. 32. From Issachar came " men of understanding in refer- 
 ence to the times, to know (i.e. who knew) what Israel should do." 
 nya jni 11 , knowing in insight (cf. 2 Chron. ii. 12), i.e. experienced 
 in a thing, having understanding of it. From this remark some 
 of the older commentators (Chald., various Rabbins, and Cleric.) 
 concluded that the tribe of Issachar had distinguished itself 
 beyond the other tribes by astronomical and physical knowledge, 
 
 N
 
 194 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 by \vhich it was qualified to ascertain and make choice of proper 
 times for political action. But the words do not suggest astro- 
 nomical or astrological knowledge, but merely state, as Salomo 
 ben-Melech in the Miclol Yophi long ago interpreted them, nove- 
 rant tempora ad omnem rem et quodque negotium, sicut sapiens dixit : 
 Suum cuique tempus est et opportunitas cuique rei, Koh. iii. 1. The 
 words refer not to the whole tribe, but only to the two hundred 
 heads, who, as Lavater expresses it, are designated prudentes viri, 
 as being men qui quid, quando et quomodo agendum esset, varia 
 lectione et usu rerum cognoscebant. The only thing to be objected 
 to in his statement is the varia lectione, since a sound and correct 
 judgment in political matters does not necessarily presuppose 
 scientific training and a wide acquaintance with books. The 
 statement in question, therefore, affirms nothing more than that 
 the tribe of Issachar (in deciding to raise David to the throne) 
 followed the judgment of its princes, who rightly estimated the 
 circumstances of the time. For all their brethren, i.e. all the 
 men of this tribe, went with the two hundred chiefs. D7VS~7JJ, ac- 
 cording to their mouth, i.e. followed their judgment ; cf. Num. iv. 
 27, Deut. xxi. 5. Ver. 33. '"lonpo 1| :nj? ) preparing war with all 
 manner of warlike weapons, i.e. practice in the use of all kinds 
 of weapons for war; cf. ver. 8. The infinitive "HJj? is sub- 
 stantially a continuation of the preceding participles, but gram- 
 matically is dependent on 1S2 understood (cf. vers. 23, 38). 
 Cf. as to this free use of the infinitive with p, Ew. 351, c. 
 The signification of the verb "njJ, which occurs only here (vers. 
 33, 38), is doubtful. According to the LXX. and the Vulg. 
 fjaai, venerunt in auxilium), and nine MSS., which read 
 j we would be inclined to take *ny for the Aramaic form of 
 the Hebrew "W (cf. $,-1), to help; but that meaning does not 
 suit n fW? iny f ver. 38. Its connection there demands that "HJ? 
 should signify " to close up together," to set in order the battle 
 array ; and so here, closing up together with not double heart, i.e. 
 with whole or stedfast heart (a>& 3???> ver. 38), animo integro 
 et jirmo atque concordi; cf. Ps. xii. 3 (Mich.). In ver. 38 we 
 have a comprehensive statement ; fl?*?'?, which refers to all the 
 bodies of men enumerated in vers. 24-37. fYnt? is nnsE? defec- 
 tively written ; and as it occurs only here, it may be perhaps a 
 mere orthographical error. The whole of the remainder of Israel 
 who did not go to Hebron were "IHK 37, of one, i.e. of united 
 heart (2 Chron. xxx. 12) : they had a unanimous wish to make
 
 CHAP. XIII.-XVI. 195 
 
 David king. Ver. 39. Those gathered together were there three 
 days eating and drinking, holding festive meals (cf. 1 Sam. xxx. 
 16, 1 Kings i. 45, etc.), for their brethren had prepared them 
 for them. The object of ^n, S c. the eating and drinking, may 
 easily be supplied from the context. synK are the inhabitants 
 of Hebron and the neighbourhood ; the tribe of Judah in 
 general, who had already recognised David as king. Ver. 40. 
 But it was not only these who performed this service, but also 
 those of the remaining tribes dwell ing near them; and indeed the 
 men of Issachar, Zebuiun, and Naphtali, those on the northern 
 frontier of Canaan as well as those who bordered upon Judah, 
 had sent provisions upon beasts of burden, "for joy was in 
 Israel." This joy moved those who remained at home to show 
 their sympathy with the national festival solemnized at Hebron 
 by sending the provisions. For QYtH, masses of dried figs, and 
 V, masses of raisins or cakes, see on 1 Sam. xxv. 18. 
 
 CHAP. XIII.-XVI. THE REMOVAL OF THE ARK FROM KIRJATH- 
 JEARIM. DAVID'S BUILDING, HIS WIVES AND CHILDREN, 
 AND HIS VICTORIES OVER THE PHILISTINES. THE BRING- 
 ING IN OF THE ARK INTO THE CITY OF DAVID, AND THE 
 ARRANGEMENT OF THE WORSHIP IN MOUNT ZION. 
 
 All these facts are described in the second book of Samuel, for 
 the most part in the same words. There, however, the contents of 
 our chapter xiv., David's building, wives and children, and vic- 
 tories over the Philistines, immediately follow, in chap. v. 11-25, 
 the account of the conquest of the citadel of Zion (1 Chron. xi. 
 4-8) ; and then in 2 Sam. vi. the removal of the ark from Kir- 
 jath-jearim, and the bringing of it, after an interval of three 
 months, to Jerusalem, are narrated consecutively, but much more 
 shortly than in the Chronicle. The author of the books of 
 Samuel confined himself to a mere narration of the transfer of 
 the ark .to Jerusalem, as one of the first acts of David tending 
 to the raising of the Israelitish kingship, and has consequently, in 
 his estimation of the matter, only taken account of its importance 
 politically to David as king. The author of our Chronicle, on the 
 contrary, has had mainly in view the religious significance of this 
 design of David to restore the Levitic cultus prescribed in the 
 Mosaic law ; and in order to impress that upon the reader, he not 
 only gives a detailed account of the part which the Levites took
 
 196 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 p 
 
 in the solemn transfer of the ark of God (chap, xv.), but lie sets 
 forth minutely the arrangements which David made, after the 
 ark had been brought into the capital of the kingdom, for the 
 restoration of a permanent worship about that sanctuary (chap, 
 xvi.). Both the narratives are taken from an original document 
 which related the matter more at length; and from it the author 
 of 2d Samuel has excerpted only what was important for his 
 purpose, while the author of the Chronicle gives a more detailed 
 account. The opinion held by de Wette and others, that the 
 narrative in the Chronicle is merely an expansion by the author 
 of the Chronicle, or by the author of the original document fol- 
 lowed by our chronicler, of the account in 2 Sam. vi., for the 
 purpose of glorifying the Levitic cultus, is shown to be incorrect 
 and untenable by the multitude of historical statements peculiar 
 to chap. xv. and xvi., which could not possibly have been invented. 
 Chap. xiii. The removal of the ark from Kirjath-jearim. Cf. 
 2 Sam. vi. 1-11, with the commentary on the substance of the 
 narrative there given. Vers. 1-5. The introduction to this 
 event is in 2 Sam. vi. 1 and 2 very brief ; but according to our 
 narrative, David consulted with the chief men over thousands and 
 hundreds (cf. xv. 25), viz. with all the princes. The preposition ? 
 before T'lT''? groups together the individual chiefs of the people 
 just named. He laid his purpose before " all the congregation 
 of Israel," i.e. before the above-mentioned princes as representa- 
 tives of the whole people. "If it seem good to you, and if it 
 come from Jahve our God," i.e. if the matter be willed of and 
 approved by God, we will send as speedily as possible. The 
 words nnp^3 n V"^ without the conjunction are so connected that 
 nr6tso defines the idea expressed by nviQJ, " we will break through, 
 will send," for " we will, breaking through," i.e. acting quickly 
 and energetically, " send thither." The construction of nptJ> with 
 ?V is accounted for by the fact that the sending thither includes 
 the notion of commanding fa njx). niyiN'73, all the provinces of 
 the various tribal domains, is used for pKn~?3, 1 Sam. xiii. 19, here, 
 and 2 Chron. xi. 23 and xxxiv. 33 ; in all which places the idea of 
 the division of the land into a number of territories is prominent. 
 This usage is founded upon Gen. xxvi. 3 and 4, where the plural 
 points to the number of small tribes which possessed Canaan. 
 After B?ojn, i>y or ^ nr6ao is to be repeated. The words 
 ^'fT? ^ in ver. 3, we have not sought it, nor asked after it, 
 are meant to include all. Ver. 4 f. As the whole assembly
 
 CHAP. XIII. 197 
 
 approved of David's design (J3 rtiPJ, it is to do so = so must we 
 do), David collected the whole of Israel to carry it out. " The 
 whole of Israel," from the southern frontier of Canaan to the 
 northern ; but of course all are not said to have been present, but 
 there were numerous representatives from every part, according 
 to 2 Sam. vi. 1, a chosen number of 30,000 men. The D^'D n , 
 which is named as the southern frontier, is not the Nile, although 
 it also is called "inP (Isa. xxiii. 3 and Jer. ii. 18), and the name 
 u the black river" also suits it (see Del. on Isaiah, loc. cit.) ; but is 
 the 1WP before, i.e. eastward from Egypt (Dp_? I 2fr6? iBfc), i.e. 
 the brook of Egypt, Dp>'D 7H3, the Rhinocorura, now el Arish, 
 which in all accurate statements of the frontiers is spoken of as 
 the southern, in contrast to the neighbourhood of Hamath, which 
 was the northern boundary : see on Num. xxxiv. 5. For the 
 designation of the northern frontier, rion Xi3p, see on Num. xxxiv. 
 8. Kirjath-jearim, the Canaanitish Baalah, was known among 
 the Israelites by the name Baale Jehudah or Kirjath-baal, as 
 distinguished from other cities named after Baal, and is now the 
 still considerable village Kureyeh el Enab ; see on Josh. ix. 17. 
 In this fact we find the explanation of s 'p ?K n O?^> ver< 6 : to 
 Baalah, to Kirjath-jearim of Judah. The ark had been brought 
 thither when the Philistines sent it back to Beth-Shemesh, and 
 had been set down in the house of Abinadab, where it remained 
 for about seventy years ; see 1 Sam. vi. and vii. 1, 2, and the 
 remarks on 2 Sam. vi. 3 f. DP fcO|?3 np'x is not to be translated 
 tl which is named name," which gives no proper sense. Trans- 
 lating it so, Bertheau would alter DP into DP, according to an 
 arbitrary conjecture of Thenius on 2 Sam. vi. 2, " who there (by 
 the ark) is invoked." But were DP the true reading, it could not 
 refer to the ark, but only to the preceding Dtsto, since in the whole 
 Old Testament the idea that by or at the resting-place of the 
 ark Jahve was invoked (which DP "IPN would signify) nowhere 
 occurs, since no one could venture to approach the ark. If DP 
 referred to Dtpp, it would signify that Jahve was invoked at 
 Kirjath-baal, that there a place of worship had been erected by 
 the ark; but of that the history says nothing, and it would, more- 
 over, be contrary to the statement that the ark was not visited in 
 the days of Saul. We must consequently reject the proposal to 
 alter DP into DP as useless and unsuitable, and seek for another 
 explanation : we must take IPS in the sense of &>?, which it some- 
 times has ; cf . Ew. 333, a : " as he is called by name," where
 
 198 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 OB> does not refer only to riirp, but also to the additional clause 
 D\3V13PJ n^V, and the meaning is that Jahve is invoked as He who 
 is enthroned above the cherubim ; cf . Ps. Ixxx. 2, Isa. xxxvii. 
 16. On the following vers. 7-14, cf. the commentary on 2 Sam. 
 vi. 3-11. 
 
 Chap. xiv. Davids palace-building, wives and children, vers. 
 17 ; cf. 2 Sam. v. 11-16. - Two victories over the Philistines, 
 vers. 8-17; cf. 2 Sam. v. 17-25. The position in which the 
 narrative of these events stands, between the removal of the ark 
 from Kirjath-jearim and its being brought to Jerusalem, is not 
 to be supposed to indicate that they happened in the interval of 
 three months, during which the ark was left in the house of 
 Obed-edom. The explanation of it rather is, that the author of 
 our Chronicle, for the reasons given in page 170, desired to re- 
 present David's design to bring the ark into the capital city of his 
 kingdom as his first undertaking after he had won Jerusalem, and 
 was consequently compelled to bring in the events of our chapter 
 at a later period, and for that purpose this interval of three months 
 seemed to offer him the fittest opportunity. The whole contents 
 of our chapter have already been commented upon in 2 Sam. v. 
 1, so that we need not here do more than refer to a few subordi- 
 nate points. Ver. 2. Instead of xty "^ that He (Jahve) had 
 lifted up (Nfr?, perf. Pi.), as in Sam ver. 2, in the Chronicle we 
 read n?Jp? nstfJ ^3 } that his kingdom had been lifted up on high. 
 The unusual form fiNtfJ may be, according to the context, the 
 third pers. fern. perf. Niph., nx'Ett having first been changed into 
 nxto, and thus contracted into nxfrJ ; cf . Ew. 194, b. In 2 
 Sam. xix. 43 the same form is the infin. abs. Niph. '"w*?? is 
 here, as frequently in the Chronicles, used to intensify the expres- 
 sion : cf. xxii. 5, xxiii. 17, xxix. 3, 25 ; 2 Chron. i. 1, xvii. 12. 
 With regard to the sons of David, see on iii. 5-8. 
 
 In the account of the victories over the Philistines, the state- 
 ment (Sam. ver. 17) that David went down to the mountain-hold, 
 which has no important connection with the main fact, and 
 would have been for the readers of the Chronicle somewhat 
 obscure, is exchanged in ver. 8 for the more general expression 
 arroap K^ he went forth against them." In ver. 14, the divine 
 answer to David's question, whether he should march against 
 the Philistinesj runs thus : DH^JJO 2DH nnnns nbgn *&, Thou shalt 
 not go up after them; turn away from them, and come upon 
 them over against the baca-bushes ; while in Sam. ver. 23,
 
 CHAP. XV.-XVI. 3. 199 
 
 on the contrary, we read : Bn^jrwrfw 3pn r6yn N^ Thou shalt not 
 go up (i.e. advance against the enemy to attack them in front) ; 
 turn thee behind them (i.e. to their rear), and come upon them 
 over against the baca-bushes. Bertheau endeavours to get rid 
 of the discrepancy, by supposing that into both texts corruptions 
 have crept through transcribers' errors. He conjectures that 
 the text of Samuel was originally Dnnnx r6jn JO, while in the 
 Chronicle a transposition of the words D^vV. and Ervnnx was 
 occasioned by a copyist's error, which in turn resulted in the 
 alteration of Ervpj; into En^o. This supposition, however, stands 
 or falls with the presumption that by !"6j?n N? (Sam.) an attack 
 is forbidden ; but for that presumption no tenable grounds exist : 
 it would rather involve a contradiction between the first part of 
 the divine answer and the second. The last clause, tl Come upon 
 them from over against the baca-bushes," shows that the attack 
 was not forbidden ; all that was forbidden was the making of 
 the attack by advancing straight forward : instead of that, they 
 were to try to fall upon them in the rear, by making a circuit. 
 The chronicler consequently gives us an explanation of the ambi- 
 guous words of 2d Samuel, which might easily be misunderstood. 
 As David's question was doubtless expressed as it is in ver. 10, 
 
 t t t f.I 
 
 '?sn ?y '"W^L 1 , the answer n?j;n N? might be understood to mean, 
 " Go not up against them, attack them not, but go away behind 
 them ;" but with that the following 'U1 Dr6 na*, " Come upon 
 them from the baca-bushes," did not seem to harmonize. The 
 chronicler consequently explains the first clauses of the answer 
 thus : il Go not up straight behind them," i.e advance not against 
 them so as to attack them openly, " but turn thyself away from. 
 them," i.e. strike off in such a direction as to turn their flank, and 
 come upon them from the front of the baca-bushes. In this way 
 the apparently contradictory texts are reconciled without the 
 alteration of a word. In ver. 17, which is wanting in Samuel, 
 the author concludes the account of these victories by the remark 
 that they tended greatly to exalt the name of David among the 
 nations. For similar reflections, cf. 2 Chron. xvii. 10, xx. 29, 
 xiv. 13 ; and for DB> Kl, 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. 
 
 Chap. xv. to xvi. 3. The bringing of the ark into Jerusalem. 
 In the parallel account, 2 Sam. vi. 11-23, only the main facts 
 as to the transfer of the holy ark to Jerusalem, and the setting 
 of it up in a tent erected for its reception on Mount Zion, are 
 shortly narrated; but the author of the Chronicle elaborately
 
 200 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 portrays the religious side of this solemn act, tells of the prepa- 
 rations which David had made for it, and gives a special enume- 
 ration of the Levites, who at the call of the king laboured with 
 him to carry it out according to the precepts of the law. For 
 this purpose he first gives an account of the preparations (xv. 
 1-24), viz. of the erection of a tent for the ark in the city of 
 David (ver. 1), of the consultation of the king with the priests 
 and Levites (vers. 2-13), and of the accomplishment of that which 
 they had determined upon (vers. 14-29). Ver. 1. In 2 Sam. vi. 12a 
 the whole matter is introduced by a statement that the motive 
 which had determined the king to bring the ark to Jerusalem, was 
 his having heard of the blessing which the ark had brought upon 
 the house of Obed-edom. In our narrative (ver. 1), the remark 
 that David, while building his house in Jerusalem, prepared a 
 place for the ark of God, and erected a tent for it, forms the 
 transition from the account of his palace-building (xiv. 1 ff.) to 
 the bringing in of the ark. The words, " he made unto himself 
 houses," do not denote, as Bertheau thinks, the building of other 
 houses besides the palaces built with the help of King Hiram 
 (xiv. 1). For nt?JJ is not synonymous with naa, but expresses the 
 preparation of the building for a dwelling, and the words refer 
 to the completion of the palace as a dwelling-place for the king 
 and his wives and children. In thus making the palace which 
 had been built fit for a habitation, David prepared a place for 
 the ark, which, together with its tent, was to be placed in his 
 palace. As to the reasons which influenced David in determining 
 to erect a new tabernacle for the ark, instead of causing the old 
 and sacred tabernacle to be brought from Gibeon to Jerusalem 
 for the purpose, see the remarks introductory to 2 Sam. vi. 
 
 Ver. 2 ff. The reason for the preparations made on this 
 occasion for the solemn progress is assigned in the statement that 
 David had resolved to cause the ark to be carried by the Levites 
 alone, because God had chosen them thereto ; cf. Num. i. 50, 
 iv. 15, vii. 9, x. 17. Ttf, "at that time," i.e. at the end of the 
 three months, xiii. 14. nxbv Nv, "there is not to bear," i.e. no 
 other shall bear the ark than the Levites. " By this arrange- 
 ment, it is expressly acknowledged that it was contrary to the 
 law to place it upon a cart; chap. xiii. 17" (Berth.). For this 
 purpose, the king assembled " the whole of Israel" in Jerusalem, 
 i.e. the elders, the rulers over thousands, the heads of families ; 
 cf. 2 Sam. vi. 15, where it is stated that ^nfe>) n'3'fe took part
 
 CHAP. XV. 4-15. 201 
 
 in the solemn march. Ver. 4. From among assembled Israel 
 David then specially gathered together the heads of the priests 
 and Levites, to determine upon the details of this solemn pro- 
 cession. " The sons of Aaron " are the high priests Zadok and 
 Abiathar, ver. 11; and the "Levites" are the six princes named 
 in vers. 5-10, with their brethren, viz. (vers. 5-7) the three heads 
 of the families into which the tribe of Levi was divided, and 
 which corresponded to the three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, 
 and Merari, respectively (Ex. vi. 16) : Uriel head of the Koha- 
 thites, Asaiah of the Merarites, and Joel head of the Gershonites, 
 with their brethren. Kohath is first enumerated, because Aaron 
 the chief of the priests was descended from Kohath, and because 
 to the Kohathites there fell, on account of their nearer relation- 
 ship to the priests, the duty of serving in that which is most holy, 
 the bearing of the holiest vessels of the tabernacle. See Num. 
 iv. 4, 15, vii. 9 ; as to Uriel, see on vi. 9 ; for Asaiah, see vi. 15 ; 
 and as to Joel, see vi. 21. Then in vers. 8, 9 we have the heads 
 of three other Kohathite families : Shemaiah, chief of the sons of 
 Elizaphan, i.e. Elizaphan son of the Kohathite Uzziel (Ex. vi. 22) ; 
 Eliel, chief of the sons of Hebron the Kohathite (Ex. vi. 18) ; 
 and Amminadab, chief of the sons of Uzziel. The sons of Uzziel, 
 consequently, were divided into two fathers' -houses : the one 
 founded by Uzziel's son Elizaphan, and named after him (ver. 8) ; 
 the other founded by his other sons, and called by his name. Of 
 the fathers'-houses here enumerated, four belong to Kohath, and 
 one each to Merari and Gershon ; and the Kohathites were called 
 to take part in the solemn act in greater numbers than the 
 Merarites and Gershonites, since the transport of the ark was 
 the Kohathites' special duty. Ver. 11. Zadok of the line of 
 Eleazar (chap. v. 27-41), and Abiathar of the line of Ithamar, 
 were the heads of the two priestly lines, and at that time both 
 held the office of high priest (xxiv. 3 ; cf. 2 Sam. xv. 24 ff., 
 xx. 25). These priests and the six princes of the Levites just 
 enumerated were charged by David to consecrate themselves 
 with their brethren, and to bring up the ark of God to the place 
 prepared for it. t^PO'?, to consecrate oneself by removal of all 
 that is unclean, washing of the body and of the clothes (Gen. 
 xxxv. 2), and careful keeping aloof from every defilement, avoid- 
 ing coition and the touching of unclean things ; cf . Ex. xix. 
 10, 15. i? "TnJ'^n'PNj to (the place) which I have prepared for 
 it. i? ^niran is a relative clause with iBte construed with a
 
 202 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 preposition as though it were a substantive : cf . similar construc- 
 tions, xxix. 3, 2 Chron. xvi. 9, xxx. 18, Neh. viii. 10; and Ew. 
 333, b. Ver. 13. " For because in the beginning (i.e. when the 
 ark was removed from the house of Amminadab, chap, xiii.) it 
 was not you (sc. who brought it up), did Jahve our God make 
 a breach upon us," sc. by the slaying of Uzza, xiii. 11. In the 
 first clause the predicate is wanting, but it may easily be supplied 
 from the context. The contracted form rm^soaop, made up of 
 nip? and n3itfX"Qj is unique, since no is so united only with small 
 words, as in n*D } Ex. iv. 2, E3p9, Isa. iii. 15 ; but we find ns?nD 
 for nxprrno, Mai. i. 13 ; cf. Ew. 91, d. ncp here signifies : on 
 account of this which = because ; cf. Ew. 222, a, and 353, a. 
 " This was done, because we did not seek Him according to the 
 right," which required that the ark, upon which Jehovah sits 
 enthroned, should be carried by Levites, and touched by no 
 unholy person, or one who is not a priest (Num. iv. 15). Ver. 
 14 f. The Levites consecrated themselves, and bare as ver. 15 
 anticipatively remarks the ark of God upon their shoulders, 
 according to the prescription in Num. vii. 9, DH vJ| niDisa, by 
 means of poles upon them (the shoulders), '^iD, the flexible 
 pole used for carrying burdens, Num. xiii. 23. Those used to 
 carry the ark are called D'H.3 in the Pentateuch, Ex. xxv. 13 ff. 
 
 Vers. 1624. David gave the princes of the Levites a further 
 charge to appoint singers with musical instruments for the solemn 
 procession, which they accordingly did. "W v3 ? instruments to 
 accompany the song. In ver. 16 three kinds of these are named : 
 Dv-?3, nablia, iJraXT^pta, which Luther has translated by psalter, 
 corresponds to the Arabic santir, which is an oblong box with a 
 broad bottom and a somewhat convex sounding-board, over which 
 strings of wire are stretched ; an instrument something like the 
 cithara. nnJo, harps, more properly lutes, as this instrument 
 more resembled our lute than the harp, and corresponded to the 
 
 Arabic catgut instrument el'ud (i\*!l); cf. Wetzstein in Delitzsch, 
 
 Isaiah, S. 702, der 2 Aufl., where, however, the statement that the 
 santir is essentially the same as the old German cymbal, vulgo 
 Hackebrett, is incorrect, and calculated to bring confusion into 
 the matter, for the cymbal was an instrument provided with a 
 small bell. DWVP, the later word for Ey???, cymbals, castanets ; 
 see on 2 Sam. vi. 5. DTOBTp does not belong to the three before- 
 mentioned instruments (Berth.),Jbut, as is clear from vers. 19,
 
 CHAP. XV. 16-24. 203 
 
 28, xvi. 5, 42, undoubtedly only to tffiO (Bottcher, Neue krit. 
 Aehrenlese, iii. S. 223) ; but the meaning is not " modulating," but 
 "sounding clear or loud," according to the proper meaning of 
 the word, to make to hear. The infinitive clause 'Ul O" 1 "^? belongs 
 to the preceding sentence : " in order to heighten the sound (both 
 of the song and of the instrumental music) to joy," i.e. to the ex- 
 pression of joy. nnpb6 is frequently used to express festive joy : 
 cf. ver. 25, 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, xxix. 30; but also as early as in 
 2 Sam. vi. 12, 1 Sam. xviii. 6, Judg. xvi. 23, etc. In vers. 17, 18 
 the names of the singers and players are introduced; then in 
 vers. 19-21 they are named in connection with the instruments 
 they played ; and finally, in vers. 22-24, the other Levites and 
 priests who took part in the celebration are mentioned. The 
 three chief singers, the Kohathite Heman, the Gershonite Asaph, 
 and the Merarite Ethan, form the first class. See on vi. 18, 24, 
 and 29. To the second class (D*?fBn, c f. fwpbn, 2 Kings xxiii. 4) 
 belonged thirteen or fourteen persons, for in ver. 21 an Azaziah is 
 named in the last series who is omitted in ver. 18 ; and it is more 
 probable that his name has been dropped out of ver. 18 than 
 that it came into our text, ver. 21, by an error. In ver. 18 15 
 comes in after ^r^\ by an error of transcription, as we learn from 
 the i before the following name, and from a comparison of vers. 20 
 and 25. The name hnjg is in ver. 20 written V$, Yodh being 
 rejected ; and in xvi. 5 it is /*?*, which is probaby only a trans- 
 scriber's error, since ?W. occurs along with it both in ver. 18 
 and in xvi. 5. The names Benaiah and Maaseiah, which are 
 repeated in ver. 20, have been there transposed. All the other 
 names in vers. 18 and 20 coincide. Vers. 19-21. These singers 
 formed three choirs, according to the instruments they played. 
 Heman, Asaph, and Ethan played brazen cymbals Wvd? (ver. 
 19) ; Benaiah and the seven who follow played nablia (psalteria) 
 ntoiw hy (ver. 20); while the last six played lutes (harps) hy 
 rw TWnfn (ver. 21). These three Hebrew words plainly denote 
 different keys in singing, but are, owing to our small acquaintance 
 with the music of the Hebrews, obscure, and cannot be inter- 
 preted with certainty, nstf, going over from the fundamental 
 signification glitter, shine, into the idea of outshining and superior 
 capacity, overwhelming ability, might also, as amusical term, denote 
 the conducting of the playing and singing as well as the leading 
 of them. The signification to direct is here, however, excluded 
 by the context, for the conductors were without doubt the
 
 204 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 three chief musicians or bandmasters (Capellenmeister), Heman, 
 Asaph, and Ethan, with the cymbals, not the psaltery and lute 
 players belonging to the second rank. The conducting must 
 therefore be expressed by JJ'W'T', and this word must mean " in 
 order to give a clear tone," i.e. to regulate the tune and the tone 
 of the singing, while nsttp signifies " to take the lead in playing ;" 
 cf. Del. on Ps. iv. 1. This word, moreover, is probably not to be 
 restricted to the singers with the lutes, the third choir, but must 
 be held to refer also to the second choir. The meaning then will 
 be, that Heman, Asaph, and Ethan had cymbals to direct the 
 song, while the other singers had partly psalteries, partly lutes, 
 in order to play the accompaniment to the singing. The song 
 of these two choirs is moreover distinguished and defined by 
 niioSy !>y and JVJW'n hy. These words specify the kind of voices ; 
 
 L T ~ : L~ :- .... I 
 
 niD?y ?y after the manner of virgins, i.e. in the soprano ; ?JJ 
 JWipB'n, after the octave, i.e. in bass al ottava bassa. See Del. 
 on Ps. vi. 1, xlvi. 1. In vers. 22-24 the still remaining priests 
 who were engaged in the solemn procession are enumerated. 
 Ver. 22. " Chenaniah, the prince of the Levites, for the bearing, 
 teacher in bearing ; for he was instructed in it." Since Chena- 
 niah does not occur among the six princes of the Levites in vers. 
 5-10, and is called in ver. 27 N^isn its^ we must here also join NfrE3 
 (as most editions punctuate the first ^3, while according to 
 Norzi N'$i33 is the right reading even in the first case) closelv 
 
 . T - O O / */ 
 
 with D'pn-lB'j with the meaning that Chenaniah was captain of 
 the Levites who had charge of the bearing of the ark, a chief of 
 the Levites who bore it. The word Nfe"? is, however, very vari- 
 ously interpreted. The LXX. have ap^wv rwv atSwv, and the 
 Vulgate, prophetice prceerat ad prcecinendam melodiam ; whence 
 Luther translates : the master in song to teach them to sing. This 
 translation cannot, however, be linguistically upheld ; the word 
 Kfet3 means only the bearing of the burden (Num. iv. 19, 27, etc. ; 
 2 Chron. xxxv. 3), and a prophetical utterance of an oppressive 
 or threatening character (Isa. xiii. 1, and xv. 1, etc.). But from 
 this second signification neither the general meaning prophetia, 
 nor, if we wish to go back upon the ?iP N'KO, to raise the voice, 
 the signification master of song, supremus musicus (Lavat.), or 
 qui principatum tenebat in cantu illo sttllimiore (Vatabl.), can be 
 derived. The meaning prophetia, moreover, does not suit the 
 context, and we must consequently, with Bertheau and others, 
 hold fast the signification of bearing. We are determined in
 
 CHAP. XV. 1C-24. 205 
 
 favour of this, (1) by the context, which here treats of the 
 bearing of the ark, for which Ntfo is the usual word ; and (2) by 
 the circumstance that in xxvi. 29 Chenaniah is mentioned as the 
 chief of the Levites for the external business, which goes to 
 show, if the persons are identical, that he here had the oversight 
 of the external business of the transport. ">b^ is not the inf. 
 absol., which cannot stand directly for the verb, finit. ; nor is it 
 the imperf. of "^D in the signification of "ntf (Bertheau and 
 others), but a nominal formation from ipj (cf. on this formation 
 as the most proper designation of the actor, Ew. 152, Z>), in the 
 signification teacher, which is shown by Isa. xxviii. 26 certainly 
 to belong to 1D\ The clause S'^3? "ibj gives the explanation of 
 the preceding N^P?, or it specifies what Chenaniah had to do in 
 the procession. He had to take the lead in the bearing because 
 he was t*3D in it, i.e. was instructed in that which was to be 
 observed in it. In ver. 23 two doorkeepers for the ark are 
 named ; and in ver. 24, at the end of the enumeration of the 
 Levites who were busied about the transport, two additional 
 names are mentioned as those of men who had the same duty. 
 The business of these doorkeepers was, as Seb. Schmidt has 
 already remarked on 2 Sam. vi., non tarn introitum aperire arc&j 
 quam custodire t ne ad earn irrumperetur. Between these two 
 pairs of doorkeepers in ver. 24, the priests, seven in number, 
 who blew the trumpets, are named. The Kethibh D'HtfiTiD is to 
 be read D^tifno, a denom. from .rntffn ; the Keri Dnxro is Hiph. 
 of "ivn, as in 2 Chron. vii. 6, xiii. 14, and xxix. 28. In 2 Chron. 
 v. 12 and 13, on the contrary, Q <l ~>>*n is partic. Pi. The blowing 
 of the silver trumpets by the priests in this solemn procession 
 rests on the prescription in Num. x. 1-10, which see. The place 
 assigned to these trumpet-blowing priests was either immediately 
 before the ark, like the priestly trumpeters in the march round 
 Jericho (Josh. vi. 4, 6), or immediately after it. For, that these 
 priests entered in the immediate vicinity of the ark, may be 
 inferred from the fact that before and behind them were door- 
 keepers of the ark. The procession, then, was probably arranged iu 
 this way: (1) the singers and players in front, in three divisions; 
 (2) Chenaniah, the captain of the bearers ; (3) two doorkeepers ; 
 (4) the priests with the trumpets immediately before or after the 
 ark ; (5) two doorkeepers ; (G) the king with the elders and cap- 
 tains of thousands (ver. 25). The two doorkeepers Obededom 
 and Jehiah ( n )00> Rashi, Berth., and others consider to be the
 
 206 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 same persons as the singers Obededom and Jeiel ('^T.)> sup- 
 posing that the latter name is wrongly written in one of the pas- 
 sages. This, however, is incorrect, for the identity of the name 
 Obededom is no sufficient ground for supposing the persons to be 
 the same, since in xvi. 38 the singer Obededom and the doorkeeper 
 Obededom the son of Jeduthun seem to be distinguished. And 
 besides that, Obededom and his colleagues could not possibly at 
 the same time as porters precede, and as singers come after, the 
 priests and the ark, and there is consequently no reason to doubt 
 that the name nrp is correct. 
 
 Ver. 25-chap. xvi. 3 narrate the further procedings con- 
 nected with the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem ; cf. 2 Sam. vi. 
 12-19. By the words '131 TV] W the account of the execution 
 of the design is connected with the statements as to the prepara- 
 tions (vers. 2-24) : " And so were David . . . who went to 
 bring up the ark." Ver. 26. When God had helped the Levites 
 who bare the ark of the covenant of Jahve, they offered seven 
 bullocks and seven rams, i.e. after the journey had been happily 
 accomplished. Instead of this, in 2 Sam. vi. 13, the offering 
 which was made at the commencement of the journey to con- 
 secrate it is mentioned ; see on the passage. The discrepancy 
 between ver. 27 and 2 Sam. vi. 14 is more difficult of explana- 
 tion. Instead of the words mrp yab ft"^? nanao Tn, David 
 danced with all his might before Jahve, we read in the 
 Chronicle pi ^V 5 ?? ?3"13D TYn, David was clothed with a robe of 
 byssus. But since *il"i3Q differs from Sll3D only in the last two 
 letters, and "11 might be easily exchanged for bl, we may suppose 
 that kroo has arisen out of "Olio. Bertheau accordingly says : 
 " Any one who remembered that in this verse David's clothing 
 was spoken of might write "inio as $>nio, while the words ry $>3i, 
 which were probably illegible, were conjectured to be pi 7903." 
 This opinion would be worthy of consideration, if only the other 
 discrepancies between the Chronicle and Samuel were thereby 
 made more comprehensible. That, besides David, the bearers 
 of the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah are mentioned, Bertheau 
 thinks can be easily explained by what precedes ; but how can 
 that explain the absence of the mrp ^ai> of Samuel from our 
 text? Bertheau passes this over in silence; and yet it is just the 
 absence of these words in our text which shows that P'JJDI 7l"DD 
 pi cannot have arisen from an orthographical error and the 
 illegibility of TV bl, since mrv ^sf? must have been purposely
 
 CHAP. XV. 25-XVL 3. 207 
 
 omitted. Bottcher's opinion (N. kr. Aehrenl. iii. S. 224), that 
 the Chaldaizing i>naD can scarcely have been written by the 
 chronicler, because it is not at all like his pure Hebrew style, 
 and that consequently a later reader, who considered it objec- 
 tionable that a Levite should dance, and perhaps impossible that 
 the bearers should (forgetting that they were released in turn 
 from performing their office), while holding as closely to the 
 letter of the text as possible, corrected ry f>aa 1313D into tanao 
 pa ^J?D3, and that the same person, or perhaps a later, added 
 besides "^31 D <l "]")b>orn ) is still less probable. In that way, indeed, 
 we get no explanation of the main difficulty, viz. how the words 
 from D?vp to Dni/^on came into the text of the Chronicle, instead 
 of the nirv ^sh of Samuel. The supposition that originally the 
 words from n^rr$>ai : tjr^aa "isiao Trn to Dn-ftrorn stood in the 
 text, when of course the statement would be, not only that 
 David danced with all his might, but also that all the Levites 
 who bore the ark danced, is in the highest degree unsatisfactory ; 
 for this reason, if for no other, that we cannot conceive how the 
 singers could play the nebel and the kinnor and dance at the 
 same time, since it is not alternations between singing and play- 
 ing, and dancing and leaping that are spoken of. The discre- 
 pancy can only be got rid of by supposing that both narratives 
 are abridged extracts from a more detailed statement, which 
 contained, besides David's dancing, a completer account of the 
 clothing of the king, and of the Levites who took part in the 
 procession. Of these the author of the books of Samuel has 
 communicated only the two characteristic facts, that David 
 danced with all his might before the Lord, and wore an ephod 
 of white ; while the author of the Chronicle gives us an account 
 of David's clothing and that of the Levites, while he omits 
 David's dancing. This he does, not because he was scandalized 
 thereby, for he not only gives a hint of it in ver. 29, but men- 
 tions it in xiii. 8, which is parallel to 2 Sam. vi. 5 ; but because 
 the account of the king's clothing, and of that of the Levites, in 
 so far as the religious meaning of the solemn progress was 
 thereby brought out, appeared to him more important for his 
 design of depicting at length the religious side of the procession. 
 For the clothing of the king had a priestly character ; and not 
 only the ephod of white (see on 2 Sam. vi. 14), but also the 
 meil of pa, white byssus, distinguished the king as head of a 
 priestly people. The meil as such was, it is true, an outer gar-
 
 208 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ment which every Israelite might wear, but it was worn usually 
 only by persons of rank and distinction (cf. 1 Sara. ii. 19, xv. 27, 
 xviii. 4, xxiv. 5 ; Ezra ix. 3 ; Job xxix. 14), and white byssus 
 was the material for the priests' garments. Among the articles 
 of clothing which the law prescribed for the official dress of 
 the simple priest (Ex. xxviii. 40) the ty was not included, but 
 only the ruina, a tight close-fitting coat; but the priests were 
 not thereby prevented from wearing a meil of byssus on special 
 festive occasions, and we are informed in 2 Chron. v. 12 that 
 even the Levites and singers were on such occasions clad in 
 byssus. In this way the statement of our verse, that David and 
 all the Levites and bearers of the ark, the singers, and the 
 captain Chenaniab, had put on me Him of byssus, is justified and 
 shown to be in accordance with the circumstances. The words 
 therefore are to be so understood. The words from D*lprr;>:)i to 
 N|ran i&n are co-ordinate with TV] 1 !, and after them we must 
 supply in thought r 12 ^VP? ^H?*?) an( i ma y translate the verse 
 thus : lt David was clothed in a meil of byssus, as also were all 
 the Levites," etc. No objection can be taken to the NEftsn ifrn 
 when we have the article with a nomen regens, for cases of this 
 kind frequently occur where the article, as here, has a strong 
 retrospective force ; cf. Ew. 290, d. On the contrary, D*Vjfeton 
 after NtStsn is meaningless, and can only have come into the text, 
 like J3 in ver. 18, by an error of the transcriber, although it was 
 so read as early as the time of the LXX. For the last clause, 
 cf. 2 Sam. vi. 14. Ver. 28 is, as compared with 2 Sam. vi. 5, 
 somewhat enlarged by the enumeration of the individual instru- 
 ments. Ver. 29 and chap. xvi. 1-3 agree in substance with 
 2 Sam. vi. 15-19a, only some few words being explained : e.g. 
 jjno, ver. 29, instead of ismm nao (Sam.), and rna Jilt* 
 
 instead of niiT 1 JilK (Sam.) ; see the commentary on 2 Sam. I.e. 
 
 Chap. xvi. 4-42. The religious festival, and the arrangement 
 of the sacred service before the ark of the covenant in the city of 
 David. This section is not found in 2d Samuel, where the con- 
 clusion of this, whole description (ver. 43, Chron.) follows im- 
 mediately upon the feasting of the people by the king, vers. 19& 
 and 20. Ver. 46. When the solemnity of the transfer of the 
 ark, the sacrificial meal, and the dismissal of the people with a 
 blessing, and a distribution of food, were ended, David set in 
 order the service of the Levites in the holy tent on Zion. He 
 appointed before the ark, from among the Levites, servants to
 
 CHAP. XVI. 4-42. 209 
 
 praise and celebrate God, i.e. singers and players to sing psalms 
 as a part of the regular worship. "V3TH?, literally, u in order to 
 bring into remembrance," is not to praise in general, but is to be 
 interpreted according to the "P?tnp in the superscription of Ps. 
 xxxviii. and Ixx., by which these psalms are designated as the 
 appointed prayers at the presentation of the Azcarah of the 
 meat-offering (Lev. ii. 2). "V3tn accordingly is a denom. from 
 rnarXj to present the Azcarah (cf. Del. on Ps. xxxviii. 1), and is 
 in our verse to be understood of the recital of these prayer-songs 
 with musical accompaniment, nilin, to confess, refers to the 
 psalms in which invocation and acknowledgment of the name of 
 the Lord predominates, and ??n to those in which praise (Halle- 
 lujah) is the prominent feature. In vers. 5 and 6 there follow 
 the names of the Levites appointed for this purpose, who have 
 all been already mentioned in xv. 19-21 as accompanying the 
 ark in its transmission ; but all who are there spoken of are not 
 included in our list here. Of the chief singers only Asaph is 
 mentioned, Heman and Ethan being omitted ; of the singers and 
 players of the second rank, only nine ; six of the eight nebel- 
 players (xv. 20. ?W. is a transcriber's error for ^TJP, xv. 18), 
 and only three of the six kinnor-players ; while instead of seven 
 trumpet-blowing priests only two are named, viz. Benaiah, one 
 of those seven, and Jehaziel, whose name does not occur in xv. 
 24. Ver. 7. On that day David first committed it to Asaph and 
 his sons to give thanks to Jahve. K)3 is to be connected with 
 T 3 which is separated from it by several words, and denotes to 
 hand over to, here to commit to, to enjoin upon, since that which 
 David committed to Asaph was the carrying out of a business 
 which he enjoined, not an object which may be given into the 
 hand. Kinn Dia is accented by TK. Brcia, at the beginning," 
 "at first," to bring out the fact that liturgical singing was then 
 first introduced. VHS, the brethren of Asaph, are the Levites 
 appointed to the same duty, whose names are given in vers. 5, 6. 
 But in order to give a more exact description of the nirr? rri"rin 
 committed to Asaph in vers. 8-36, a song of thanks and praise is 
 given, which the Levites were to sing as part of the service with 
 instrumental accompaniment. It is not expressly said that this 
 song was composed by David for this purpose ; but if Asaph with 
 his singers was to perform the service committed to him, he must 
 have been provided with the songs of praise (psalms) which were 
 necessary for this purpose ; and if David were in any way the 
 
 O
 
 210 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 founder of the liturgical psalmody, he, as a richly endowed 
 psalm-singer, would doubtless compose the necessary liturgical 
 psalms. These considerations render it very probable that the 
 following psalm was a hymn composed by David for the litur- 
 gical song in the public worship. The psalm is as follows : 
 
 Ver. 8. Give thanks unto Jahve ; preach His name ; 
 Make known His deeds among the peoples : 
 9. Sing to Him, play to Him ; 
 
 Meditate upon all His wondrous works. 
 
 10. Glory ye in His holy name : 
 
 Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. 
 
 11. Seek ye the Lord, and His strength ; 
 Seek His face continually. 
 
 12. Remember His wonders which He has done 5 
 
 His wondrous works, and the judgments of His mouth ; 
 18. seed of Israel, His servants, 
 Sons of Jacob, His chosen. 
 
 14. He, Jahve, is our God ; 
 
 His judgments go forth over all the earth. 
 
 15. Remember eternally His covenant, 
 
 The word which He commanded to a thousand generations : 
 
 16. Which He made with Abraham, 
 And His oath to Isaac ; 
 
 17. And caused it to stand to Jacob for a law, 
 To Israel as an everlasting covenant ; 
 
 18. Saying, " To thee I give the land Canaan, 
 As the heritage meted out to you." 
 
 19. When ye were still a people to be numbered, 
 Very few, and strangers therein, 
 
 20. And they wandered from nation to nation, 
 From one kingdom to another people, 
 
 21. He suffered no man to oppress them, 
 And reproved kings for their sake : 
 
 22. " Touch not mine anointed ones, 
 And do my prophets no harm." 
 
 23. Sing unto Jahve, all the lands ; 
 
 Show forth from day to day His salvation. 
 
 24. Declare His glory among the heathen, 
 Among all people His wondrous works. 
 
 25. For great is Jahve, and greatly to be praised ; 
 And to be feared is He above all the gods. 
 
 26. For all the gods of the people are idols ; 
 And Jahve has made the heavens. 
 
 27. Majesty and splendour is before Him ; 
 Strength and joy are in His place.
 
 CHAP. XVI. 4-42. 211 
 
 28. Give unto Jahve, ye kindreds of the people, 
 Give unto Jabve glory and strength. 
 
 29. Give unto Jahve the honour of His name : 
 Bring an offering, and come before His presence ; 
 Worship the Lord in the holy ornaments. 
 
 30. Tremble before Him, all the lands ; 
 Then will the earth stand fast unshaking. 
 
 31. Let the heavens be glad, and the earth rejoice ; 
 And they will say among the heathen, Jahve is King. 
 
 32. Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof ; 
 Let the field exult, and all that is thereon. 
 
 33. Then shall the trees of the wood rejoice 
 
 Before the Lord ; for He comes to judge the earth. 
 
 34. Give thanks unto Jahve, for He is good ; 
 For His mercy endureth for ever. 
 
 35. And say, " Save us, God of our salvation :" 
 
 And gather us together, and deliver us from the heathen, 
 To give thanks to Thy holy name, 
 To glory in Thy praise. 
 
 36. Blessed be Jahve, the God of Israel, 
 From everlasting to everlasting. 
 
 And all the people said Amen, and praised Jahve. 
 
 This hymn forms a connected and uniform whole. Beginning 
 with a summons to praise the Lord, and to seek His face (vers. 
 8-11), the singer exhorts his people to remember the wondrous 
 works of the Lord (vers. 12-14), and the covenant which He made 
 with the patriarchs to give them the land of Canaan (vers. 15-18), 
 and confirms his exhortation by pointing out how the Lord, in 
 fulfilment of His promise, had mightily and gloriously defended 
 the patriarchs (vers. 19-22). But all the world also are to praise 
 Him as the only true and almighty God (vers. 23-27), and all 
 peoples do homage to Him with sacrificial gifts (vers. 28-30) ; 
 and that His kingdom may be acknowledged among the heathen, 
 even inanimate nature will rejoice at His coming to judgment 
 (vers. 3133). In conclusion, we have again the summons to 
 thankfulness, combined with a prayer that God would further 
 vouchsafe salvation ; and a doxology rounds off the whole (vers. 
 34-36). "\Vhen w r e consider the contents of the whole hymn, it 
 is manifest that it contains nothing which would be at all incon- 
 sistent with the belief that it was composed by David for the 
 above-mentioned religious service. There is nowhere any re- 
 ference to the condition of the people in exile, nor yet to their 
 circumstances after the exile. The subject of the praise to
 
 212 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES 
 
 which Israel is summoned is the covenant which God made 
 with Abraham, and the wonderful way in which the patriarchs 
 were led. The summons to the heathen to acknowledge Jahve 
 as alone God and King of the world, and to come before His 
 presence with sacrificial offerings, together with the thought that 
 Jahve will come to judge the earth, belong to the Messianic 
 hopes. These had formed themselves upon the foundation of the 
 promises given to the patriarchs, and the view they had of Jahve 
 as Judge of the heathen, when He led His people out of Egypt, 
 so early, that even in the song of Moses at the Red Sea (Ex. xv.), 
 and the song of the pious Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10), we meet 
 with the first germs of them ; and what we find in David and 
 the prophets after him are only further developments of these. 
 
 Yet all the later commentators, with the exception of Hitzig, 
 die Psalmen, ii. S. ix. f., judge otherwise as to the origin of this 
 festal hymn. Because the first half of it (vers. 8-22) recurs in 
 Ps. cv. 1-15, the second (vers. 23-33) in Ps. xcvi., and the con- 
 clusion (vers. 34-36) in Ps. cvi. 1, 47, 48, it is concluded that 
 the author of the Chronicle compounded the hymn from these 
 three psalms, in order to reproduce the festive songs which 
 were heard after the ark had been brought in, in the same free 
 way in which the speeches in Thucydides and Livy reproduce 
 what was spoken at various times. Besides the later commen- 
 tators, Aug. Koehler (in the Luth. Ztschr. 1867, S. 289 ff.) and 
 C. Ehrt (Abfassungszeit und Abschluss des Psalters, Leipz. 1869, 
 S. 41 ff.) are of the same opinion. The possibility that our 
 hymn may have arisen in this way cannot be denied ; for such a 
 supposition would be in so far consistent with the character of 
 the Chronicle, as we find in it speeches which have not been 
 reported verbatim by the hearers, but are given in substance or 
 in freer outline by the author of our Chronicle, or, as is more 
 probable, by the author of the original documents made use of 
 by the chronicler. But this view can only be shown to be cor- 
 rect if it corresponds to the relation in which our hymn may be 
 ascertained to stand to the three psalms just mentioned. Be- 
 sides the fact that its different sections are again met with scat- 
 tered about in different psalms, the grounds for supposing that 
 our hymn is not an original poem are mainly the want of con- 
 nection in the transition from ver. 22 to ver. 23, and from ver. 
 33 to ver. 34 ; the fact that in ver. 35 we have a verse refer- 
 ring to the Babylonian exile borrowed from Ps. cvi. ; and that
 
 CHAP. XVI. 4-42. 213 
 
 ver. 3G is even the doxology of the fourth book of Psalms, taken 
 to be a component part of the psalm. These two latter grounds 
 would be decisive, if the facts on which they rest were \vell 
 authenticated. If ver. 36 really contained only the doxology of 
 the fourth book of Psalms, which, like the doxologies of the first, 
 second, and third books (Ps. xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, 19, and Ixxxix. 
 53), was merely formally connected with the psalm, without 
 being a component part of it, there could be no doubt that the 
 author of the Chronicle had taken the conclusion of his hymn 
 from our collection of psalms, as these doxologies only date from 
 the originators of our collection. But this is not the state of the 
 case. The 48th verse of the 106th Psalm does, it is true, 
 occupy in our Psalter the place of the doxology to the fourth 
 book, but belonged, as Bertheau also acknowledges, originally to 
 the psalm itself. For not only is it different in form from the 
 doxologies of the first three books, not having the double }*?& }EX 
 with which these books close, but it concludes with the simple 
 ~b? }>?X. If the JOK] fOK connected by 1 is, in the Old Testa- 
 ment language, exclusively confined to these doxologies, which 
 thus approach the language of the liturgical Beracha of the 
 second temple, as Del. Ps. p. 15 rightly remarks, while in 
 Num. v. 22 and Neb. viii. 6 only }S }K without copulative 1 
 occurs, it is just this peculiarity of the liturgical Beracha which 
 is wanting, both in the concluding verse of the 106th Psalm and 
 in ver. 36 of our festal hymn. Moreover, the remainder of the 
 verse in question, the last clause of it, "And let all the people 
 say Amen, Halleluiah," does not suit the hypothesis that the 
 verse is the doxology appended to the conclusion of the fourth 
 book by the collector of the Psalms, since, as Hengstenberg in 
 his commentary on the psalm rightly remarks, " it is inconceiv- 
 able that the people should join in that which, as mere closing 
 doxology of a book, would have no religious character;" and " the 
 praise in the conclusion of the psalm beautifully coincides with 
 its commencement, and the Halleluiah of the end is shown to 
 be an original part of the psalm by its correspondence with the 
 beginning." ] The last verse of our hymn does not therefore 
 
 1 Bertheau also rightly says : " If in Ps. Ixxii. (as also in Ps. Ixxxix. and xli.) 
 the author of the doxology himself says Amen, while in Ps. cvi. 48 the saying 
 of the Amen is committed to the people, this difference can only arise from 
 the fact that Ps. cvi. originally concluded with the exhortation to say Amen." 
 Hitzig speaks with still more decision, die Pss. (1865), ii. S. x. : " If (inPs.
 
 214- THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 presuppose the existence of the collection of psalms, nor in ver. 
 35 is there any indubitable reference to the exilic time. The 
 words, " Say, * Save us, Thou God of our salvation ; gather 
 us together, and deliver us from among the heathen,' " do not 
 presuppose that the people had been previously led away into the 
 Chaldean exile, but only the dispersion of prisoners of war, led 
 away captive into an enemy's land after a defeat. This usually 
 occurred after each defeat of Israel by their enemies, and it was 
 just such cases Solomon had in view in his prayer, 1 Kings 
 viii. 46-50. 
 
 The decision as to the origin of this festal hymn, therefore, 
 depends upon its internal characteristics, and the result of a com- 
 parison of the respective texts. The song in itself forms, as Hitz. 
 I.e. S. 19 rightly judges, "a thoroughly coherent and organic 
 whole. The worshippers of Jahve are to sing His praise in 
 memory of His covenant which He made with their fathers, and 
 because of which He protected them (vers. 18-22). But all the 
 world also are to praise Him, the only true God (vers. 23-27) ; the 
 peoples are to come before Him with gifts ; yea, even inanimate 
 nature is to pay the King and Judge its homage (vers. 28-33). 
 Israel and with this the end returns to the beginning is to 
 thank Jahve, and invoke His help against the heathen (vers. 
 34 and 35)." This exposition of the symmetrical disposition of 
 the psalm is not rendered questionable by the objections raised 
 by Koehler, I.e. ; nor can the recurrence of the individual parts 
 of it in three different psalms of itself at all prove that in the 
 Chronicle we have not the original form of the hymn. " There 
 is nothing to hinder us from supposing that the author of Ps. xcvi. 
 may be the same as the author of Ps. cv. and cvi. ; but even 
 another might be induced by example to appropriate the first 
 half of 1 Chron. xvi. 8 ff., as his predecessor had appropriated 
 
 cvi.) ver. 47 is the conclusion, a proper ending is wanting ; while ver. 48, on 
 the contrary, places the psalm on a level with Ps. ciii.-cv., cvii. Who can 
 believe that the author himself, for the purpose of ending the fourth book 
 with ver. 48, caused the psalm to extend to the 48th verse ? In the Chronicle, 
 the people whom the verse mentions are present from xv. 3-xvi. 2, while in 
 the psalm no one can see how they should come in there. "Whether the verse 
 belong to the psalm or not, the turning to all the people, and the causing the 
 people to say Amen, Amen, instead of the writer, has no parallel in the Psalms, 
 and is explicable only on the supposition that it comes from the Chronicle. 
 Afterwards a Diaskeuast might be satisfied to take the verse as the boundary- 
 stone of a book."
 
 CHAP. XVI. 4-42. 215 
 
 the second, and it would naturally occur to him to supply from 
 his own resources the continuation which had been already taken 
 away and made use of" (Hitz. I.e.). A similar phenomenon is 
 the recurrence of the second half of Ps. xl. 17 ff. as an indepen- 
 dent psalm, Ps. Ixx. " But it is also readily seen," continues 
 Hitzig, "how easily the psalmist might separate the last three 
 verses from each other (vers. 34 to 36 of the Chronicle), and set 
 them as a frame round Ps. cvi. Ver. 34 is not less suitable in the 
 Chronicle for the commencement of a paragraph than in Ps. cvii., 
 while ver. 36 would admit of no continuation, but was the proper 
 end. On the other hand, we can scarcely believe that the 
 chronicler compiled his song first from Ps. cv., then from Ps. 
 xcvi., and lastly from Ps. cvi., striking off from this latter only 
 the beginning and the end." 
 
 Finally, if we compare the text of our hymn with the text of 
 these psalms, the divergences are of such a sort that we cannot 
 decide with certainty which of the two texts is the original. 
 To pass over such critically indifferent variations as ifT'B, Chron. 
 ver. 12, for V3, Ps. cv. 5 ; the omission of the nota ace. J"IN, Chron. 
 ver. 18, compared with Ps. cv. 10, and vice versa in Ps. xcvi. 3 
 and Chron. ver. 24 ; ">^n ^ Chron. ver. 33, instead of 
 " > J?!I? *SP$ Ps. xcvi. 12, the chronicler has in pw, ver. 16, 
 instead" of pne*, Ps. cv. 9, and $J, ver. 32, instead" of 6^, Ps. 
 xcvi. 12, the earlier and more primitive form ; in ynfl ?K ""N^?, 
 ver. 22, instead of ijnn ?K "^ap, Ps. cv. 15, a quite unusual con- 
 struction ; and in ^ bx Di s , ver. 23, the older form (cf. Num. 
 xxx. 15), instead of Di 11 ? Di s p, Ps. xcvi. 2, as in Esth. iii. 7; while, on 
 the other hand, instead of the unexampled phrase Oi^y- 5 
 Ps. cv. 14, there stands in the Chronicle the usual phrase 
 and ^jy in Ps. xcvi. 12 is the poetical form for the n"i^n of Chron. 
 ver. 32. More important are the wider divergences : not so 
 much knl int, Chron. ver. 13, for DPP3K JHT, Ps. cv. 6, in which 
 latter case it is doubtful whether the fa^y refers to the patriarchs 
 or to the people, and consequently, as the parallelismus membrorum 
 demands the latter reference, MftfP is clearly the more correct 
 and intelligible; but rather the others, viz. TDT, Chron. ver. 15, 
 for 13T, Ps. cv. 8 ; since VIST not only corresponds to the V13T o f 
 ver. 11, but also to the use made of the song for the purposes 
 stated in the Chronicle ; while, on the contrary, 13T of the psalm 
 corresponds to the object of the psalm, viz. to exalt the covenant 
 grace shown to the patriarchs. Connected with this also is the
 
 216 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 reading D3ri t i' i n3 J "when ye (sons of Jacob) were" (ver. 19), 
 instead of Dn^na, Ps. cv. 12, " when they (the patriarchs) were," 
 since the narrative of what the Lord had done demanded DDVro. 
 Now the more likely the reference of the words to the patri- 
 archs was to suggest itself, the more unlikely is the hypothesis 
 of an alteration into D3ni' i n3 ; and the text of the Chronicle 
 being the more difficult, is consequently to be regarded as the 
 earlier. Moreover, the divergences of vers. 23 to 33 of our 
 hymn from Ps. xcvi. are such as would result from its having 
 been prepared for the above-mentioned solemn festival. The 
 omission of the two strophes, " Sing unto Jahve a new song, 
 sing unto Jahve, bless His name" (Ps. xcvi. la and 2a), in ver. 
 23 of the Chronicle mie;ht be accounted for by regarding that 
 
 o * o o 
 
 part of our hymn as an abridgment by the chronicler of the 
 original song, when connecting it with the preceding praise of 
 God, were it certain on other grounds that Ps. xcvi. was the 
 original; but if the chronicler's hymn be the original, we may 
 just as well believe that this section was amplified when it was 
 made into an independent psalm. A comparison of ver. 33 
 (Chron.) with the end of the 96th Psalm favours this last hypo- 
 thesis, for in the Chronicle the repetition of N2 ^ is wanting, as 
 well as the second hemistich of Ps. xcvi. 13. The whole of the 
 13th verse recurs, with a single N3 ^ at the end of the 98th 
 Psalm (ver. 9), and the thought is borrowed from the Davidic 
 Psalm ix. 9. The strophes in the beginning of Ps. xcvi., which 
 are omitted from Chron. ver. 16, often recur. The phrase, 
 " Sing unto Jahve a new song," is met with in Ps. xxxiii. 3, 
 xcviii. 1, and cxlix. 1, andBHH "VS? in Ps. xl. 4, a Davidic psalm. 
 i^~ns to*i3 is also met with in Ps. c. 4 ; and still more frequently 
 nin*~nN 13"!3, in Ps. ciii. 20, 22, cxxxiv. 1, and elsewhere, even as 
 early as Deborah's song, Judg. v. 2, 9 ; while nifiv Wt^ occurs in 
 the song of Moses, Ex. xv. 1. Since, then, the strophes of the 96th 
 Psalm are only reminiscences of, and phrases which we find in, the 
 oldest religious songs of the Israelites, it is clear that Ps. xcvi. is not 
 an original poem. It is rather the re-grouping of well-known and 
 current thoughts ; and the fact that it is so, favours the belief that 
 all which this psalm contains at the beginning and end, which the 
 Chronicle does not contain, is merely an addition made by the 
 poet who transformed this part of the chronicler's hymn into an 
 independent psalm for liturgical purposes. This purpose clearly 
 appears in such variations as i^ippra rnsani, Ps. xcvi. 6, instead
 
 CHAP. XVI. 4-4?. 217 
 
 of iopoa rnnrn, Chron. ver. 27, and Vrf-rcn IKM, Ps. xcvi. 8, 
 instead of VJB^ ***, Chron. ver. 29. Neither the word BnpD nor 
 the mention of " courts " is suitable in a hymn sung at the con- 
 secration of the holy tent in Zion, for at that time the old national 
 sanctuary with the altar in the court (the tabernacle) still stood 
 in Gibeon. Here, therefore, the text of the Chronicle corre- 
 sponds to the circumstances of David's time, while the mention 
 of unpo and of courts in the psalm presupposes the existence of 
 the temple with its courts as the sanctuary of the people of 
 Israel. Now a post-exilic poet would scarcely have paid so much 
 attention to this delicate distinction between times and circum- 
 stances as to alter, in the already existing psalms, out of which 
 he compounded this festal hymn, the expressions which were not 
 suitable to the Davidic time. Against this, the use of the unusual 
 
 O * 
 
 word nnrij joy, which occurs elsewhere only in Neh. x. 8, 10, and 
 in Chaldee in Ezra vi. 18, is no valid objection, for the use of the 
 verb rnn as early as Ex. xviii. 9 and Job iii. 6 shows that the 
 word does not belong to the later Hebrew. The discrepancy also 
 between vers. 30 and 31 and Ps. xcvi. 9-11, namely, the omission 
 in the Chronicle of the strophe 0*^03 BW P.J (Ps. ver. 10), 
 and the placing of the clause $Q mrr D^'ia? r\n&\ after p.**? fcni 
 (Chron. ver. 31, cf. Ps. xcvi. 10), does not really prove anything as 
 to the priority of Ps. xcvi. Hitzig, indeed, thinks that since by the 
 omission of the one member the parallelism of the verses is dis- 
 turbed, and a triple verse appears where all the others are double 
 merely, and because by this alteration the clause, " Say among 
 the people, Jahve is King," has come into an apparently unsuit- 
 able position, between an exhortation to the heaven and earth to 
 rejoice, and the roaring of the sea and its fulness, this clause 
 must have been unsuitably placed by a copyist's error. But the 
 transposition cannot be so explained; for not only is that one 
 member of the verse misplaced, but also the IIEN of the psalm 
 is altered into ViEN' 1 }, and moreover, we get no explanation of 
 the omission of the strophe 'w P1\ If we consider V)KM (with 
 1 consecutive), " then will they say," we see clearly that it corre- 
 sponds to '131 wan 1 ! TS in ver. 33 ; and in ver. 30 the recognition of 
 Jahve's kingship over the peoples is represented as the issue and 
 effect of the joyful exultation of the heaven and earth, just as in 
 vers. 32 and 33 the joyful shouting of the trees of the field before 
 Jahve as He comes to judge the earth, is regarded as the result 
 of the roaring of the sea and the gladness of the fields. The
 
 218 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ICK of the psalm, on the other hand, the summons to the Israel- 
 ites to proclaim that Jahve is King among the peoples, is, after 
 the call, lt Let the whole earth tremble before Him," a somewhat 
 tame expression ; and after it, again, we should not expect the much 
 stronger 'tit Ji3FJ *]K. When we further consider that the clause 
 which follows in the Chronicle, " He will judge the people in 
 uprightness," is a reminiscence of Ps. ix. 9, we must hold the 
 text of the Chronicle to be here also the original, and the 
 divergences in Ps. xcvi. for alterations, which were occasioned by 
 the changing of a part of our hymn into an independent psalm. 
 Finally, there can be no doubt as to the priority of the chronicler's 
 hymn in vers. 34-36. The author of the Chronicle did not require 
 to borrow the liturgical formula 'til niD "G mrvp Viin from Ps. 
 cvi. 1, for it occurs in as complete a form in Ps. cvii. 1, cxviii. 1, 
 29, cxxxvi. 1, and, not to mention 2 Chron. v. 13, vii. 3, xx. 21, 
 is a current phrase with Jeremiah (xxxiii. 11), and is without 
 doubt an ancient liturgical form. Vers. 35 and 36, too, contain 
 such divergences from Ps. cvi. 47 and 48, that it is in the highest 
 degree improbable that they were borrowed from that psalm. 
 Not only is the prayer 'W yjwin introduced by Vix, but also, 
 instead of WipK mrp of the psalm, we have WJjB* ""nfrx ; and to 
 WV3.pl, WT'ifni is added, a change which causes the words to lose 
 the reference to the Chaldean exile contained in the text of the 
 Psalms. The post-exilic author of the Chronicle would scarcely 
 have obliterated this reference, and certainly would not have 
 done so in such a delicate fashion, had he taken the verse from 
 Ps. cvi. A much more probable supposition is, that the post- 
 exilic author of the 106th Psalm appropriated the concluding 
 verse of David's to him well-known hymn,, and modified it to 
 make it fit into his poem. Indubitable instances of such altera- 
 tions are to be found in the conclusion, where the statement of 
 the chronicler, that all the people said Amen and praised Jahve, 
 is made to conform to the psalm, beginning as it does with 
 Halleluiah, by altering ViBK' s l into ""?*tt, " and let them say," and 
 of nin^ y$r\ into np&i. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, we must regard the opinion that 
 David composed our psalm for the above-mentioned festival as 
 by far the most probable. The psalm itself needs no further 
 commentary ; but compare Delitzsch on the parallel psalms and 
 parts of psalms. 
 
 Vers. 37-43. Division of the Levites for the management of
 
 CHAP. XVI. .07-13. 219 
 
 the public icorship. At the same time as he set up the ark in the 
 tent erected for it on Mount Zion, David had prepared a new 
 locality for the public worship. The Mosaic tabernacle had 
 continued, with its altar of burnt-offering, to be the general 
 place of worship for the congregation of Israel even during the 
 long period when the ark was separated from it, and it was even 
 yet to be so ; and it became necessary, in order to carry on the 
 religious service in both of these sanctuaries, to divide the staff 
 
 O * 
 
 of religious officials : and this David now undertook. Ver. 37. 
 Before the ark he left Asaph with his brethren ( ? before the 
 accus. obj.j according to the later usage), to serve, to minister 
 there continually, tei'3 DViTpj " according to the matter of the 
 day on its day," i.e. according to the service necessary for each 
 day ; cf. for this expression, Ex. v. 13, 19, xvi. 4, etc. " And 
 Obed-edom and their brethren." In these words there is a 
 textual error: the plural suffix in DirriK shows that after "n'y 
 DilX at least one name has been dropped out. But besides that, 
 the relation in which the words, " and Obed-edom the son of Jedu- 
 thun, and Hosah, to be porters," stand to the preceding clause, 
 " and Obed-edom and their brethren," is obscure. Against the 
 somewhat general idea, that the words are to.be taken in an 
 explicative sense, "and Obed-edom indeed," etc., the . objection 
 suggests itself, that Obed-edom is here defined to be the son of 
 Jeduthun, and would seem to be thereby distinguished from the 
 preceding Obed-edom. In addition to that, in xv. 21 an Obed- 
 edom is mentioned among the singers, and in ver. 24 one of the 
 doorkeepers bears that name, and they are clearly distinguished 
 as being different persons (see p. 206). On the other hand, how- 
 ever, the identity of the two Obed-edoms in our verse is supported 
 by the fact that in chap. xxvi. 48 the doorkeepers Obed-edom 
 with his sons and brethren number sixty-two, which comes pretty 
 nearly up to the number mentioned in our verse, viz. sixty-eight. 
 Yet we cannot regard this circumstance as sufficient to identify 
 the two, and must leave the question undecided, because the text 
 of our verse is defective. Jeduthun the father of Obed-edom is 
 different from the chief musician Jeduthun ( = Ethan) ; for the 
 chief musician is a descendant of Merari, while the doorkeeper 
 Jeduthun belongs to the Korahites (i.e. Kohathites) : see on 
 xxvi. 4. Ver. 39. pftv nw is still dependent on the 3T3^ in ver. 
 37. The priest Zadok with his brethren he left before the tent 
 of Jahve, i.e. the tabernacle at the Bamah in Gibeon. For
 
 220 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 see on 2 Chron. i. 13, and for Zadok on v. 38. It is surprising 
 here that no priest is named as superintendent or overseer of 
 the sacrificial worship in the tent of the ark of the covenant. 
 But the omission is accounted for by the fact that our chapter 
 treats properly only of the arrangement of the sacred music 
 connected with the worship, and Zadok is mentioned as overseer 
 of the sanctuary of the tabernacle at Gibeon only in order to 
 introduce the statement as to the Levitic singers and players 
 assigned to that sanctuary. Without doubt Abiathar as high 
 priest had the oversight of the sacrificial worship in the sanctuary 
 of the tabernacle : see on xviii. 16 ; with ver. 40 cf. Ex. xxix. 38, 
 Num. xxviii. 3, 6. a^n2n~?:ip corresponds to fff?yr\7 : and in refer- 
 ence to all, i.e. to look after all, which was written. This refers 
 not only to the bringing of the sacrifices prescribed, in addition 
 to the daily burnt-offering, but in general to everything that it 
 was the priests' duty to do in the sanctuary. Ver. 41. E^Jfl, 
 and with them (with Zadok and his brethren) were Heman and 
 Jeduthun, i.e. Ethan (the two other chief musicians, xv. 19), 
 with the other chosen famous, sc. singers (niOK'3 tojpi, see on 
 xii. 31). To these belonged those of the number named in 
 xv. 18-21, 24, who are not mentioned among those assigned to 
 Asaph in xvi. 5 and 6, and probably also a number of others 
 whose names have not been handed down. In ver. 42, if the 
 text be correct, JtflVW }^n can only be in apposition to O^V 
 11 and with them, viz. with Heman and Jeduthun, were trumpets," 
 etc. But, not to mention the difficulty that passages analogous 
 and parallel to this statement are not to be found, the mention of 
 these two chief musicians in the connection is surprising ; for the 
 musical instruments mentioned are not merely the DWV*? (s. xv. 19) 
 played by them, but also the niiyVn which the priests blew, and 
 other instruments. Moreover, the names Heman and Jeduthun 
 are not found here in the LXX., and have probably been 
 inserted in our verse by some copyist from ver. 41, which like- 
 wise begins with Dnayi. If we omit these names, then, the verse 
 contains no other difficulty worthy of consideration, or any which 
 would occasion or necessitate such violent alterations of the text 
 as Berth, has proposed. The suffix in Dney refers to the persons 
 mentioned in ver. 41, Heman, Jeduthun, and the other chosen 
 ones. " With them were," i.e. they had by them, trumpets, 
 cymbals, etc. The p before to^CEi? is strange, since DTO' is 
 in xv. 16 connected with OWV? as an adjective, and in xv. 19
 
 CHAP. XVII. 221 
 
 we have STDB^r. But if we compare ver. 5 of our chapter, 
 where ycK'O is predicate to Asaph, " Asaph gave forth clear 
 notes with cymbals," then here also Q'TBfc'JDp in connection with 
 D^y is thoroughly justified in the signification, " and cymbals 
 for those who gave forth the notes or the melody," i.e. for Heman 
 and Jeduthun. 'Kn ~P& y? are the other instruments used in the 
 service of song, viz. the nablia and kinnoroth. " The sons of 
 Jeduthun for the gate," i.e. as doorkeepers. As Obed-edom, who 
 w r as doorkeeper by the ark, according to ver. 38, w r as likewise a 
 son of Jeduthun, here other sons of the same Jeduthun, brothers 
 of Obed-edom, must be meant, the number of whom, if we may 
 judge from xxvi. 8, was very considerable ; so that the members 
 of this family were able to attend to the doorkeeping both by the 
 ark and in the tabernacle at Gibeon. Ver. 43 brings the account 
 of the transfer of the ark to a conclusion, and coincides in sub- 
 stance with 2 Sam. vi. 19 and 20a, where, however, there follows 
 in addition a narrative of the scene which David had with his 
 wife Michal. This, as res domestica, the author of the Chronicle 
 has omitted, since the reference to it in xv. 29 seemed sufficient 
 
 . L 
 
 for the design of his work. ?p3? is not to greet, but to bless his 
 house, just as in ver. 2 he had already pronounced a blessing on 
 his people in the name of God. 
 
 CHAP. XVII. DAVID S DESIGN TO BUILD A TEMPLE, AND THE 
 CONFIRMATION OP HIS KINGDOM. 
 
 In the Chronicle, as in the second book of Samuel chap, vii., 
 the account of the removal of the ark to the city of David is 
 immediately followed by the narrative of David's design to build 
 a temple to the Lord ; and this arrangement is adopted on account 
 of the connection between the subjects, though the events must 
 have been separated by a period of several years. Our account 
 of this design of David's, with its results for him and for his 
 kingdom, is in all essential points identical with the parallel 
 account, so that we may refer to the commentary on 2 Sam. vii. 
 for any necessary explanation of the matter. The differences 
 between the two narratives are in great part of a merely formal 
 kind; the author of the Chronicle having sought to make the 
 narrative more intelligible to his contemporaries, partly by using 
 later phrases current in his own time, such as Q^T>$ for mrp, 
 
 po for | "9<?'?, partly by simplifying and explaining the bolder
 
 222 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 and more obscure expressions. Very seldom do we find diver- 
 gences in the subject-matter which alter the meaning or make 
 it appear to be different. To supplement and complete the com- 
 mentary already given on 2d Samuel, we will now shortly treat 
 of these divergences. In ver. 1, the statement that David com- 
 municated his purpose to build a temple to the Lord to the 
 prophet Nathan, " when Jahve had given him rest from all his 
 enemies round about," is wanting. This clause, which fixes the 
 time, has been omitted by the chronicler to avoid the apparent 
 contradiction which would have arisen in case the narrative were 
 taken chronologically, seeing that the greatest of David's wars, 
 those against the Philistines, Syrians, and Ammonites, are nar- 
 rated only in the succeeding chapter. As to this, cf . the discus- 
 sion on 2 Sam. vii. 1-3. In ver. 10, Q^?*, like Di s n~}ip7i (Sam. 
 ver. 11), is to be connected with the preceding rmpjos in this sense: 
 " As in the beginning (i.e. during the sojourn in Egypt), and 
 onward from the days when I appointed judges," i.e. during the 
 time of the judges, ft?? is only a more emphatic expression for t, 
 to mark off the time from the beginning as it were (cf . Ew. 218, >), 
 and is wrongly translated by Berth. " until the days." In the 
 same verse, Vijttarn, " I bow, humble all thine enemies," substan- 
 tially the same as the ^rwrn, " I give thee peace from all thine 
 enemies" (Sam.) ; and the suffix in T3^K is not to be altered, as 
 Berth, proposes, into that of the third person l^iNj either in the 
 Chronicle or in Samuel, for it is quite correct ; the divine promise 
 returning at the conclusion to David direct, as in the beginning, 
 vers. 7 and 8, while that which is said of the people of Israel 
 in vers. 9 and 10a is only an extension of the words, " I will 
 destroy all thine enemies before thee" (ver. 8). In ver. 11, rn?? 
 Tnhs-Dy, "to go with thy fathers," used of going the way of 
 death, is similar to " to go the way of all the world " (1 Kings 
 ii. 2), and is more primitive than the more usual fitex DV 33B> 
 (Sam. ver. 12). Tp nw IPK, too, is neither to be altered to 
 suit TJHM? ** "icfc of Samuel ; nor can we consider it, with Berth., 
 an alteration made by the author of the Chronicle to get rid of 
 the difficulty, that here the birth of Solomon is only promised, 
 while Nathan's speech was made at a time when David had rest 
 from all his enemies round about (2 Sam. viii. 1), i.e., as is usually 
 supposed, in the latest years of his life, and consequently after 
 Solomon's birth. For the difficulty had already been got rid of 
 by the omission of those words in ver. 1 ; and the word, " I have
 
 CHAP. xvii. 223 
 
 cut off all thine enemies from before thee" (ver. 8), does not 
 necessarily involve the destruction of all the enemies who ever 
 rose against David, but refers, as the connection shows, only to 
 the enemies who up till that time had attacked him. Had the 
 author of the Chronicle only wished to get rid of this supposed 
 difficulty, he would simply have omitted the clause, since " thy 
 seed " included the sons of David, and needed no explanation if 
 nothing further was meant than that one of his sons would ascend 
 the throne after him. And moreover, the thought, " thy seed, 
 which shall be among thy sons," which Bertheau finds in the 
 words, would be expressed in Hebrew by T?.?p " 1 ^, while "i^S 
 TJ3O rprp signifies, " who will come out of (from) thy sons;" for 
 tp ?vn does not denote to be of one, i.e. to belong to him, but to 
 arise, be born, or go forth, from one: cf. Gen. xvii. 16; Eccles. 
 iii. 20. According to this, the linguistically correct translation, 
 the words cannot be referred to Solomon at all, because Solomon 
 was not a descendant of David's sons, but of David himself. 1 The 
 author of the Chronicle has interpreted T?.t!N ^lifjr 71 ^ theologically, 
 or rather set forth the Messianic contents of this conception more 
 clearly than it was expressed in T^tDp N! "i^K. The seed after 
 David, which will arise from his sons, is the Messiah, whom the 
 prophets announced as the Son of David, whose throne God will 
 establish for ever (ver. 12). This Messianic interpretation of 
 David's JHT explains the divergence of the chronicler's text in 
 vers. 13 and 14 from 2 Sam. vii. 14-16. For instance, the 
 omission of the words after J2 in ver. 13, " If he commit iniquity, 
 I will chasten him with the rod of men" (Sam. ver. 14), is the 
 result of the Messianic interpretation of ^IJnT, since the reference 
 to the chastisement would of course be important for the earthly 
 sons of David and the kings of Judah, but could not well find place 
 in the case of the Messiah. The only thing said of this son of 
 David is, that God will not withdraw His grace from him. The 
 case is exactly similar, with the difference between ver. 14 and 
 Sam. ver. 16. Instead of the words, <c And thy house and thy 
 kingdom shall be established for ever before thee, thy throne shall 
 be established for ever" (Sam.), the promise runs thus in the 
 Chronicle : " And I will settle ("T'P.Jtf?, cause to stand, maintain, 1 
 Kings xv. 4 ; 2 Chron. ix. 8) him (the seed arising from thy 
 sons) in my house and in my kingdom for ever, and his throne 
 
 1 As old Lavater has correctly remarked : Si tantum de Salomone hie locus 
 accipiendus esset, non dixisset: semen quod erit defliis tuis, sed quod erit de te.
 
 22-1 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHROXICLES. 
 
 shall be established for evermore." While these concluding 
 words of the promise are, in the narrative in Samuel, spoken to 
 David, promising to him the eternal establishment of his house, 
 his kingdom, and his throne, in the Chronicle they are referred 
 to the seed of David, i.e. the Messiah, and promise to Him His 
 establishment for ever in the house and kingdom of God, and 
 the duration of His throne for ever. That <I JV2 here does not 
 signify the congregation of the Lord, the people of Israel, as 
 Berth, thinks it must be translated, is clear as the sun ; for rV3 ? 
 immediately preceding, denotes the temple of Jahve, and WSi 
 manifestly refers back to v JV3 (ver. 12), while such a designa- 
 tion of the congregation of Israel or of the people as " house of 
 Jahve" is unheard of in the Old Testament. The house of 
 Jahve stands in the same relation to the kingdom of Jahve as 
 
 O 
 
 a king's palace to his kingdom. The house which David's seed 
 will build to the Lord is the house of the Lord in his kingdom : 
 in this house and kingdom the Lord will establish Him for ever ; 
 His kingdom shall never cease ; His rule shall never be extin- 
 guished ; and He himself, consequently, shall live for ever. It 
 scarcely need be said that such things can be spoken only of the 
 Messiah. The words are therefore merely a further development 
 of the saying, " I will be to him a Father, and I will not take my 
 mercy away from him, and will establish his kingdom for ever," 
 and tell us clearly and definitely what is implicitly contained in 
 the promise, that David's house, kingdom, and throne will endure 
 for ever (Sam.), viz. that the house and kingdom of David 
 will be established for ever only under the Messiah. That this 
 interpretation is correct is proved by the fact that the divergences 
 of the text of the chronicler from the parallel narrative cannot 
 otherwise be explained ; Thenius and Berth, not having made 
 even an attempt to show how W^a ^rnpjjm could have arisen 
 out of ^1JV3 JOKJI. The other differences between the texts in the 
 verses in question, b (Chron.) for '$>, iKKrnK for taa^D ND3 n 
 (Chron. ver. 12, cf. Sam. ver. 13), and T3s!> " igte? instead of 
 '131 -iK>K hm? Dyo (Chron. ver. 13, cf. Sam. Ver. 15), are only 
 variations in expression which do not affect the sense. With 
 reference to the last of them, indeed, Berth, has declared against 
 Thenius, that the chronicler's text is thoroughly natural, and 
 bears marks of being more authentic than that of 2 Sam. vii. 
 
 In the prayer of thanksgiving contained in vers. 16 to 27 we 
 meet with the following divergences from the parallel text, which
 
 CHAP. XVII. 16-27. 225 
 
 are of importance for their effect on the sense. Ver. lib. Instead 
 of the words D^sn rnin nxn (Sam. ver. 19), the Chronicle has 
 r6jflsn onsn lina WK-n, and sawest me (or, that thou sawest me) 
 after the manner of men ; lin being a contraction of nnin = rnin. 
 n&n, to see, may denote to visit (cf. 2 Sam. xiii. 5 ; 2 Kings 
 viii. 29), or look upon in the sense of regard, respicere. But the 
 word n?j?en remains obscure in any case, for elsewhere it occurs 
 only as a substantive, in the significations, " the act of going up" 
 (or drawing up) (Ezra vii. 9), "that which goes up" (Ezek. 
 xi. 5), "the step;" while for the signification "height" (locus 
 superior) only this passage is adduced by Gesenius in Thes. But 
 even had the word this signification, the word ""wE^ could not 
 signify in loco excelso = in ccelis in its present connection ; and 
 further, even were this possible, the translation et me intuitus es 
 more hominum in coslis gives no tolerable sense. But neither 
 can r6j;Bn be the vocative of address, and a predicate of God, 
 " Thou height, Jahve God," as Hgstb. Christol. i. p. 378 trans., 
 takes it, with many older commentators. The passage Ps. xcii. 9, 
 " Thou art BiiD, height, sublimity for ever, Jahve," is not suffi- 
 cient to prove that in our verse "'Pjflsn is predicated of God. 
 Without doubt, npjjsn should go with 'U1 Win, an( l appears to 
 correspond to the pto"iop of the preceding clause, in the significa- 
 tion : as regards the elevation, in reference to the going upwards, 
 i.e. the exaltation of my race (seed) on high. The thought would 
 then be this : After the manner of men, so condescendingly and 
 graciously, as men have intercourse with each other, hast Thou 
 looked upon or visited me in reference to the elevation of myself 
 or my race, the text of the Chronicle giving an explanation of the 
 parallel narrative. 1 The divergence in ver. 18, 
 
 1 This interpretation of this extremely difficult word corresponds in sense 
 to the not less obscure words in 2d Samuel, and gives us, without any alteration 
 of the text, a more fitting thought than the alterations in the reading pro- 
 posed by the moderns. Ewald and Berth, would alter ^rv&m into "orPX"!.!) 
 (Hiph.), and n^yon into r6yp^5, in order to get the meaning, "Thou hast caused 
 me to see like the series of men upwards," i.e. the line of men who stretch 
 from David outward into the far future in unbroken series, which Theniua 
 rightly calls a thoroughly modern idea. Bottcher's attempt at explanation is 
 much more artificial. He proposes, in N. k. Aehrenlese, iii. S. 225, to read 
 ffyyd? ' W&n* and translates: " so that I saw myself, as the series of 
 men who follow upwards shall see me, i.e. so that I could see myself as pos- 
 terity will see me, at the head of a continuous family of rulers ; " where the 
 main idea has to be supplied. 
 
 P
 
 226 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 instead of TK "ST 5 (Sam. ver. 20), which cannot be an expla- 
 nation or interpretation of Samuel's text, is less difficult of 
 explanation. The words in Samuel, " What can David say more 
 unto Thee ? " have in this connection the very easily understood 
 signification, What more can I say of the promise given me ? and 
 needed no explanation. When, instead of this, we read in the 
 Chronicle, " What more can Thy servant add to Thee in regard 
 to the honour to Thy servant ? " an unprejudiced criticism must 
 hold this text for the original, because it is the more difficult. 
 It is the more difficult, not only on account of the omission of 
 "*?n?> which indeed is not absolutely necessary, though serving to 
 explain t l 1| Di > > but mainly on account of the unusual construction 
 of the nomen 1to2 with TniJTHX, honour towards Thy servant. 
 The construction rum n njn is not quite analogous, for "Ji33 is 
 not a nomen actionis like njn ; -fix n;j3 is rather connected with the 
 practice which begins to obtain in the later language of employing 
 riK as a general casus obliquus, instead of any more definite pre- 
 position (Ew. 277, d, S. 683 f., der 7 Aufl.), and is to be trans- 
 lated : " honour concerning Thy servant." The assertion that 
 ^IJTJIK is to be erased as a later gloss which has crept into the 
 text, cuts the knots, but does not untie them. That the LXX. 
 have not these words, only proves that these translators did not 
 know what to make of them, and so just omitted them, as they 
 have omitted the first clause of ver. 19. In ver. 19 also there is 
 no valid ground for altering the l^y "itoJ>? of the Chronicle to 
 make it correspond to T.jF] "WJJ21 in Samuel ; for the words, " for 
 Thy servant's sake," i.e. because Thou hast chosen Thy servant, 
 give a quite suitable sense ; cf. the discussion on 2 Sam. vii. 21. 
 In the second half of the verse, however, the more extended 
 phrases of 2d Samuel are greatly contracted. Ver. 21. The 
 combining of nitrity ni?*i3 with DB>" ^p GW? as one sentence, " to 
 make Thee a name with great and fearful deeds," is made clearer 
 in 2d Samuel by the interpolation of b niPJ|7|, " and for you 
 doing great and fearful things." This explanation, however, 
 does not justify us in supposing that ni^i|?i has been dropped 
 out of the Chronicle. The words niNnii] rii^ are either to be 
 subordinated in a loose connection to the clause, to define the 
 way in which God has made Himself a name (cf. Ew. 283), or 
 connected with Dis? in a pregnant sense : u to make Thee a name, 
 (doing) great and fearful things." But, on the other hand, the con- 
 verse expression in Samuel, " fearful things for Thy land, before
 
 CHAP. XVIII.-XX. 227 
 
 Thy people which Thou redeemedst to Thee from Egypt (from) 
 the nations and their gods," is explained in Chronicles by the inter- 
 polation of ^ :> ?J? : tl fearful things, to drive out before Thy people, 
 which . . . nations." The divergences cannot be explained by 
 the hypothesis that both texts are mutilated, as is sufficiently 
 shown by the contradictions into which Thenius and Bertheau 
 have fallen in their attempts so to explain them. 
 
 All the remaining divergences of one text from the other are 
 only variations of the expression, such as involuntarily arise in the 
 endeavour to give a clear and intelligible narrative, without making 
 a literal copy of the authority made use of. Among these we include 
 even ^sri!?? T!?V ^9? "Thy servant hath found to pray" (Chron. 
 ver. 25), as compared with fennp i3p~nx spoy Xlttp, "Thy servant 
 hath found his heart," i.e. found courage, to pray (Sam. ver. 28); 
 where it is impossible to decide whether the author of the books 
 of Samuel has added tep'JlK as an explanation, or the author of 
 the Chronicle has omitted it because the phrase "to find his 
 heart" occurs only in this single passage of the Old Testament. 
 'n.T> Tpny Ni'O signifies, Thy servant has reached the point of 
 directing this prayer to Thee. 
 
 CHAP, xviii.-xx. DAVID'S WARS AND VICTORIES ; HIS PUBLIC 
 
 OFFICIALS ; SOME HEROIC DEEDS DONE IN THE PHILISTINE 
 WARS. 
 
 The events recorded in these three chapters are all narrated in 
 the second book of Samuel also, and in the same order. First, there 
 are grouped together in our 18th chapter, and in 2 Sam. viii., in 
 such a manner as to afford a general view of the whole, all the 
 wars which David carried on victoriously against all his enemies 
 round about in the establishment of the Israelitish rule, with a 
 short statement of the results, followed by a catalogue of David's 
 chief public officials. In chap. xix. and in 2 Sam. x. we have a 
 more detailed account of the arduous war against the Ammonites 
 and Syrians, and in chap. xx. 1-3 and 2 Sam. xii. 26-31 the 
 conclusion of the war with the capture of Rabbah, the capital of 
 the Ammonites ; and finally, in chap. xx. 4-8, we have a few short 
 accounts of the victories of the Israelitish heroes over giants from 
 the land of the Philistines, which are inserted in 2 Sam. xxi. 
 18-22 as a supplement to the last section of David's history. 
 Apart from this last section, which is to be regarded even in the
 
 228 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Chronicle as an appendix, we find the arrangement and suc- 
 cession of the events to be the same in both books, since the 
 sections which in 2 Sam. ix. and xi. 1-12, 25, stand between the 
 histories of the wars, contain sketches of David's family life, 
 which the author of the Chronicle has, in accordance with his 
 plan, omitted. Even as to individual details the two narratives 
 are perfectly agreed, the divergences being inconsiderable ; and 
 even these, in so far as they are original, and are not results of 
 careless copying, as, for instance, the omission of the word B^itf, 
 xviii. 6, as compared with ver. 13 and 2 Sam. viii. 6, and the 
 difference in the numbers and names in chap, xviii. 4, 8, as 
 compared with 2 Sam. iv. 4, 8, are, are partly mere explana- 
 tions of obscure expressions, partly small additions or abridg- 
 ments. For the commentary, therefore, we may refer to the 
 remarks on 2d Samuel, where the divergences of the Chronicle 
 from the record in Samuel are also dealt with. With chap, xviii. 
 1-13 cf. 2 Sam. viii. 1-14 ; and with the register of public 
 officials, xviii. 14-17, cf. 2 Sam. viii. 15-18. 
 
 Examples of paraphrastic explanation are found in chap, 
 xviii. 1, where the figurative expression, David took the bridle of 
 the mother out of the hands of the Philistines, i.e. deprived them 
 of the hegemony, is explained by the phrase, David took Gath 
 and her cities out of the hands of the Philistines, i.e. took from 
 the Philistines the capital with her daughter cities ; and in ver. 
 17, Q^n' 3 is rendered by, the first at the king's hand. Among the 
 abridgments, the omission of David's harsh treatment of the 
 Moabites who were taken prisoners is surprising, no reason for 
 it being discoverable ; for the assertion that the chronicler has 
 purposely omitted it in order to free David from the charge of 
 such barbarous conduct, is disposed of by the fact that he does 
 not pass over in silence the similar treatment of the conquered 
 inhabitants of Rabbah in chap. xx. 3. Instead of this, the 
 chronicler has several historical notes peculiar to himself, which 
 are wanting in the text of Samuel, and which prove that the 
 author of the Chronicle has not derived his account from the 
 second book of Samuel. Such, e.g., is the statement in chap, 
 xviii. 8, that Solomon caused the brazen sea and the pillars and 
 vessels of the court of the temple to be made of the brass taken 
 as booty in the war against Hadadezer; in ver. 11, the word 
 DilSD, which is wanting in Samuel, as D^KO, which in ver. 11 of 
 that book is used in place of it, probably stood originally in the
 
 CHAP. XVIH.-XX. 229 
 
 Chronicle also. Such also are the more accurate statements in 
 ver. 12 as to the victory over the Edoraites in the Valley of Salt 
 (see on 2 Sam. viii. 13). 
 
 The same phenomena are met with in the detailed account 
 of the Ammonite-Syriac war, chap. xix. 1, 2, xx. 3, as compared 
 with 2 Sam. x. 1-xi. 1, and xii. 26-31. In xix. 1 the omission 
 of the name ^n after U3 is merely an oversight, as the omission 
 of the name KTO in 2 Sam. x. la also is. In ver. 3 there is no 
 need to alter 'wi sjbrfo ipr6 into 'W iM* ">'V?" n ? "'fa, 2 Sam. x. 3, 
 although the expression in Samuel is more precise. If the actual 
 words of the original document are given in Samuel, the author 
 of the Chronicle has made the thought more general : " to 
 search and to overthrow, and to spy out the land." Perhaps, 
 however, the terms made use of in the original document were 
 not so exact and precise as those of the book of Samuel. In 
 vers. 6, 7, at least, the divergence from 2 Sam. x. 16 cannot be 
 explained otherwise than by supposing that in neither of the 
 narratives is the text of the original document exactly and per- 
 fectly reproduced. For a further discussion of the differences, 
 see on 2 Sam. x. 6. The special statement as to the place where 
 the mercenaries encamped, and the Ammonites gathered them- 
 selves together from out their cities (ver. 7), is wanting in 2d 
 Samuel. The city Medeba, which, according to Josh. xiii. 16, 
 was assigned to the tribe of Reuben, lay about two hours south- 
 east from Heshbon, and still exists as ruins, which retain the 
 ancient name Medaba (see on Num. xxi. 30). In ver. 9, nna 
 "> S V'7> "outside the city" (i.e. the capital Rabbah), more correct 
 or exact than iJJtfn nna (Sam. ver. 8). On Dn^K K3 t i, as com- 
 pared with !"iEN7n N3J5 (Sam. ver. 17), cf. the discussion on 
 2 Sam. x. 16, 17. 
 
 The account of the siege of Rabbah, the capital, in the follow- 
 ing year, chap. xx. 1-3, is much abridged as compared with that 
 in 2 Sam. xi. 1, xii. 26-31. After the clause, " but David sat 
 (remained) in Jerusalem," in 2 Sam. xi., from ver. 2 onwards, 
 we have the story of David's adultery with Bathshebo, and the 
 events connected with it (2 Sam. xi. 3-xii. 25), which the 
 author of the Chronicle has omitted, in accordance with the 
 plan of his book. Thereafter, in 2 Sam. xii. 26, the further 
 progress of the siege of Rabbah is again taken up with the 
 words, "And Joab warred against Rabbah of the sons of 
 
 ' O 
 
 Ammon;" and in vers. 27-29 the capture of that city is cir-
 
 230 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 cumstantially narrated, viz. how Joab, after he had taken the 
 water-city, i.e. the city lying on both banks of the upper Jabbok 
 (the Wady Amman), with the exception of the Acropolis built on 
 a hill on the north side of the city, sent messages to David, and 
 called upon him to gather together the remainder of the people, 
 i.e. all those capable of bearing arms who had remained in the 
 land ; and how David, having done this, took the citadel. Instead 
 of this, we have in the Chronicle only the short statement, "And 
 Joab smote Rabbah, and destroyed it" (xx. 1, at the end). After 
 this, both narratives (Chron. vers. 2, 3, and Sam. vers. 30, 31) 
 coincide in narrating how David set the heavy golden crown of 
 the king of the Ammonites on his head, brought much booty out 
 of the city, caused the prisoners of war taken in Kabbah and the 
 other fenced cities of the Ammonites to be slain in the cruellest 
 way, and then returned with all the people, i.e. with the whole 
 of his army, to Jerusalem. Thus we see that, according to the 
 record in the Chronicle also, David was present at the capture 
 of the Acropolis of Rabbah, then put on the crown of the 
 Ammonite king, and commanded the slaughter of the prisoners ; 
 but no mention is made of his having gone to take part in the 
 war. By the omission of this circumstance the narrative of the 
 Chronicle becomes defective ; but no reason can be given for this 
 abridgment of the record, for the contents of 2 Sam. xii. 26-39 
 must have been contained in the original documents made use of 
 by the chronicler. On the differences between ver. 31 (Sam.) 
 and ver. 3 of the Chronicle, see on 2 Sam. xii. 31. 1^5, " he 
 sawed asunder," is the correct reading, and Dt} in Samuel is 
 an orthographical error; while, on the contrary, riititss in the 
 Chronicle is a mistake for J"inw2 i n Samuel. The omission of 
 J3?S3 Dnitf "V3J7rfl is probably explained by the desire to abridge ; 
 for if the author of the Chronicle does not scruple to tell of the 
 sawing asunder of the prisoners with saws, and the cutting of 
 them to pieces under threshing instruments and scythes, it would 
 never occur to him to endeavour to soften David's harsh treat- 
 ment of them by passing over in silence the burning of them in 
 brick-kilns. 
 
 The passages parallel to the short appendix-like accounts of 
 the valiant deeds of the Israelitish leaders in chap. xx. 4-8 .are to 
 be found, as has already been remarked, in 2 Sam. xxi. 18-24. 
 There, however, besides the three exploits of which we are in- 
 formed by the chronicler in vers. 15-17, a fourth is recorded,
 
 CHAP. XVIII.-XX. 231 
 
 and that in the first place too, viz. the narrative of David's 
 fight with the giant Jishbi-Benob, who was slain by Abishai the 
 son of Zeruiah. The reason why our historian has not recounted 
 this along with the others is clear from the position which he 
 assigns to these short narratives in his book. In the second book 
 of Samuel they are recounted in the last section of the history of 
 David's reign, as palpable proofs of the divine grace of which 
 David had had experience during his whole life, and for which 
 he there praises the Lord in a psalm of thanksgiving (2 Sam. 
 xxii.). In this connection, David's deliverance by the heroic act 
 of Abishai from the danger into which he had fallen by the 
 fierce attack which the Philistine giant Jishbi-Benob made upon 
 him when he was faint, is very suitably narrated, as being a visible 
 proof of the divine grace which watched over the pious king. 
 For the concluding remark in 2 Sam. xxi. 17, that in con- 
 sequence of this event his captains adjured David not to go any 
 more into battle along with them, that the light of Israel might 
 not be extinguished, shows in how great danger he was of being 
 slain by this giant. For this reason the author of the book of 
 Samuel has placed this event at the head of the exploits of the 
 Israelite captains which he was about to relate, although it 
 happened somewhat later in time than the three exploits which 
 succeed. The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, has 
 made the account of these exploits an appendix to the account 
 of the victorious wars by which David obtained dominion over 
 all the neighbouring peoples, and made his name to be feared 
 among the heathen, as a further example of the greatness of the 
 power given to the prince chosen by the Lord to be over His 
 people. For this purpose the story of the slaughter of the Phili- 
 stine giant, who had all but slain the weary David, was less suit- 
 able, and is therefore passed over by the chronicler, although it 
 was contained in his authority, 1 as is clear from the almost verbal 
 coincidence of the stories which follow with 2 Sam. xxi. 18 ff. 
 The very first is introduced by the formula, " It happened after 
 this," which in 2d Samuel naturally connects the preceding narra- 
 tive with this; while the chronicler has retained I?"' 1 '?. 1 !! 5 * as a general 
 formula of transition, omitting, however, liy (Sam.) in the fol- 
 lowing clause, and writing TiDJflFn, " there arose," instead of 'nijrt. 
 icy in the later Hebrew is the same as D^p. The hypothesis that 
 
 1 Lightfoot says, in his Chronol. V. T. p. 68 : Illud prselium, in quo David 
 in pcriculum venit et unde decore et ill&sus exire non poluit, omissum est.
 
 232 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 has arisen out of Ity 'nfl} (in Samuel) is not at all pro- 
 bable, although IDV is not elsewhere used of the origin of a war. 
 Even Dip is only once (Gen. xli. 30) used of the coming, or 
 coming in, of a time. On "i.H3 and s |p instead of 1)2 and *!?, 
 see on 2 Sam. xxi. 18. W?.3*l at the end of the fourth verse is 
 worthy of remark, " And they (the Philistines) were humbled," 
 which is omitted from Samuel, and tl yet can scarcely have been 
 arbitrarily added by our historian " (Berth.). This remark, how- 
 ever, correct as it is, does not explain the omission of the word 
 from 2d Samuel. The reason for that can scarcely be other than 
 that it did not seem necessary for the purpose which the author 
 of the book of Samuel had in the first place in view. As to the 
 two other exploits (vers. 6-8), see the commentary on 2 Sam. 
 xxi. 19-22. ?N for n?K in the closing remark (ver. 8) is archaic. 
 
 . <j r 
 
 but the omission of the article (?K instead of .W, as we find it in 
 Gen. xix. 8, 25, and in other passages in the Pentateuch) cannot 
 be elsewhere paralleled. In the last clause, " And they fell by 
 the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants," that David 
 should be named is surprising, because none of those here men- 
 tioned as begotten of Kapha, i.e. descendants of the ancient 
 Raphaite race, had fallen by the hand of David, but all by the 
 hand of his servants. Bertheau therefore thinks that this clause 
 has been copied verbatim into our passage, and also into 2 Sam. 
 xxi. 22, from the original document, where this enumeration 
 formed the conclusion of a long section, in which the acts of 
 David and of his heroes, in their battles with the giants in the 
 land of the Philistines, were described. But since the author of 
 the second book of Samuel expressly says, "These four were 
 born to Rapha, and they fell " (ver. 22), he can have referred 
 in the words, " And they fell by the hand of David," only to 
 the four above mentioned, whether he took the verse in question 
 unaltered from his authority, or himself added n?K njQnjrnx. In 
 the latter case he cannot have added the I^'T^ without some 
 purpose ; in the former, the reference of the "ly^'T? in the " longer 
 section," from which the excerpt is taken, to others than the four 
 giants mentioned, to Goliath perhaps in addition, whom David 
 slew, is rendered impossible by n?x nyanjrnx. The statement, 
 "they fell by the hand of David," does not presuppose that 
 David had slain all of them, or even one of them, with his own 
 liand; for Ta frequently signifies only through, i.e. by means of, 
 and denotes here that those giants fell in wars which David had
 
 CHAP. xxL-xxii. i. 233 
 
 waged with the Philistines that David had been the main cause 
 of their fall, had brought about their death by his servants 
 through the wars he waged. 
 
 CHAP. XXT.-XXII. 1. THE NUMBERING OF THE PEOPLE, THE 
 PESTILENCE, AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE SITE FOR 
 THE TEMPLE (CF. 2 SAM. XXIV.). 
 
 The motive which influenced the king, in causing a census of 
 the men capable of bearing arms throughout the kingdom to be 
 taken in the last year of his reign, has already been discussed in 
 the remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv., where we have also pointed out 
 what it was which was so sinful and displeasing to God in the 
 undertaking. We have, too, in the same place commented upon 
 the various stages of its progress, taking note of the differences 
 which exist between the numbers given in 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, 13, 
 24, and those in our record, vers. 5, 12, 25 ; so that here we 
 need only compare the two accounts somewhat more minutely. 
 They correspond not merely in the main points of their narrative 
 of the event, but in many places make use of the same terms, 
 which shows that they have both been derived from the same 
 source ; but, at the same time, very considerable divergences are 
 found in the conception and representation of the matter. In 
 the very first verse, David's purpose is said in 2d Samuel to be 
 the effect of the divine anger ; in the Chronicle it is the result 
 of the influence of Satan on David. Then, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 4-9, 
 the numbering of the people is narrated at length, while in the 
 Chronicle, vers. 4-6, only the results are recorded, with the 
 remark that Joab did not complete the numbering, Levi and 
 Benjamin not being included, because the king's command was 
 an abomination to him. On the other hand, the Chronicle, in 
 vers. 19-27, narrates the purchase of Araunah's threshing-floor 
 for a place of sacrifice, and gives not merely a more circumstan- 
 tial account of David's offering than we find in Samuel (vers. 
 19-25), but also states, in conclusion (vers. 28-30), the circum- 
 stances which induced David to offer sacrifice even afterwards, 
 on the altar which he had built at the divine command, on the 
 threshing-floor bought of Araunah. The purpose which the author 
 of the Chronicle had in view in making this concluding remark 
 is manifest from ver. I of chap, xxii., which should properly be 
 connected with chap. xxi. : " And David said, Here is the house
 
 234 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of Jahve God, and here the altar for the burnt-offering of Israel." 
 Only in this verse, as Bertheau has correctly remarked, do we 
 find the proper conclusion of the account of the numbering of 
 the people, the pestilence, and the appearance of the angel, and 
 yet it is omitted in the book of Samuel ; " although it is mani- 
 fest from the whole connection, and the way in which the history 
 of David and Solomon is presented in the books of Samuel and 
 Kings, that the account is given there also only to point out the 
 holiness of the place where Solomon built the temple even in 
 the time of David, and to answer the question why that particular 
 place was chosen for the site of the sanctuary." This remark 
 is perfectly just, if it be not understood to mean that the author 
 of our book of Samuel has given a hint of this purpose in his 
 narrative ; for the conclusion of 2 Sam. xxiv. 25, " And Jahve 
 was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed," is irre- 
 concilable with any such idea. This concluding sentence, and 
 the omission of any reference to the temple, or to the appoint- 
 ment of the altar built on the threshing-floor of Araunah to be a 
 place of sacrifice for Israel, and of the introductory words of the 
 narrative, " And again the wrath of Jahve was kindled against 
 Israel, and moved David against them " (2 Sam. xxiv. 1), plainly 
 show that the author of the book of Samuel regarded, and has 
 here narrated, the event as a chastisement of the people of Israel 
 for their rebellion against the divinely chosen king, in the revolts 
 of Absalom and Sheba (cf. the remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv. 1). The 
 author of the Chronicle, again, has without doubt informed us of 
 the numbering of the people, and the pestilence, with its results, 
 with the design of showing how God Himself had chosen and 
 consecrated this spot to be the future place of worship for Israel, 
 by the appearance of the angel, the command given to David 
 through the prophet Gad to build an altar where the angel had 
 appeared, and to sacrifice thereon, and by the gracious acceptance 
 of this offering, fire having come down from heaven to devour it. 
 For this purpose he did not require to give any lengthened 
 account of the numbering of the people, since it was of import- 
 ance to him only as being the occasion of David's humiliation. 
 
 Vers. 17. " And Satan stood up against Israel, and incited 
 David to number Israel." The mention of Satan as the seducer 
 of David is not to be explained merely by the fact that the 
 Israelites in later times traced up everything contrary to God's 
 will to this evil spirit, but in the present case arises from the
 
 CHAP. XXI. 1-7. 235 
 
 author's design to characterize David's purpose from the very 
 beginning as an ungodly thing. Ver. 2. The naming of the *?& 
 DJ?n along with Joab is in accordance with the circumstances, for 
 we learn from 2 Sam. xxiv. 4 that Joab did not carry out the 
 numbering of the people alone, but was assisted by the captains of 
 the host. The object of vS ^^rn, which is not expressed, the 
 result of the numbering, may be supplied from the context. No 
 objection need be taken to the simple EH3 of ver. 3, instead of the 
 double cn^l D?3 in Samuel. The repetition of the same word, 
 "there are so and so many of them," is a peculiarity of the author 
 of the book of Samuel (cf. 2 Sam. xii. 8), while the expression 
 in the Chronicle corresponds to that in Deut. i. 11. With the 
 words 'W ^'ix N?n, " Are they not, my lord king, all my lord's 
 servants," i.e. subject to him ? Joab allays the suspicion that he 
 grudged the king the joy of reigning over a very numerous people. 
 In Sam. ver. 3 the thought takes another turn; and the last 
 clause, " Why should it (the thing or the numbering) become a 
 trespass for Israel ? " is wanting. HOB'K denotes here a trespass 
 which must be atoned for, not one which one commits. The 
 meaning is therefore, Why should Israel expiate thy sin, in seek- 
 ing thy glory in the power and greatness of thy kingdom? On 
 the numbers, ver. 5, see on 2 Sam. xxiv. 9. In commenting on 
 ver. 6, which is not to be found in Samuel, Berth, defends the 
 statement that Joab did not make any muster of the tribes Levi 
 and Benjamin, against the objections of de Wette and Gram- 
 berg, as it is done in my apologet. Versuche, S. 349 ff., by show- 
 ing that the tribe of Levi was by law (cf. Num. i. 47-54) 
 exempted from the censuses of the people taken for political 
 purposes; and the tribe of Benjamin was not numbered, because 
 David, having become conscious of his sin, stopped the number- 
 ing before it was completed (cf. also the remarks on 2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 9). The reason given, " for the king's word was an 
 abomination unto Joab," is certainly the subjective opinion of 
 the historian, but is shown to be well founded by the circum- 
 stances, for Joab disapproved of the king's design from the 
 beginning ; cf . ver. 3 (Samuel and Chronicles). In ver. 7, the 
 author of the Chronicle, instead of ascribing the confession of 
 sin on David's part which follows to the purely subjective 
 motive stated in the words, " and David's heart smote him," i.e. 
 his conscience (Sam. ver. 10a), has ascribed the turn matters 
 took to objective causes: the thing displeased God; and antici-
 
 236 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 pating the course of events, he remarks straightway, " and He 
 (God) smote Israel." This, however, is no reason for thinking, 
 with Berth., that the words have arisen out of a misinterpreta- 
 tion or alteration of 2 Sam. xxiv. 10a; for such anticipatory 
 remarks, embracing the contents of the succeeding verses, not 
 unfrequently occur in the historical books (cf. e.g. 1 Kings vi. 
 14, vii. 2). In reference to vers. 810, see on 2 Sam. xxiv. 
 10-16. In ver. 12, nsw has not come into the text by mistake 
 or by misreading 1p3 (Sam. ver. 13), but is original, the author 
 of the Chronicle describing the two latter evils more at length 
 than Samuel does. The word is not a participle, but a noun 
 formed from the participle, with the signification " perishing " 
 (the being snatched away). The second parallel clause, " the 
 sword of thine enemies to attaining" (so that it reach thee), serves 
 to intensify. So also in reference to the third evil, the nirp :rin 
 which precedes p.?? ">?!!, and the parallel clause added to both : 
 " and the angel of the Lord destroying in the whole domain of 
 Israel." Ver. 15. lm vb *!$ &$>*$ n rf?!, "And God sent an 
 angel towards Jerusalem," gives no suitable sense. Not because 
 of the improbability that God sent the angel with the commission 
 to destroy Jerusalem, and at the same moment gives the contrary 
 command, " Stay now," etc. (Berth.) ; for the reason of this 
 change is given in the intermediate clause, " and at the time of 
 the destroying the Lord repented it," and command and prohibi- 
 tion are not given "at the same moment;" but the difficulty lies 
 in the indefinite ^]N? (without the article). For since the angel 
 of Jahve is mentioned in ver. 12 as the bringer of the pestilence, 
 in our verse, if it treats of the sending of this angel to execute 
 the judgment spoken of, t\*?n must necessarily be used, or nx 
 TjKpsn, as in ver. 16 ; the indefinite ^Npo can by no means be 
 used for it. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 we read, instead of the words in 
 
 L t 
 
 question, f ^N?E>n i^ T nptJ^, "and the angel stretched out his hand 
 towards Jerusalem;" and Bertheau thinks that the reading B^^n 
 (in the Chron.) has arisen out of that, by the letters n IT being 
 exchanged for mm, and DTita being substituted for this divine 
 name, as is often the case in the Chronicle ; while Movers, S. 91, 
 on the contrary, considers the reading of the Chronicle to be origi- 
 nal, and would read niiT 1 npK* in Samuel. But in that way Movers 
 leaves the omission of the article before ^r"? in the Chronicle 
 unexplained ; and Bertheau's conjecture is opposed by the impro- 
 bability of such a misunderstanding of a phrase so frequent and
 
 CHAP. XXI. 16-26. 237 
 
 so unmistakeable as iT n?B^ as would lead to the exchange sup- 
 posed, ever occurring. But besides that, in Samuel the simple 
 :]stan is strange, for the angel has not been spoken of there at 
 all before, and the LXX. have consequently explained the some- 
 what obscure ^NpDn by o ayy&os rov &eov. This explanation 
 suggests the way in which the reading of our text arose. The 
 author of the Chronicle, although he had already made mention 
 of the mrr TJ^D in ver. 12, wrote in ver. 15 B'r6sn *JSD rta^i, 
 " the angel of God stretched (his hand) out towards Jerusalem," 
 using DT6xn instead of Din 11 , as, for example, in Judg. vi. 20, 
 22, xiii. 6, 9, and 13, 15, 17. D'r6n tj^D alternates with sjKbo 
 ftWj and omitting iT with nptj^ as is often done, e.g. 2 Sam. vi. 6, 
 Ps. xviii. 17, etc. By a copyist Tjxta and DTi^n have been trans- 
 posed, and ^N? was then taken by the Masoretes for an accusa- 
 tive, and pointed accordingly. The expression is made clearer 
 by JVnc'roij " And as he destroyed, Jahve saw, and it repented 
 Him of the evil." The idea is : Just as the angel had begun to 
 destroy Jerusalem, it repented God. 3"}, adverb, "enough," as in 
 1 Kings xix. 4, etc., with a dativ. commodi, Deut. i. 6, etc. Ber- 
 theau has incorrectly denied this meaning of the word, connecting 
 2T with DJD in 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, and desiring to alter our text to 
 make it conform to that. In 2d Samuel also 3! is an adverb, 
 as Thenius also acknowledges. 
 
 Vers. 16-26. The account of David's repentant beseeching of 
 the Lord to turn away the primitive judgment, and the word of 
 the Lord proclaimed to him by the prophet, commanding him to 
 build an altar to the Lord in the place where the destroying angel 
 visibly appeared, together with the cariying out of this divine 
 command by the purchase of Araunah's threshing-floor, the erec- 
 tion of an altar, and the offering of burnt-offering, is given more 
 at length in the Chronicle than in 2 Sam. xxiv. 17-25, where only 
 David's negotiation with Araunah is more circumstantially nar- 
 rated than in the Chronicle. In substance both accounts perfectly 
 correspond, except that in the Chronicle several subordinate cir- 
 cumstances are preserved, which, as being minor points, are passed 
 over in Samuel. In ver. 16, the description of the angel's appear- 
 ance, that he had a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over 
 Jerusalem, and the statement that David and the elders, clad 
 in sackcloth (garments indicating repentance), fell down before 
 the Lord ; in ver. 20, the mention of Oman's (Araunah's) sons, 
 who hid themselves on beholding the angel, and of the fact that
 
 238 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Oman was engaged in threshing wheat when David came to him ; 
 and the statement in ver. 26, that fire came down from heaven 
 upon the altar, are examples of such minor points. We have 
 already commented on this section in our remarks on 2 Sam. xxiv. 
 17-25, and the account in the Chronicle is throughout correct 
 and easily understood. Notwithstanding this, however, Bertheau, 
 following Thenius and Bottcher, conjectures that the text is in 
 several verses corrupt, and wishes to correct them by 2d Samuel. 
 But these critics are misled by the erroneous presumption with 
 which they entered upon the interpretation of the Chronicle, that 
 the author of it used as his authority, and revised, our Masoretic 
 text of the second book of Samuel. Under the influence of this 
 prejudice, emendations are proposed which are stamped with their 
 own unlikelihood, and rest in part even on misunderstandings of 
 the narrative in the book of Samuel. Of this one or two illus- 
 trations will be sufficient. Any one who compares ver. 17 (Sam.) 
 with vers. 16 and 17 of the Chronicle, without any pre-formed 
 opinions, will see that what is there (Sam.) concisely expressed is 
 more clearly narrated in the Chronicle. The beginning of ver. 
 17, "And David spake unto Jahve," is entirely without con- 
 nection, as the thought which forms the transition from ver. 1 6 
 to ver. 17, viz. that David was moved by the sight of the destroy- 
 ing angel to pray to God that the destruction might be turned 
 away, is only brought in afterwards in the subordinate clause, " on 
 seeing the angel." This abrupt form of expression is got rid of 
 in the Chronicle by the clause : " And David lifted up his eyes, 
 and saw the angel . . . and fell . . . upon his face ; and David spake 
 to God." That which in Samuel is crushed away into an infini- 
 tive clause subordinate to the principal sentence, precedes in the 
 Chronicle, and is circumstantially narrated. Under these circum- 
 stances, of course, the author of the Chronicle could not after- 
 wards in ver. 17 make use of the clause, " on seeing the angel 
 who smote the people," without tautology. Berth., on the con- 
 trary, maintains that ver. 16 is an interpolation of the chronicler, 
 and proposes then to cull out from the words and letters inxna 
 Djn naon ijxfon DK (Sam.), the words ayi 'nue& TOOK inana 
 (Chron. ver. 17), great use being made in the process of the 
 ever ready auxiliaries, mistakes, and a text which has become 
 obscure. This is one example out of many. Ver. 16 of the 
 Chronicle is not an addition which the Chronicle has interpolated 
 between vers. 16 and 17 of Samuel, but a more detailed representa-
 
 CHAP. XXI. 16-26, 239 
 
 tion of the historical course of things. No mention is made in 2d 
 Samuel of the drawn sword in the angel's hand, because there the 
 whole story is very concisely narrated. This detail need not have 
 been borrowed from Num. xxii. 23, for the drawn sword is a sen- 
 sible sign that the angel's mission is punitive ; and the angel, who 
 is said to have visibly appeared in 2d Samuel also, could be recog- 
 nised as the bearer of the judicial pestilence only by this emblem, 
 such recognition being plainly the object of his appearance. The 
 mention of the elders along with David as falling on their faces 
 in prayer, clad in sackcloth, will not surprise any reader or critic 
 who considers that in the case of so fearful a pestilence the king 
 would not be alone in praying God to turn away the judgment. 
 Besides, from the mention of the ^I^JJ of the king who went 
 with David to Oman (Sam. ver. 20), we learn that the king did 
 not by himself take steps to turn away the plague, but did so 
 along with his servants. In the narrative in 2d Samuel, which con- 
 fines itself to the main point, the elders are not mentioned, because 
 only of David was it recorded that his confession of sin brought 
 about the removal of the plague. Just as little can we be sur- 
 prised that David calls his command to number the people the 
 delictum by which he had brought the judgment of the plague 
 upon himself. To alter "12*13, ver. 19, into ^?*13 ? as Berth, wishes, 
 would show little intelligence. ">?"|3, at Gad's word David went 
 up, is proved by Num. xxxi. 16 to be good Hebrew, and is per- 
 fectly suitable. Ver. 20. }3">K 3^*., " and Oman turned him 
 about," is translated by Berth, incorrectly, " then Oman turned 
 back," who then builds on this erroneous interpretation, which is 
 contrary to the context, a whole nest of conjectures. 3^1 is said 
 to have arisen out of *!??":?, the succeeding 'HKpfirj out of =1^0, 
 toy VJ3 njany out of vb nnrfy V*13J> (Sam. ver. 20), " by mistake 
 and further alteration." In saying this, however, he himself has 
 not perceived that ver. 20 (Sam.) does not correspond to the 20th 
 verse of the Chronicle at all, but to the 21st verse, where the 
 words, " and Araunah looked out (fjpe*) and saw the king," are 
 parallel to the words, " and Oman looked (B3*) and saw David." 
 The 20th verse of the Chronicle contains a statement which is 
 not found in Samuel, that Oman (Araunah), while threshing 
 with his four sons, turned and saw the angel, and being terrified 
 at the sight, hid himself with his sons. After that, David with 
 his train came from Zion to the threshing-floor in Mount Moriah, 
 and Araunah looking out saw the king, and came out of the
 
 240 THE FIRST BOOK -OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 threshing-floor to meet him, with deep obeisance. This narrative 
 contains nothing improbable, nothing to justify us in having re- 
 course to critical conjecture. Ver. 24. The infinitive ni?J?n is very 
 frequently used in Hebrew as the continuation of the verb, fin., 
 and is found in all the books of the Old Testament (cf. the collec- 
 tion of passages illustrative of this peculiar form of brief expres- 
 sion, which Ew. gives, 351, c), and that not only with regard to 
 the infin. absol., but the infin. constr. also. David's answer to 
 Oman's offer to give him the place for the altar, and the cattle, 
 plough, and wheat for the burnt-offering, was therefore : " NJ, 
 I will buy it for full price ; I will not take what belongs to .hee 
 for Jahve, and bring burnt-offerings without cost," i.e. -..ithout 
 having paid the price for them. Ver. 25. As to the different 
 statements of the price, cf. on 2 Sam. xxiv. 24. 
 
 Vers. 26-30. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 25 the conclusion of this event 
 is shortly narrated thus : David offered burnt-offerings and peace- 
 offerings, and Jahve was entreated for the land, and the plague 
 was stayed from Israel. In the Chronicle we have a fuller state- 
 ment of the niiT 1 "iny* in ver. 26>. David called upon Jahve, 
 and He answered with fire from heaven upon the altar of burnt- 
 offering (ver. 27); and Jahve spake to the angel, and he returned 
 the sword into its sheath. The returning of the sword into its 
 sheath is a figurative expression for the stopping of the pestilence ; 
 and the fire which came down from heaven upon the altar of 
 burnt-offering was the visible sign by which the Lord assured 
 the king that his prayer had been heard, and his offering 
 graciously accepted. The reality of this sign of the gracious 
 acceptance of an offering is placed beyond doubt by the analogous 
 cases, Lev. ix. 24, 1 Kings xviii. 24, 38, and 2 Chron. vii. 1. It 
 was only by this sign of the divine complacence that David learnt 
 that the altar built upon the threshing-floor of Araunah had been 
 chosen by the Lord as the place where Israel should always 
 thereafter offer their burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as is further 
 recorded in vers. 2830 and in xxii. 1. From the cessation of 
 the pestilence in consequence of his prayer and sacrifice, David 
 could only draw the conclusion that God had forgiven him his 
 transgression, but could not have known that God had chosen 
 the place where he had built the altar for the offering demanded 
 by God as a permanent place of sacrifice. This certainly he 
 obtained only by the divine answer, and this answer was the fire 
 which came down upon the altar of burnt-offering and devoured
 
 CHAP. XXI. 26-30. 241 
 
 the sacrifice. This ver. 28 states : " At the time when he saw 
 that Jahve had answered him at the threshing-floor of Oman, 
 he offered sacrifice there," i.e. from that time forward ; so that we 
 may with Berth, translate D^ nan, " then he was wont to offer 
 sacrifice there." In vers. 29 and 30 we have still further reasons 
 given for David's continuing to offer sacrifices at the threshing- 
 floor of Oman. The legally sanctioned place of sacrifice for 
 Israel was still at that time the tabernacle, the Mosaic sanc- 
 tuary with its altar of burnt-offering, which then stood on the 
 high place at Gibeon (cf. xvi. 39). Now David had indeed 
 brought the ark of the covenant, which had been separated from 
 the tabernacle from the time of Samuel, to Zion, and had there 
 not only erected a tent for it, but had also built an altar and 
 established a settled worship there (chap, xvii.), yet without 
 having received any express command of God regarding it ; so 
 that this place of worship was merely provisional, intended to 
 continue only until the Lord Himself should make known His 
 will in the matter in some definite way. When therefore David, 
 after the conquest of his enemies, had obtained rest round about, 
 he had formed the resolution to make an end of this provisional 
 separation of the ark from the tabernacle, and the existence of 
 two sacrificial altars, by building a temple ; but the Lord had 
 declared to him by the prophet Nathan, that not he, but his son 
 and successor on the throne, should build Him a temple. The 
 altar by the ark in Zion, therefore, continued to co-exist along 
 with the altar of burnt-offering at the tabernacle in Gibeon, 
 without being sanctioned by God as the place of sacrifice for the 
 congregation of Israel. Then when David, by ordering the 
 numbering of the people, had brought guilt upon the nation, 
 which the Lord so heavily avenged upon them by the pestilence, 
 he should properly, as king, have offered a sin-offering and a 
 burnt-offering in the national sanctuary at Gibeon, and there 
 have sought the divine favour for himself and for the whole 
 people. But the Lord said unto him by the prophet Gad, that 
 he should bring his offering neither in Gibeon, nor before the 
 ark on Zion, but in the threshing-floor of Oman (Araunah), on 
 the altar which he was there to erect. This command, however, 
 did not settle the place where he was afterwards to sacrifice. But 
 David so it runs, ver. 29 f. sacrificed thenceforward in the 
 threshing-floor of Oman, not at Gibeon in the still existent 
 national sanctuary, because he (according to ver. 30) " could not 
 
 Q
 
 242 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 go before it (l^B?) to seek God, for he was terrified before the 
 sword of the angel of Jahve." This statement does not, how- 
 ever, mean, ex terrore visionis angelicce infirmitatem corporis con- 
 traxerat (J. H. Mich.), nor yet, " because he, being struck and 
 overwhelmed by the appearance of the angel, did not venture to 
 offer sacrifices elsewhere " (Berth.), nor, " because the journey 
 to Gibeon was too long for him " (O. v. Gerl.). None of these 
 interpretations suit either the words or the context. ^B njHi 
 yin, terrified before the sword, does indeed signify that the 
 sword of the angel, or the angel with the sword, hindered him 
 from going to Gibeon, but not during the pestilence, when the 
 angel stood between heaven and earth by the threshing-floor of 
 Araunah with the drawn sword, but according to the context 
 afterwards, when the angelophany had ceased, as it doubtless did 
 simultaneously with the pestilence. The words ; W rty33 *3 can 
 therefore have no other meaning, than that David's terror before 
 the sword of the angel caused him to determine to sacrifice there- 
 after, not at Gibeon, but at the threshing-floor of Araunah ; or 
 that, since during the pestilence the angel's sword had prevented 
 him from going to Gibeon, he did not venture ever afterwards 
 to go. But the fear before the sword of the angel is in sub- 
 stance the terror of the pestilence ; and the pestilence had hin- 
 dered him from sacrificing at Gibeon, because Gibeon, notwith- 
 standing the presence of the sanctuary there, with the Mosaic 
 altar, had not been spared by the pestilence. David considered 
 this circumstance as normative ever for the future, and he always 
 afterwards offered his sacrifices in the place pointed out to him, 
 and said, as we further read in chap. xxii. 1, " Here (s*n nr, pro- 
 perly this, mas. or neut.) is the house of Jahve God, and here 
 is the altar for the burnt-offering of Israel." He calls the site of 
 the altar in the threshing-floor of Araunah mri* IVa, because there 
 Jahve had manifested to him His gracious presence ; cf . Gen. 
 xxviii. 17. 
 
 CHAP. XXII. 2-19. DAVID S PREPARATIONS FOR THE BUILDING 
 OF THE TEMPLE. 
 
 With this chapter commences the second section of the his- 
 tory of David's kingship, viz. the account of the preparations, 
 dispositions, and arrangements which he made in the last years 
 of his reign for the establishment of his kingdom in the future
 
 CHAP. XXII. 2-5. 243 
 
 under his successors (see above, p. 169 ff.). All these prepara- 
 tions and dispositions had reference to the firm establishment of 
 the public worship of the Lord, in which Israel, as the people 
 and congregation of Jahve, might show its faithfulness to the 
 covenant, so as to become partakers of the divine protection, and 
 the blessing which was promised. To build the temple this 
 desire the Lord had not indeed granted the fulfilment of to David, 
 but He had given him the promise that his son should carry out 
 that work. The grey-haired king accordingly made preparations, 
 after the site of the house of God which should be built had been 
 pointed out to him, such as would facilitate the execution of the 
 work by his successor. Of these preparations our chapter treats, 
 and in it w r e have an account how David provided the necessary 
 labour and materials for the building of the temple (vers. 2-5), 
 committed the execution of the work in a solemn way to his son 
 Solomon (vers. 6-16), and called upon the chiefs of the people to 
 give him their support in the work (vers. 17-19). 
 
 Vers. 2-5. Workmen and materials for the building of the 
 temple. Ver. 2. In order to procure the necessary workmen, 
 David commanded that the strangers in the land of Israel should 
 be gathered together, and, as we learn from 2 Chron. ii. 16, also 
 numbered. E' 1 "!?.'?, the strangers, are the descendants of the 
 Canaanites whom the Israelites had not destroyed when they 
 took possession of the land, but had reduced to bondage (2 Chron. 
 viii. 7-9 ; 1 Kings ix. 20-22). This number was so considerable, 
 that Solomon was able to employ 150,000 of them as labourers and 
 stone-cutters (1 Kings v. 29 ; 2 Chron. ii. 16 f.). These strangers 
 David appointed to be stone-cutters, to hew squared stones, JVta \32K 
 (see on 1 Kings v. 31). Ver. 3. Iron and brass he prepared in 
 abundance : the iron for the nails of the doors, i.e. for the folding- 
 doors of the gates, i.e. partly for the pivots (Zapfeii) on which the 
 folding-doors turned, partly to strengthen the boards of which doors 
 were made ; as also for the nhanrp, literally, things to connect, i.e. 
 properly iron cramps. Ver. 4. The Tyrians sent him cedar trees 
 or beams in abundance, probably in exchange for grain, wine, and 
 fruit of various sorts, which the Phoenicians obtained from the 
 Israelites ; cf . Movers, Phonizier, iii. 1, S. 88 ff. Sidonians and 
 Tyrians are named to denote the Phoenicians generally, as in 
 Ezra iii. 7. When Solomon began to build the temple, he made 
 a regular treaty with Hiram king of Tyre about the delivery of 
 the necessary cedar wood, 1 Kings v. 15 ff. Ver. 5 gives in
 
 244 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 substance the reason of what precedes, although it is connected 
 with it only by 1 consec. Because his son Solomon was still in 
 tender youth, and the building to be executed was an exceedingly 
 great work, David determined to make considerable preparation 
 before his death. ^J *W, puer et tener, repeated in xxix. 1, 
 indicates a very early age. Solomon could not then be quite 
 twenty years old, as he was born only after the Syro- Ammonite 
 war (see on 2 Sam. xii. 24), and calls himself at the com- 
 mencement of his reign still |bj3 1JJ3 (1 Kings iii. 7). The word 
 ">P may of itself denote not merely a boy, but also a grown 
 youth ; but here it is limited to the boyish age by the addition of 
 1J"3J. Berth, wrongly compares Ex. xxxiii. 11, where "TW denotes 
 not a boy, but a lad, i.e. a servant. In the succeeding clause 
 mrr? niinp is to be taken relatively : and the house which is to bo 
 built to the Lord is to be made great exceedingly ( n -?J>?, see 
 on xiv. 2), for a name and glory for all lands, i.e. that it might 
 be to the Lord for whom it should be built for an honour and 
 glory in all lands. ^ N3 n ^K, I will ( = therefore will I) pre- 
 pare for him (Solomon), scil. whatever I can prepare to forward 
 this great work. 
 
 Vers. 6-16. Solomon commissioned to build the temple. Ver. 
 6. Before his death (ver. 5) David called his son Solomon, in 
 order to commit to him the building of the temple, and to press 
 it strongly upon him, vers. 7-10. With this design, he informs 
 him that it had been his intention to build a temple to the Lord, 
 but the Lord had not permitted him to carry out this resolve, 
 but had committed it to his son. The Keri ^3 (ver. 7) is, not- 
 withstanding the general worthlessness of the corrections in the 
 Keri, probably to be preferred here to the Keth. ^3, for ^3 might 
 have easily arisen by the copyist's eye having wandered to nbi>K>p 
 fa3j ver. 6. David's addressing him as ^3 is very fitting, nay, 
 even necessary, and not contrary to the following W. "^ip DV, it 
 was with my heart, i.e. I had intended, occurs indeed very often 
 in the Chronicle, e.g. xxviii. 2, 2 Chron. i. 11, vi. 7 f., ix. 1, 
 xxiv. 4, xxix. 10, but is also found in other books where the 
 sense demands it, e.g. Josh. xiv. 7, 1 Kings viii. 17 f., x. 2. In 
 ^V <l| "?~> There came to me the word of Jahve (ver. 8), it is 
 implied that the divine word was given to him as a command. 
 The reason which David gives why the Lord did not allow him 
 to build the temple is not stated in chap. xvii. (2 Sam. vii.), to 
 which David here refers ; instead of the reason, only the promise
 
 CHAP. XXII. C-1G. 245 
 
 is there communicated, that the Lord would first build him a 
 house, and enduringly establish his throne. This promise does 
 not exclude the reason stated here and in chap, xxviii. 3, but 
 rather implies it. As the temple was only to be built when God 
 had enduringly established the throne of David, David could not 
 execute this work, for he still had to conduct wars wars, too, of 
 the Lord for the establishment of his kingdom, as Solomon also 
 states it in his embassy to Hiram. Wars and bloodshed, how- 
 ever, are unavoidable and necessary in this earth for the establish- 
 ment of the kingdom of God in opposition to its enemies, but are 
 not consonant with its nature, as it was to receive a visible 
 embodiment and expression in the temple. For the kingdom of 
 God is in its essence a kingdom of peace ; and battle, or war, or 
 struggle, are only means for the restoration of peace, the recon- 
 ciliation of mankind with God after the conquest of sin and all 
 that is hostile to God in this world. See on 2 Sam. vii. 11. 
 David, therefore, the man of war, is not to build the temple, but 
 (ver. 9 f .) his son ; and to him the Lord will give peace from 
 all his enemies, so that he shall be nrwp E^tf, a man of rest, and 
 shall rightly bear the name Shelomo (Solomon), i.e. Friederich 
 (rich in peace, Eng. Frederick), for God would give to Israel in 
 his days, i.e. in his reign, peace and rest (Bi?.?'). The participle 
 1?iJ after nan has the signification of the future, shall be born ; 
 cf. 1 Kings xiii. 2. nrmp t^N, not a man who procures peace 
 (Jer. li. 59), but one who enjoys peace, as the following 1? 'flirwrn 
 shows. As to the name nbSc', see on 2 Sam. xii. 24. Into ver. 
 10 David compresses the promise contained in chap. xvii. 12 and 
 13. Ver. 11. After David had so committed to his son Solomon 
 the building of the temple, a task reserved and destined for him 
 by the divine counsel, he wishes him, in ver. 11, the help of the 
 Lord to carry out the work. Jpnpxrn, ut prospere agas et felici sue- 
 cessu utaris (J. M. Mich.), cf. Josh. i. 8. ?V "isn of a command from 
 
 L ""* " 
 
 on high ; cf. vV, ver. 8. Above all, however, he wishes (ver. 12) 
 him right understanding and insight from God (n^i ?3B>, so con- 
 nected in 2 Chron. ii. 11 also), and that God may establish him 
 over Israel, i.e. furnish him with might and wisdom to rule over 
 the people Israel; cf. 2 Sam. vii. 11. "&*?*) "to observe" = 
 and mayest thou observe the law of Jahve ; not thou must keep 
 (Berth.), for ">iE?l is to be regarded as a continuation of the 
 verb. fait. ; cf. Ew.' 351, c, S.^840. Ver. 13. The condition of 
 obtaining the result is the faithful observing of the commands of
 
 i.' 1 fi THE FIRST BOOK OP CHRONICLES. 
 
 the Lord. Tho speech is filled with reminiscences of the law, cf. 
 Dent. vii. 11, xi. 32 ; and for the exhortation to be strong and of 
 good courage, cf. Deut. xxxi. 6, Josh i. 7, 9, etc. 
 
 In conclusion (vers. 14-16), David mentions what materials 
 he has prepared for the building of the temple. V?V?> not > ' n mv 
 poverty (LXX., Vulg., Luth.), but, by my painful labour (tmym 
 molcstta et laborc, Lavat.) ; cf. Gen. x\\i. 12, and the correspond- 
 ing 'nte-bas, chap. xxix. 2. Gold 100,000 talents, and silver 
 1,000,000 talents. As the talent was 3000 shekels, and the 
 silver shekel coined by the Maccabees, according to the Mosaic 
 weight, was worth about 2s. 6d., the talent of silver would be 
 about 375, and 1,000,000 talents 375,000,000. If we suppose 
 the relative value of the gold and silver to be as 10 to 1, 
 100,000 talents of gold will be about the same amount, or even 
 more, viz. about 450,000,000, i.e. if we take the gold shekel at 
 thirty shillings, according to Thenius* calculation. Such sums as 
 eight hundred or eight hundred and twenty-five millions of pounds 
 are incredible. The statements, indeed, are not founded upon exact 
 calculation or weighing, but, as the round numbers show, only 
 upon a general valuation of those masses of the precious metals, 
 which we must not think of as bars of silver and gold, or as 
 coined money ; for they were in great part vessels of gold and 
 silver, partly booty captured in war, partly tribute derived from 
 the subject peoples. Making all these allowances, however, the 
 sums mentioned are incredibly great, since we must suppose that 
 even a valuation in round numbers will have more or less corre- 
 spondence to the actual weight, and a subtraction of some thou- 
 sands of talents from the sums mentioned would make no ferj 
 considerable diminution. On the other hand, it is a much more 
 important circumstance that the above estimate of the value in 
 our money of these talents of silver rests upon a presumption, 
 the correctness of which is open to well-founded doubts. For in 
 that calculation the weight of the Mosaic or holy shekel is taken 
 as the standard, and it is presumed that the talents weighed .'U)00 
 Mosaic shekels. But wo find in 2 Sam. xiv. 26 mention made 
 in David's time of another shekel, " according to the king's 
 weight," whence we may with certainty conclude that in common 
 life another shekel than the. Mosaic or holy shekel was in use. 
 This shekel according to the king's weight was in all probability 
 only half as heavy as the shekel of the sanctuary, /'.,-. \\as equal 
 in weight to a Mosaic beka or half-shekel. This is proved by a
 
 U>. XXIf. fi-lG. '-'-17 
 
 comparison of 1 Kings x. 17 with 2 Cliron. ix. 16, for here t! 
 golden inin.'r: are reckoned equal to 300 shekels, a mina con- 
 taining 100 shekels, while it contained only 50 holy or Mosaic 
 shekels. With this view, too, the statements of the Kabbins agree, 
 e.y. It. Mosis Maimonidis cowtitutionea de Siclis, qua* illustravit 
 Joa. Esyer. t Lugd. Bat. 171-S, p. 1'.), according to which the hpv 
 Sr6s> or runon hy&, i.e. the common or civil shekel, is the half 
 of : he enpn ^ps?. That this is the true relation, is confirmed by 
 the fact that, according to Ex. xxxviii. 26, in the time of Moses 
 there existed silver coins weighing ten gera (half a holy shekel) 
 called beka, while the name beka is found only in the Penta- 
 teuch, and disappears at a later time, probably because it was 
 mainly such silver coins of ten gera which were in circulation, 
 and to them the name shekel, which denotes no definite weight, 
 was transferred. Now, if the amounts stated in our verse are 
 reckoned in such common shekels (as in 2 Chron. ix. 16), the 
 mass of gold and silver collected by David for the building of the 
 temple would only be worth half the amount above calculated, i.e. 
 about 375,000,000 or 400,000,000. But even this sum seems 
 enormously large, for it is five times the annual expenditure of 
 the greatest European states in our day. 1 Yet the calculation of 
 the income or expenditure of modern states is no proper standard 
 for judging of the correctness or probability of the statements here 
 made, for we cannot estimate the accumulation of gold and silver 
 in the states and chief cities of Asia in antiquity by the budgets 
 of the modern European nations. In the capitals of the Asiatic 
 kingdoms of antiquity, enormous quantities of the precious metals 
 were accumulated. Not to mention the accounts of Ktesias, 
 Diodor. Sic., and others, which sound so fabulous to us now, as 
 to the immense booty in gold and silver vessels which was accu- 
 mulated in Nineveh and Babylon (see the table in Movers, die 
 I J /tonizier, ii. 3, S. 40 ff.), according to Varro, in Pliny, Hint. 
 Nat. xxxii. 15, Cyrus obtained by the conquest of Asia a 
 booty of 3 1,000 pounds of gold, besides that which was wrought 
 into vessels and ornaments, and 500,000 talents of silver; and 
 in this statement, as Movers rightly remarks, it does not seem 
 
 ording to Otto Hiibner, Statistical Talk of all Lands of (he Earth, 
 iHth edition, Fnmkf. a. Nf. 1 <>;(', the yearly expenditure of Great Britain and 
 Ireland (Vxr]nriiYe of the extr ><e8sionfl) amounts to a 
 
 over i , <)0 ; of the Frei. > ; of Kussia, to about 
 
 78,OOU,txiO ; of Austria and Hungary, to 48,500,000.
 
 248 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 probable that there is any exaggeration. In Susa, Alexander 
 plundered the royal treasury of 40,000, according to other ac- 
 counts 50,000 talents, or, as it is more accurately stated, 40,000 
 talents of uncoined gold and silver, and 9000 talents in coined 
 darics. These he caused to be brought to Ecbatana, where he 
 accumulated in all 180,000 talents. In Persepolis he captured a 
 booty of 120,000 talents, and in Pasargada 6000 talents (see Mov. 
 loc. cit. S. 43). Now David, it is true, had not conquered Asia, 
 but only the tribes and kingdoms bordering on Canaan, including 
 the kingdom of Syria, and made them tributary, and had conse- 
 crated all the gold and silver taken as booty from the conquered 
 peoples, from the Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, 
 Amalekites, and Hadadezer the king of Zobah (2 Sam. viii. 11 f .), 
 to Jahve. Now, in consequence of the ancient connection between 
 Syria and the rich commercial countries of the neighbourhood, 
 great treasures of silver and gold had very early flowed in thither. 
 According to 2 Sam. viii. 7, the servants (i.e. generals) of King 
 Hadadezer had golden shields, which David captured ; and the 
 ambassadors of King Toi of Hamath brought him vessels of silver, 
 gold, and copper, to purchase his friendship. 1 The other peoples 
 whom David overcame are not to be regarded as poor in the precious 
 metals. For the Israelites under Moses had captured so large a 
 booty in gold rings, bracelets, and other ornaments from the nomadic 
 Midianites, that the commanders of the army alone were able to give 
 16,750 shekels (i.e. over 5^- talents of gold, according to the Mosaic 
 weight) to the sanctuary as a consecrating offering (Num. xxxi. 
 48 ff.). We cannot therefore regard the sums mentioned in our 
 verse either as incredible or very much exaggerated, 2 nor hold 
 
 1 Apropos of the riches of Syria even in later times, Movers reminds us, 
 S. 45, of the rich temple treasures of the statue of Jupiter in Antioch, 
 which was of pure gold and fifteen yards high, and of the golden statues in 
 the temple at Hierapolis and adds : " Even Antiochus the Great had immense 
 treasures in his possession. The private soldiers in his army had their half- 
 boots studded with gold nails, and their cooking utensils were of silver." See 
 the proofs, loc. cit. 
 
 2 As Berth, for example does, expressing himself as follows: " In our verse, 
 100,000 talents of gold, 1,000,000 talents of silver, a sum with which the debts 
 of the European nations might almost be paid ! It is absolutely inadmissible 
 to take these at their literal value, and to consider them as a repetition, 
 though perhaps a somewhat exaggerated one, of actual historical statements. 
 They can have been originally nothing else than the freest periphrasis for 
 much, an extraordinary quantity, such as may even yet be heard from the 
 mouths of those who have not reflected on the value and importance of num-
 
 CHAP. XXII. 6-1G. 249 
 
 the round sums which correspond to the rhetorical character of 
 the passage with certainty to be mistakes. 1 Brass and iron were 
 not weighed for abundance ; cf. ver. 3. Beams of timber also, 
 and stones that is, stones hewed and squared David had pre- 
 pared ; and to this store Solomon was to add. That he did so 
 is narrated in 2 Chron. chap. ii. Ver. 15. David then turns to 
 the workmen, the carpenters and stone-cutters, whom he had 
 appointed (ver. 2) for the building. B^yh, properly hewers, in 
 ver. 2 limited to stone-hewers, is here, with the addition 1?N *Knn 
 }'V1, used of the workers in stone and wood, stonemasons and car- 
 penters. '3 B2rr?3, all manner of understanding persons in each 
 work, in contradistinction to n3N7 T'V, includes the idea of 
 thorough mastery and skill in the kind of labour. These work- 
 men, whom David had levied for the building of the temple, are 
 mentioned by Solomon, 2 Chron. ii. 6 f. In ver. 16 all the 
 metals, as being the main thing, are again grouped together, in 
 order that the exhortation to proceed with the erection of the 
 
 bers, and consequently launch out into thousands and hundreds of thousands, 
 in an extremely unprejudiced way." On this we remark : (1) The assertion 
 that with the sums named in our verse the debts of the European nations could 
 be paid, is an enormous exaggeration. According to 0. Hiibner's tables, the 
 national debt of Great Britain and Ireland alone amounts to 809,000,000, 
 that of France to 564,000,000, that of Russia to 400,000,000, that of Austria 
 to 354,000,000, and that of the kingdom of Italy to 288,000,000 ; David's 
 treasures, consequently, if the weight be taken in sacred shekels, would only 
 have sufficed to pay the national debt of Great Britain and Ireland. (2) The 
 hypothesis that the chronicler, without reflecting on the value and importance 
 of numbers, has launched out into thousands and hundreds of thousands, pre- 
 supposes such a measure of intellectual poverty as is irreconcilable with evi- 
 dences of intellect and careful planning such as are everywhere else observable 
 in his writing. 
 
 1 As proof of the incorrectness of the above numbers, it cannot be adduced 
 " that, according to 1 Kings x. 14, Solomon's yearly revenue amounted to 666 
 talents of gold, i.e. to about 3,000,000 in gold ; that the queen of Sheba 
 presented Solomon with 120 talents of gold, 1 Kings x. 10, 2 Chron. ix. 9 ; 
 and King Hiram also gave him a similar amount, 1 Kings ix. 14 ; all of which 
 sums the context shows are to be considered extraordinarily great" (Berth.). 
 For the 666 talents of gold are not the entire annual income of Solomon, but, 
 according to the distinct statement of the Biblical historian, are only the 
 annual income in gold, exclusive of the receipts from the customs, and the 
 tributes of the subject kings and tribes, which were probably more valuable. 
 The 120 talents of the queen of Sheba are certainly a very large present, but 
 Solomon would give in return not inconsiderable presents also. But the 
 quantities of silver and gold which David had collected for the building of the 
 temple had not been saved out of his yearly income, but had been in great
 
 250 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 building may be introduced. The ? before each word serves to 
 bring the thing once more into prominence ; cf . Ew. 310, a. " As 
 for the gold, it cannot be numbered." " Arise and be doing ! 
 and Jahve be with thee" (vers. 17-19). 
 
 Vers. 17-19. Exhortation to the princes of Israel to assist in 
 the building of the temple. David supports his exhortation by 
 calling to remembrance the proofs of his favour which the Lord 
 had showed His people. The speech in ver. 18 is introduced with- 
 out ">bN.?, because it is clear from the preceding TH 1^11 that the 
 words are spoken by David : " The Lord has given you peace 
 round about ; for He has given the inhabitants of the land into 
 my hands, and the land is subdued before Jahve and before His 
 people." The subdued land is Canaan : the inhabitants of the land 
 are, however, not the Israelites over whom the Lord had set David 
 as king, for the words ^3 }nj cannot apply to them, cf . xiv. 10 f ., 
 Josh. ii. 24 ; it is the Canaanites still left in the land in the time 
 of David, and other enemies, who, like the Philistines, possessed 
 
 part captured as booty in -war, and laid up out of the tribute of the subject 
 peoples. A question which would more readily occur than this is, "Whether 
 such enormous sums were actually necessary for the temple ? But the materials 
 necessary to enable us to arrive at even a proximate estimate of this building 
 are entirely wanting. The building of a stone temple from 60 to 70 yards 
 long, 20 yards broad, and 30 yards high, would certainly not have cost so 
 much, notwithstanding that, as we read in 2 Chron. iii. 8 f., 650 talents of 
 gold were required to gild the inner walls of the Holy Place, and at the same 
 rate 2000 talents must have been required to gild the inside of the Sanctuary, 
 which was three times as large ; and notwithstanding the great number of 
 massive gold vessels, e.g. the ten golden candlesticks, for which alone, even if 
 they were no larger and heavier than the candlesticks in the tabernacle, ten 
 talents of gold must have been required. But there belonged to the temple 
 many subordinate buildings, which are not further described ; as also the 
 colossal foundation structures and the walls enclosing the temple area, the 
 building of which must have swallowed up millions, since Solomon sent 70,000 
 porters and 80,000 stone-hewers to Lebanon to procure the necessary materials. 
 Consul Rosen has recently indeed attempted to show, in das Haram von 
 Jerusalem und der Tempelplatz des Moria, Gotha (1866), that there is reason 
 to suppose that the temple area was enlarged to the size it is known to have 
 had, and surrounded by a wall only by Herod ; but he has been refuted by 
 Himpel in the Tubinger tJieol. Quartalschr. 1867, S. 515 f., who advances 
 very weighty reasons against his hypothesis. Finally, we must have regard 
 to the statement in 1 Kings vii. 51 and 2 Chron. v. 1, that Solomon, after the 
 building was finished, deposited the consecrated silver and gold collected by 
 his father David among the temple treasures. Whence we learn that the 
 treasures collected by David were not intended merely for the building of the 
 House of God.
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 251 
 
 parts of the land, and had been subdued by David. On 
 cf. Josh, xviii. 1, Num. xxxii. 22, 29. This safety which the 
 Lord had granted them binds them in duty to seek Him with all 
 their heart, and to build the sanctuary, that the ark and the 
 sacred vessels may be brought into it. The ? in JVaS is not a 
 sign of the accusative (Berth.), for K^n is not construed with 
 accus. loci) but generally with ?X, for which, however, so early 
 as Josh. iv. 5, ? is used, or it is construed with the ace. and n locale 
 
 nrran, Gen.'xix. 10, xliii. 47. 
 
 CHAP. XXIII.-XXVI. ENUMERATION AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE 
 LEVITES ACCORDING TO THEIR DIVISIONS AND EMPLOYMENTS. 
 
 These four chapters give a connected view of the condition 
 of the Levites towards the end, i.e. in the fortieth year, of David's 
 reign (cf. xxiii. 1 and xxvi. 31), and of the sections into which 
 they were divided according to their various services. This review 
 begins with a statement of the total number belonging to the 
 tribe of Levi according to the census then undertaken, and their 
 divisions according to the duties devolving upon (xxiii. 2-5) ; 
 which is followed by an enumeration of the heads of the fathers'- 
 houses into which the four families of Levites had branched out 
 (xxiii. 6-23), together with a short review of their duties (xxiii. 
 24-32). Thereafter we have : 1. In chap, xxiv., a catalogue of the 
 Aaronites, i.e. of the priests, who were divided into twenty-four 
 classes, corresponding to the sons of Eleazar and Ithamar, and 
 were appointed to perform the service in succession, according as 
 it was determined by lot, special mention being made of the heads 
 of these twenty-four classes ; and a catalogue of the heads of the 
 fathers'-houses of the other descendants of Levi, in an order of 
 succession, which was likewise settled by lot (xxiv. 20-31). Then, 
 2. In chap. xxv. we have a catalogue of the twenty-four orders 
 of Levitic musicians, in an order fixed by lot. And, 3. In chap. 
 xxvi. the classes of doorkeepers (vers. 1-19), the administrators of 
 the treasures of the sanctuary (vers. 20-28), and the officials who 
 performed the external services (vers. 29-32). 
 
 Chap, xxiii. Number, duties, and fathers -houses of the Levites. 
 
 This clear account of the state and the order of service of the 
 tribe of Levi is introduced by the words, ver. 1, "David was old, and 
 life weary ; then he made his son Solomon king over Israel." ii?t, 
 generally an adjective, is here third pers.perf. of the verb, as in Gen.
 
 252 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 xviii. 12, as y^W also is, to which O 1 "^ is subordinated in the accu- 
 sative. Generally elsewhere E^ P?^ is used, cf. Gen. xxxv. 29, 
 Job xlii. 17, and also JOB* alone, with the same signification, Gen. 
 xxv. 8. These words are indeed, as Berth, correctly remarks, not 
 a mere passing remark which is taken up again at a later stage, 
 say chap. xxix. 28 1 , but an independent statement complete in 
 itself, with which here the enumeration of the arrangements which 
 David made in the last period of his life begins. But notwith- 
 standing that, it serves here only as an introduction to the arrange- 
 ments which follow, and is not to be taken to mean that David 
 undertook the numbering of the Levites and the arrangement of 
 their service only after he had given over the government to his 
 son Solomon, but signified that the arrangement of this matter 
 immediately preceded Solomon's elevation to the throne, or was 
 contemporaneous with it. Our verse therefore does not contain, 
 in its few words, a " summary of the contents of the narrative 1 
 Kings chap, i.," as Berth, thinks, for in 1 Kings i. we have an 
 account of the actual anointing of Solomon and his accession to 
 the throne in consequence of Adonijah's attempt to usurp it. By 
 that indeed Solomon certainly was made king; but the chronicler, 
 in accordance with the plan of his book, has withdrawn his atten- 
 tion from this event, connected as it was with David's domestic 
 relations, and has used Tr 1 ?? in its more general signification, to 
 denote not merely the actual elevation to the throne, but also his 
 nomination as king. Here the nomination of Solomon to be king, 
 which preceded the anointing narrated in 1 Kings i., that taking 
 place at a time when David had already become bed-rid through 
 old age, is spoken of. This was the first step towards the transfer 
 of the kingdom to Solomon ; and David's ordering of the Levitical 
 service, and of the other branches of public administration, so as 
 to give over a well-ordered kingdom to his successor, were also 
 steps in the same process. Of the various branches of the public 
 administration, our historian notices in detail only the Levites 
 and their service, compressing everything else into the account of 
 the army arrangements and the chief public officials, chap, xxvii. 
 Vers. 2-5. Numbering of the Levites, and partition of their 
 duties. Ver. 2. For this purpose David collected " all the princes 
 of Israel, and the priests and Levites." The princes of Israel, 
 because the numbering of the Levites and the determination of 
 their duties was a matter of national importance. " The mean- 
 ing is, that David, in a solemn assembly of the princes, i.e. of the
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 2-5. 2.33 
 
 representatives of the lay tribes, and of the priests and Levites, 
 fixed the arrangements of which an account is to be given" 
 (Berth.). Ver. 3. The Levites were numbered from thirty years 
 old and upwards. This statement agrees with that in Num. iv. 
 3, 23, 30, 39 ff., where Moses caused those from thirty to fifty 
 years of age to be numbered, and appointed them for service 
 about the tabernacle during the journey through the wilderness. 
 But Moses himself, at a later time, determined that their period 
 of service should be from twenty-five to fifty; Num. viii. 23-26. 
 It is consequently not probable that David confined the number- 
 ing to those of thirty and upwards. But besides that, we have a 
 distinct statement in ver. 24 that they were numbered from twenty 
 years of age, the change being grounded by David upon the nature 
 of their service ; and that this was the proper age is confirmed by 
 2 Chron. xxxi. 17 and Ezra iii. 8, according to which the Levites 
 under Hezekiah, and afterwards, had to take part in the service 
 from their twentieth year. We must therefore regard D'tJvB> in 
 ver. 3 as having crept into the text through the error of copyists, 
 who were thinking of the Mosaic census in Num. iv., and must 
 read D* 1 "!*?'?? instead of it. The various attempts of commentators 
 to get rid of the discrepancy between ver. 3 and ver. 24 are mere 
 makeshifts ; and the hypothesis that David took two censuses 
 is as little supported by the text, as that other, that our chapter 
 contains divergent accounts drawn from two different sources ; 
 see on ver. 24. The number amounted to 38,000, according 
 to their heads in men. D> "!^? serves for a nearer definition of 
 Dnpapa^ and explains that only men were numbered, women not 
 being included. Vers. 4 and 5 contain words of David, as we 
 learn from ??">? W&y ">5i>N (ver. 5, end), so that we must supply 
 TVi -ittN'i before ver. 4. ' iikso, of these (38,000) 24,000 shall be 
 'U1 ? >!^, to superintend the business, i.e. to conduct and carry on 
 the business (the work) of the house of Jahve. This business 
 is in vers. 28-32 more nearly defined, and embraces all the busi- 
 ness that was to be carried on about the sanctuary, except the 
 specifically priestly functions, the keeping of the doors, and the 
 performance of the sacred music. For these two latter offices 
 special sections were appointed, 4000 for the porters' service, and 
 the same number for the sacred music (ver. 5). Besides these, 
 5000 men were appointed Shoterim and judges. " The instru- 
 ments which I have made to sing praise" are the stringed 
 instruments which David had introduced into the service to
 
 254 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 accompany the singing of the psalms ; cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 26, 
 Neh. xii. 36. 
 
 Vers. 6-23. The fathers' -houses of the Levites. Ver. 6. "And 
 David divided them into courses according to the sons of Levi, 
 Gershon, Kohath, and Merari ;" see on v. 27. The form Dj^rWj 
 which recurs in xxiv. 3 with the same pointing, is in more 
 accurate MSS. in that place pointed Dprw. There are also found 
 in MSS. and editions Dppn 1 '}, and the rare form of the Kal DpprM 
 (for DpprM) ; cf. J. H. Mich. Notce crit. This last pronuncia- 
 tion is attested for, xxiv. 3, by D. Kimchi, who expressly remarks 
 that the regular form Dpprw corresponds to it ; cf . Norzi on this 
 passage. Gesen. (in Thes. p. 483) and Ew. ( 83, c) regard Dj?pPPl 
 as a variety of the Piel (DEprn^ to which, however, Berth, rightly 
 remarks that it would be worth a thought only if the punctuation 
 ^5rfJ^ were confirmed by good MSS., which is not the case, though 
 we find the Piel in the Chronicle in xv. 3, and then with the 
 signification to distribute. Berth, therefore holds and certainly 
 this is the more correct opinion that the form D^pri^ attested 
 by Kimchi for xxiv. 3, was the original reading in our verse 
 also, and considers it a rare form of the impf . Kal derived from 
 Bk!? n 5 (cf. xxiv. 4, 5), by Kamets coming into the pretonic 
 syllable, after the analogy of Dian^' for DitsnE^ 2 Kings x. 14, 
 and by the passing of an a (Pathach) into (Seghol) before the 
 Kamets, according to well-known euphonic rules. nippn is a 
 second accusative : " in divisions." The tribe of Levi had been 
 divided from ancient times into the three great families of 
 Gershonites, Kohathites, and Merarites, corresponding to the 
 three sons of Levi; cf. v. 27-vi. 15, xxviii. 32. From ver. 7 
 onwards we have an enumeration of the fathers' -houses into 
 which these three families were divided: vers. 7- 11, the fathers'- 
 houses of the Gershonites; vers. 12-20, those of the Kohathites ; 
 and vers. 21-23, those of the Merarites. Berth., on the other 
 hand, thinks that in these verses only the fathers' -houses of 
 those Levites who performed the service of the house of Jahve, 
 i.e. the 24,000 in ver. 4, and not the divisions of all the Levites, 
 are enumerated. But this opinion is incorrect, and certainly is 
 not proved to be true by the circumstance that the singers, 
 porters, and the scribes and judges, are only spoken of afterwards ; 
 nor by the remark that, in great part, the names here enumerated 
 appear again in the sections chap. xxiv. 20-31 and xxvi. 20-28, 
 while in the enumeration of the twenty-four classes of musicians
 
 CHAP. xxin. 7-11. 255 
 
 (xxv. 1-31), of the doorkeepers (xxvi. 1-19), and of the scribes 
 and judges (xxvi. 29-32), quite other names are met with. The 
 recurrence of many of the names here enumerated in the sections 
 chap. xxiv. 20-31 and xxvi. 20-28 is easily explained by the 
 fact that these sections treat of the divisions of the Levites, 
 according to the service they performed, and of course many 
 heads of fathers' -houses must again be named. The occurrence 
 of quite other names in the lists of musicians and doorkeepers, 
 again, is simply the result of the fact that only single branches 
 of fathers'-houses, not whole fathers'-houses, were appointed 
 musicians and doorkeepers. Finally, Bertheau's statement, that 
 in the catalogue of the scribes and judges quite other names occur 
 than those in our verses, is based upon an oversight ; cf. xxvi. 31 
 with xxiii. 19. 
 
 Vers. 7-11. The fathers' -houses of the Gershonites. According 
 to the natural development of the people of Israel, the twelve 
 sons of Jacob founded the twelve tribes of Israel ; his grandsons, 
 or the sons of the twelve patriarchs, founded the families (rririBKfo) ; 
 and their sons, i.e. the great-grandsons of Jacob, founded the 
 fathers'-houses (J"inX"JV3). But this natural division or ramifica- 
 tion of the people into tribes, families, and fathers'-houses (groups 
 of related households), was not consistently carried out. Even 
 the formation of the tribes suffered a modification, when the two 
 sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Mauasseh, who were born before 
 Jacob's arrival in Egypt, were adopted by him as his sons, and 
 so made founders of tribes (Gen. xlviii. 5). The formation of 
 the families and fathers'-houses was also interfered with, partly 
 by the descendants of many grandsons or great-grandsons of 
 Jacob not being numerous enough to form independent families 
 and fathers'-houses, and partly by individual fathers'-houses (or 
 groups of related households) having so much decreased that they 
 could no longer form independent groups, and so were attached 
 to other fathers'-houses, or by families which had originally 
 formed a 2K~JV2 becoming so numerous as to be divided into 
 several fathers'-houses. In the tribe of Levi there came into 
 operation this special cause, that Aaron and his sons were chosen 
 to be priests, and so his family was raised above the other 
 Levites. From these causes, in the use of the words nnsrp and 
 3KTV3 many fluctuations occur; cf. my libl. Archdol. ii. 140. 
 Among the Levites, the fathers'-houses were founded not by the 
 grandsons, but by the great-grandsons of the patriarch. Ver. 7.
 
 256 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 " Of the Gershonites, Laadan and Shimei," i.e. these were heads 
 of groups of related families, since, according to ver. 9, their sons 
 and descendants formed six fathers'-houses. The sons of Ger- 
 shon, from whom all branches of the family of Gershon come, 
 are called in vi. 2, as in Ex. vi. 17 and Num. xiii. 18, Libni and 
 Shimei ; while in our verse, on the contrary, we find only the 
 second name Shimei, whose sons are enumerated in vers. 10, 11 ; 
 and instead of Libni we have the name Laadan, which recurs in 
 xxvi. 21. Laadan seemingly cannot be regarded as a surname 
 of Libni ; for not only are the sons of Shimei named along with 
 the sons of Laadan in vers. 8 and 9 as heads of the fathers'- 
 houses of Laadan, without any hint being given of the genea- 
 logical connection of this Shimei with Laadan, but mainly 
 because of ^Bnj? in ver. 7. In the case of Kohath and Merari, 
 the enumeration of the fathers'-houses descended from them is 
 introduced by the mention of their sons, nnp ^l and "mo ^3 
 (vers. 12, 21), while in the case of Gershon it is not so; in 
 his case, instead of ptJnj ^2, we find the Gentilic designation 
 ^?HI! to point out that Laadan and Shimei are not named as 
 being sons of Gershon, but as founders of the two chief lines of 
 Gershonites, of which only the second was named after Gershon's 
 son Shimei, while the second derived their name from Laadan ? 
 whose family was divided in David's time into two branches, the 
 sons of Laadan and the sons of Shimei, the latter a descendant 
 of Libni, not elsewhere mentioned. That the Shimei of ver. 9 
 is not the same person as Shimei the son of Gershon mentioned 
 in ver. 7, is manifest from the fact that the sons of the latter 
 are enumerated only in ver. 10. Each of these two lines num- 
 bered at that time three fathers'-houses, the heads of which are 
 named in vers. 8 and 9. & ; N~n in ver. 8 belongs to ^T'l : " the 
 sons of Laadan were: the head (also the first ; cf. vers. 11, 16) 
 Jehiel, Zetham, and Joel, three." Ver. 9. The sons of Shimei : 
 Shelomoth or Shelomith (both forms are found in xxvi. 35 of 
 another Shelomith), Haziel, and Haran, three. These (three 
 and three) are the heads of the fathers'-houses of Laadan. In 
 vers. 10 and 11 there follow the fathers'-houses of the Shimei 
 mentioned in ver. 7 along with Laadan : they are likewise three, 
 derived from the four sons of Shimei, Jahath, Zina, Jeush, and 
 Beriah ; for the last two, as they had not many sons, were 
 included in one father's-house, one rropB, i.e. one official class 
 (xxiv. 3; 2 Chron. xvii. 14). The Gershonites at that time,
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 12-20. 257 
 
 therefore, numbered nine fathers'-honses six named after 
 Laaclan, and three after Shimei. 
 
 Vers. 12-20. The fathers -houses of the Kohathites. The four 
 sons of Kohath who are named in ver. 12, as in v. 28, vi. 3, and 
 Ex. vi. 18, founded the four families of Kohath, Num. iii. 27. 
 From Amram came Aaron and Moses ; see on Ex. vi. 20. Of 
 these, Aaron with his sons was set apart " to sanctify him to be 
 a most holy one ; he and his sons for ever to offer incense before 
 Jahve, to serve Him, and to bless in His name for ever." HJfajJTO 
 P ^'~!P signifies neither, ut ministraret in sancto sanctorum (Vulg., 
 Syr.), nor, ut res sanctissimas, sacrificia, vasa sacra etc. consecrarent 
 (Cler.). Against this interpretation we adduce not only the objec- 
 tion advanced by Hgstb. Christol. iii. p. 119, trans., that the office 
 assigned by it to the Levites is far too subordinate to be mentioned 
 here in the first place, but also the circumstance that the suffix 
 init^JP.?, after the analogy of i^T^j must denote the object of the 
 sanctifying; and this view is confirmed by the subject, who offers 
 incense and blesses, not being expressed with "^P.?? and -fw. 
 The Vulgate translation cannot be accepted, for ^tsnp T ^?.P cannot 
 be the ablative, and the most holy place in the temple is always 
 called D'BnipJ? &}? with the article. nnrjp Hp, without the article, 
 is only used of the most holy things, e.g. of the vessels connected 
 with the worship, the sacrificial gifts, and other things which no 
 lay person might touch or appropriate. See on Ex. xxx. 10, 
 Lev. ii. 3, and Dan. is. 24. Here it is committed to Aaron, who, 
 by being chosen for the priest's service and anointed to the office, 
 was made a most holy person, to discharge along with his sons 
 all the priestly functions in the sanctuary. Specimens of such 
 functions are then adduced : '" ^ i^i?n, the offering of the 
 sacrifice of incense upon the altar of the inner sanctuary, as in 
 2 Chron. ii. 3, 5, Ex. xxx. 7 f. ; irncfc, to serve Him," Jahve, 
 a general expression, including all the other services in the sanc- 
 tuary, which were reserved for the priests ; and iP3 ^d?, to 
 bless in His name, i.e. to pronounce the blessing in the name of 
 the Lord over the people, according to the command in Num. 
 vi. 23, cf. xvi. 2, Deut. xxi. 5; not "to bless His name" (Ges., 
 Berth.). To call upon or praise the name of God is tof 7p3, 
 Ps. xcvi. 2, c. 4 ; and the assertion that 0^3 !p2 is a somewhat 
 later phrase formed on the model of DBO top, for " to call upon 
 God" (Ges. in Lex. sub voce T 13 )? is quite groundless. Our phrase 
 occurs as early as in Deut. x. 8 and xxi. 5 ; in the latter passage 
 

 
 258 THE FIEST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 in connection with ift"! f the priests ; in the former, of the 
 tribe of Levi, but so used that it can refer only to the priests, 
 not to the Levites also. Ver. 14. " But as to Moses the man of 
 God" (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 1). "his sons were called after the tribe of 
 Levi," i.e. were reckoned in the ranks of the Levites, not of the 
 priests. On fy tnp?, cf. Gen. xlviii. 6, Ezra ii. 61, Neh. vii. 63. 
 Vers. 15-17. Each of his two sons Gershon and Eliezer (see 
 Ex. ii. 22 and xviii. 3 f.) founded a father's-house ; Gershon 
 through his son Stebuel (w in xxiv. 20 fy&tf), Eliezer 
 through Rehabiah. The plurals 'j "on, 'tf ^a are used, although 
 in both cases only one son, he who was head (B>K"in) of the 
 father's-house, is mentioned, either because they had other sons, 
 or those named had in their turn sons, who together formed a 
 father's-house. From the remark in ver. 17, that Eliezer had 
 no other sons than Rehabiah, while Rehabiah had very many, 
 we may conclude that Gershon had other sons besides Shebuel, 
 who are not mentioned because their descendants were numbered 
 with Shebuel's father's-house. Ver. 18. Only one son of Jizhar, 
 the brother of Amram, is mentioned, Shelomith as head, after 
 whom the Jizharite father's-house is named. Ver. 19. Amram's 
 next brother Hebron had four sons, and the youngest brother 
 Uzziel two, who founded fathers'-houses ; so that, besides the 
 priests, nine Levitical fathers'-houses are descended from Kohath, 
 and their chiefs who served in the sanctuary are enumerated in 
 chap. xxiv. 20-25. 
 
 Vers. 21-23. The fathers' -houses of the Merarites. Ver. 21 f. 
 As in vi. 4, Ex. vi. 19, and Num. iii. 33, two sons of Merari are 
 mentioned Mahli and Mushi who founded the two families 
 of Merari which existed in the time of Moses. Mahli had two 
 sons, Eleazar and Kish ; the first of whom, however, left behind 
 him at his death only daughters, who were married to the sons 
 of Kish (QH^nSj i.e. their cousins), according to the law as to 
 daughters who were heiresses (Num. xxxvi. 6-9). The descend- 
 ants of Mahli, therefore, were comprehended in the one father's- 
 house of Kish, whose head at that time (xxiv. 29) was Jerah- 
 meel. Ver. 23. Of the sons of Mushi, three founded fathers'- 
 houses ; so that the Merarites formed only four fathers'-houses in 
 all. If we compare the enumeration of the Merarites in chap. 
 xxiv. 26-30, we find there in ver. 30 Eleazar and Kish called 
 sons of Mahli, with the remark that Eleazar had no sons. In 
 ver. 26, however, of the same passage we read, " sons of Merari
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 21-23. 259 
 
 (were) Malili and Mushi, sons of Jaaziah his son;" and ver. 27, 
 " sons of Merari by Jaaziah his son ; and Shoham, and Zaccur, 
 and Ibri." From this Bertheau concludes that Merari had really 
 three sons, and that the name of the third has been dropped out 
 of chap, xxiii. ; but in this he is incorrect, for vers. 26 and 27 of 
 the 24th chapter are at once, from their whole character, recog- 
 nisable as arbitrary interpolations. Not only is it strange that 
 iJ3. irnjp \J3 should follow the before-mentioned sons of Merari 
 in this unconnected way (Vav being omitted before V.?)? but the 
 form of the expression also is peculiar. If inw be a third son 
 of Merari, or the founder of a third family of Merarites, co- 
 ordinate with the families of Mahli and Mushi, as we must con- 
 clude from the additional word ^3, we should expect, after the 
 preceding, simply the name with the conjunction, i.e. ^\^ : - 
 The ^nnjp ^3, is all the more surprising that the names of the 
 sons of Jaaziah follow in ver. 27, and there the name of the 
 first son Dn"B> is introduced by the Vav copulative. This misled 
 the older commentators, so that they took iJ2 for a proper 
 name. The repetition of >> ~WQ ^3, too, at the beginning of the 
 second verse is strange, and without parallel in the preceding 
 enumeration of the fathers'-houses founded by Amram's sons 
 (xxiv. 20-25). We must, then, as the result of all this, since 
 the Pentateuch knows only two descendants of Merari who 
 founded families of fathers'-houses, 1 regard the additions in 
 xxiv. 26, 27 as later glosses, although we are not in a position 
 to explain the origin or the meaning of the interpolation. This 
 inability arises from the fact that, of the names Jaaziah, Sho- 
 ham, Zaccur, and Ibri, only Zaccur again occurs among the 
 Asaphites (xxv. 2), and elsewhere of other persons, while the 
 
 1 Bertheau, on the contrary, proceeding on the hypothesis that we may 
 presume the list of Merari's descendants which is given in our verses to have 
 been originally in perfect agreement with that in xxii. 26-31, would emend 
 OUT text according to chap. xxiv. 26, 27, for it cannot be doubted that in our 
 passage also Jaaziah and his three sons were named. But since elsewhere 
 only the two sons Mahli and Mushi occur, one can easily see why the third 
 son Jaaziah came to be omitted from our passage, while we cannot conceive 
 any motive which woul,d account for the later and arbitrary interpolation of 
 the names in xxiv. 26 f. This argumentation is weak to a degree, since it 
 quite overlooks the main difficulty connected with this hypothesis. Had 
 we no further accounts of the descendants of Merari than those in the two 
 passages of the Chronicle (chap, xxiii. 11 f. and xxiv. 26-29), it would be 
 natural to suppose that in xxiii. 21 ff. the additional names which we find in
 
 2 GO THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 others are nowhere else to be met with. The three families of 
 Levi numbered therefore 9 + 9 + 4 = 22 fathers'-houses, exclusive 
 of the priests. 
 
 Vers. 24-32. Concluding remarks. Ver. 24. " These (the just 
 enumerated) are the sons of Levi according to their fathers'- 
 houses, according to those who were counted (Num. i. 21 f. ; 
 Ex. xxx. 14) in the enumeration by name (Num. i. 18, iii. 43), 
 by the head, performing the work for the service of the house 
 of Jahve, from the men of twenty years and upwards." nb'y 
 rDKfen is not singular, but plural, as in 2 Chron. xxiv. 12, xxxiv. 
 10, 13, Ex. iii. 9, Neh. ii. 16, cf. 2 Chron. xi. 1. It occurs along 
 with ''bty, with a similar meaning and in a like position, 2 Chron. 
 xxiv. 13, xxxiv. 17, Neh. xi. 12, xiii. 10. It is only another way 
 of writing *&$, and the same form is found here and there in 
 other words ; cf. Ew. 16, b. The statement that the Levites 
 were numbered from twenty years old and upwards is accounted 
 for in ver. 25 thus : David said, The Lord has given His people 
 rest, and He dwells in Jerusalem ; and the Levites also have 
 no longer to bear the dwelling (tabernacle) with all its vessels. 
 From this, of course, it results that they had not any longer to 
 do such heavy work as during the march through the wilderness, 
 and so might enter upon their service even at the age of twenty. 
 In ver. 27 a still further reason is given : " For by the last words 
 of David was this, (viz.) the numbering of the sons of Levi from 
 twenty years old and upwards." There is a difference of opinion 
 as to how D^iinxn Tn "'?.?'?? are to be understood. Bertheau 
 translates, with Kimchi, " in the later histories of David are the 
 number = the numbered," and adduces in support of his trans- 
 lation chap. xxix. 29, whence it is clear that by "the later 
 
 chap. xxiv. had been dropped out. But in the genealogical lists in the 
 Pentateuch also (Ex. vi. 19 and Num. iii. 33), only two sons of Merari are 
 named ; and according to them, the Merarites, when Moses' census of the 
 Levites was taken, formed only two families. Had Merari had yet a third 
 son besides the two Mahli and Mushi, who alone were known in the time 
 of Moses who left descendants, forming three fathers'-houses in David's 
 time, the omission of this third son in the family register in the Pentateuch 
 would be quite incomprehensible. Or are we to suppose that in Ex. vi. 19 
 also the name Jaaziah had been dropped out, and that in consequence of that 
 the family descended from him has been omitted from Num. iii. 33 ? Sup- 
 ported by the Pentateuch, the text of our verses is presumably entire, and 
 this presumption of its integrity is confirmed by the character of the additions 
 in xxiv. 26, 27, as above exhibited.
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 24-32 261 
 
 histories of David " a part of a historical work is meant. But 
 the passage quoted does not prove this. In the formula ^y[ 
 D'Jinxm D3ii?6nn . . . (xxix. 29; 2 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 15, xvi. 11, 
 etc.), which recurs at the end of each king's reign, ^y* denotes 
 not historiaj in the sense of a history, but res gestce, which are 
 recorded in the writings named. In accordance with this, there- 
 fore, "W '"Qi cannot denote writings of David, but only words 
 
 7 T ; / J 
 
 or things ( = deeds) ; but the Levites who were numbered could 
 not be in the acts of David. We must rather translate accord- 
 ing to 2 Chron. xxix. 30 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. In the latter 
 passage D'wnxn TVi .^31 are the last words (utterances) of 
 David, and in the former T"tt "n^o, "by the words of David," 
 i.e. according to the commands or directions of David. In this 
 way, Cler. and Mich., with the Vulg. juxta prcecepta, have 
 already correctly translated the words: "according to the last 
 commands of David." nen is nowhere found in the signification 
 sunt as the mere copula of the subject and verb, but is every- 
 where an independent predicate, and is here to be taken, accord- 
 ing to later linguistic usage, as neutr. sing. (cf. Ew. 318, b) : 
 il According to the last commands of David, this," i.e. this was 
 done, viz. the numbering of the Levites from twenty years and 
 upwards. From this statement, from twenty years and upwards, 
 which is so often repeated, and for which the reasons are so 
 given, it cannot be doubtful that the statement in ver. 3, tl from 
 thirty years and upwards," is incorrect, and that, as has been 
 already remarked on ver. 3, &W?y has crept into the text by an 
 error of the copyist, who was thinking of the Mosaic census. 1 
 In vers. 28-32 w r e have, in the enumeration of the duties which 
 the Levites had to perform, another ground for the employment 
 
 1 The explanation adopted from Kimchi by the older Christian commen- 
 tators, e.g. by J. H. Mich., is an untenable makeshift. It is to this effect : that 
 David first numbered the Levites from thirty years old and upwards, accord- 
 ing to the law (Num. iv. 3, xxiii. 30), but that afterwards, when he saw that 
 those of twenty years of age were in a position to perform the duties, lightened 
 as they were by its being no longer necessary for the Levites to bear the sanc- 
 tuary from place to place, he included all from twenty years of age in a second 
 census, taken towards the end of his life ; cf. ver. 27. Against this Bertheau 
 has already rightly remarked that the census of the Levites gave the number 
 at 38,000 (ver. 3), and these 38,000 and no others were installed ; it is no- 
 where said that this number was not sufficient, or that the arrangements 
 based upon this number (vers. 4, 5) had no continued existence. He is, how- 
 ever, incorrect in his further remark, that the historian clearly enough is
 
 262 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of those from twenty years old and upwards in actual service. 
 Ver. 28. Their appointed place or post was at the hand of the 
 sons of Aaron, i.e. they were ready to the priest's hand, to aid 
 him in carrying on the service of the house of God. " Over the 
 courts and the cells (of the courts; cf. ix. 26), and the purifying 
 of every holy thing," i.e. of the temple rooms and the temple 
 vessels. On <> before ^P~^3, used for mediate connection after 
 the stat. const., cf. Ew. 289, b. rnhj; nfe>j(0*, and for the per- 
 formance of the service of the house of God. Before niyyo, 
 ?J? is to be supplied from the preceding. The individual services 
 connected with the worship are specialized in vers. 29-31, and 
 introduced by the preposition p. For the bread of the pile, i.e. 
 the shew-bread (see on Lev. xxiv. 8 f.), viz. to prepare it ; for the 
 laying of the bread upon the table was the priest's business. 
 For fine meal (fi?D, see on Lev. ii. 1) for the meat-offering and 
 unleavened cakes (rrixsn <l i?. l| i^, see on Lev. ii. 4), and for the 
 pans, i.e. that which was baked in pans (see on Lev. ii. 5), and 
 for that which was roasted (roano, see on Lev. vi. 14), and for 
 all measures of capacity and measures of length which were kept 
 by the Levites, because meal, oil, and wine were offered along 
 with the sacrifices in certain fixed quantities (cf. e.g. Ex. xxix. 
 40, xxx. 24), and the Levites had probably to watch over the 
 weights and measures in general (Lev. xix. 35). Ver. 30. " On 
 each morning and evening to praise the Lord with song and 
 instruments." These words refer to the duties of the singers and 
 musicians, whose classes and orders are enumerated in chap. xxv. 
 The referring of them to the Levites who assisted the priests in 
 the sacrificial worship (Berth.) needs no serious refutation, for 
 
 desirous of calling attention to the fact that here a statement is made which 
 is different from the former, for of this there is no trace ; the contrary, 
 indeed, is manifest. Since rij>S (ver. 24) refers back to the just enumerated 
 fathers' -houses of the Levites, and ver. 24 consequently forms the subscrip- 
 tion to the preceding register, the historian thereby informs us plainly enough 
 that he does not communicate here a statement different from the former, but 
 only concludes that which he has formerly communicated. TTe cannot very 
 well see how, from the fact that he here for the first time adduces the 
 motive which determined David to cause the Levites from twenty years old 
 and upwards to be numbered and employed in the service, it follows that he 
 derived this statement of David's motive from a source different from that 
 account which he has hitherto made use of. Nor would it be more manifest 
 if ver. 27 contained as it does not contain a reference to the source from 
 which he derived this statement.
 
 CHAP. XXIV. 1-19. 263 
 
 nVtin is the standing phrase for the sacred temple music ; 
 and we can hardly believe that the Levites sang psalms or played 
 on harps or lutes while the beasts for sacrifices were slaughtered 
 and skinned, or the meat-offerings baked, or such duties performed. 
 Ver. 31. " And for all the bringing of offerings to Jahve on 
 the sabbaths, the new moons, and the feasts, in the number ac- 
 cording to the law concerning them (i.e. according to the regula- 
 tions that existed for this matter), continually before Jahve." 
 It was the duty of the Levites to procure the necessary number 
 of beasts for sacrifice, to see to their suitableness, to slaughter 
 and skin them, etc. TOR refers to friify, the burnt-offerings for 
 Jahve, which are Ton, because they must always be offered 
 anew on the appointed days. Ver. 32. In conclusion, the whole 
 duties of the Levites are summed up in three clauses : they were 
 to keep the charge of the tabernacle, the charge of the sacred 
 things, i.e. of all the sacred things of the worship, and the charge 
 of the sons of Aaron, i.e. of all that the priests committed to 
 them to be done; cf. Num. xviii. 3 ff., where these functions 
 are more exactly fixed. 
 
 Chap. xxiv. The division of the priests and Levites into classes. 
 Vers. 1-19. The twenty-four classes of priests. After the 
 statement as to the fathers'-houses of the Levites (chap, xxiii.), 
 we have next the arrangements of the priests for the perform- 
 ance of the service in the sanctuary ; the priestly families "de- 
 scended from Aaron's sons Eleazar and Ithamar being divided 
 into twenty-four classes, the order of whose service was settled 
 by lot. Ver. la contains the superscription, " As for the sons of 
 Aaron, their divisions (were these)." To make the division clear, 
 we have an introductory notice of Aaron's descendants, to the 
 effect that of his four sons, the two elder, Nadab and Abihu, 
 died before their father, leaving no sons, so that only Eleazar 
 and Ithamar became priests (^H?"!)? ** entered upon the priest- 
 hood. The four sons of Aaron, ver. 1, as in v. 29, Ex. vi. 23. 
 Ver. 2 ; cf. Lev. x. 1 f., Num. iii. 4. These priestly families 
 David caused (ver. 3) to be divided, along with the two high 
 priests (see on xviii. 16), " according to their service." ^P?, 
 office, official class, as in xxiii. 11. Ver. 4. As the sons of 
 Eleazar proved to be more numerous in respect of the heads of 
 the men than the sons of Ithamar, they (David, Zadok, and 
 Ahimelech) divided them thus : " For the sons of Eleazar, heads 
 of fathers'-houses, sixteen ; and for the sons of Ithamar, (heads)
 
 264 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of fathers'-houses, eight." B'naan WtST? means neither in respect 
 to the number of the men by the head (cf. xxiii. 3), nor with 
 respect to the chiefs of the men, divided according to their 
 fathers'-houses (Berth.). The supplying of the words, " divided 
 according to their fathers'-houses," is perfectly arbitrary. The 
 expression B^SL! T'^7 ' ls rather to be explained by the fact that, 
 according to the natural articulations of the people, the fathers'- 
 houses, i.e. the groups of related families comprehended under 
 the name nttNrJVa, divided themselves further into individual 
 households, whose heads were called ^1}3, as is clear from Josh. 
 vii. 16-18, because each household had in the man, "tt3.fi, its natural 
 head, cn^n IEW are therefore the heads, not of the fathers'- 
 houses, but of the individual households, considered in their 
 relation to the men as heads of households. Just as SK'TVa is 
 a technical designation of the larger groups of households into 
 which the great families fell, so "ttsn is the technical expression 
 for the individual households into which the fathers'-houses fell. 
 Ver. 5. They divided them by lot, fTW'Ey fW, these with these, 
 i.e. the one as the other (cf. xxv. 8), so that the classes of both 
 were determined by lot, as both drew lots mutually. " For holy 
 princes and princes of God were of the sons of Eleazar, and among 
 the sons of Ithamar ; " i.e., of both lines of priests holy princes 
 had come, men who had held the highest priestly dignity. The 
 high-priesthood, as is well known, went over entirely to Eleazar 
 and his descendants, but had been held for a considerable period 
 in the time of the judges by the descendants of Ithamar ; see 
 above, p. 113. In the settlement of the classes of priests for 
 the service, therefore, neither of the lines was to have an ad- 
 vantage, but the order was to be determined by lot for both. 
 &$ *?& cf. Isa. xliii. 28, =: D^nbn *$>, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14, are' the 
 high priests and the heads of the priestly families, the highest 
 officers among the priests, but can hardly be the same as the 
 apxiepels of the gospel history; for the view that these ap%ie- 
 pels were the heads of the twenty-four classes of priests cannot 
 be made good : cf. Wichelhaus, Comment, zur Leidcnsgesch. 
 (Halle, 1855), S. 32 ff. Bv6KPi np wou ia see m to denote the 
 same, and to be added as synonymous ; but if there be a distinc- 
 tion between the two designations, we would take the princes of 
 God to denote only the regular high priests, who could enter in 
 before God into the most holy place. Ver. 6. " He set them 
 down," viz. the classes, as the lot had determined them. ^D'to,
 
 CHAP. XXIV. 1-19. 2G5 
 
 of the tribe of Levi. ' &)> belongs to ni2xn 'tfjn, heads of 
 the fathers'-houses of the priests and of the Levites. The second 
 hemistich of ver. 6 gives a more detailed account of the drawing 
 of the lots : " One father' s-house was drawn for Eleazar, and 
 drawn for Ithamar." The last words are obscure, ftnx, to lay 
 hold of, to draw forth (Num. xxxi. 30, 47), here used of draw- 
 ing lots, signifies plucked forth or drawn from the urn. The 
 father' s-house was plucked forth from the urn, the lot bearing 
 its name being drawn, tnx Tnsi, which is the only well-attested 
 reading, only some few MSS. containing the reading THN in&o, is 
 very difficult. Although this various reading is a mere conjec- 
 ture. yet Gesen. (Thes. p. 68), with Cappell and Grotius, prefers 
 it. The repetition of the same word expresses sometimes totality, 
 multitude, sometimes a distributive division ; and here can only 
 be taken in this last signification : one father's-house drawn for 
 Eleazar, and then always drawn (or always one drawn) for 
 Ithamar. So much at least is clear, that the lots of the two 
 priestly families were not placed in one urn, but were kept apart 
 in different urns, so that the lots might be drawn alternately for 
 Eleazar and Ithamar. Had the lot for Eleazar been first drawn, 
 and thereafter that for Ithamar, since Eleazar's family was the 
 more numerous, they would have had an advantage over the 
 Ithamarites. But it was not to be allowed that one family 
 should have an advantage over the other, and the lots were con- 
 sequently drawn alternately, one for the one, and another for the 
 other. But as the Eleazarites were divided into sixteen fathers'- 
 houses, and the Ithamarites into eight, Bertheau thinks that it 
 was settled, in order to bring about an equality in the numbers 
 sixteen and eight, in so far as the drawing of the lots was con- 
 cerned, that each house of Ithamar should represent two lots, 
 or, which is the same thing, that after every two houses of 
 Eleazarites one house of Ithamarites should follow, and that the 
 order of succession of the single houses was fixed according to 
 this arrangement. To this or some similar conception of the 
 manner of settling the order of succession we are brought, he 
 says, by the relation of the number eight to sixteen, and by the 
 words THN and fnK rnxi. But even though this conception be 
 readily suggested by the relation of the number sixteen to eight, 
 yet we cannot see how the words tnsi and tnx Tnxi indicate it. 
 These words would much rather suggest that a lot for Eleazar 
 alternated with the drawing of one for Ithamar, until the eight
 
 266 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 heads of Ithamar's family had been drawn, when, of course, the 
 remaining eight lots of Eleazar must be drawn one after the 
 other. We cannot, however, come to any certain judgment on 
 the matter, for the words are so obscure as to be unintelligible 
 even to the old translators. In vers. 7-18 we have the names of 
 the fathers'-houses in the order of succession which had been 
 determined by the lot. NV of the lot coming forth from the 
 
 *r / ^ 
 
 urn, as in Josh. xvi. 1, xix. 1. The names Jehoiarib and 
 Jedaiah occur together also in ix. 10 ; and Jedaiah is met with, 
 besides, in Ezra ii. 36 and Neh. vii. 39. The priest Mattathias, 
 1 Mace. ii. 1, came of the class Jehoiarib. Of the succeeding 
 names, D^Stf? (ver. 8), 3N3B* (ver. 13), and r??3n (ver. 15) do not 
 elsewhere occur; others, such as nan (ver. 13), TO (ver. 17), do 
 not recur among the names of priests. The sixteenth class, 
 Immer, on the contrary, and the twenty-first, Jachin, are often 
 mentioned; cf. ix. 10, 12. Zacharias, the father of John the 
 Baptist, belonged to the eighth, Abiah (Luke i. 5). Ver. 19. 
 These are their official classes for their service (cf. ver. 3), Ni2^, 
 so that they came (according to the arrangement thus deter- 
 mined) into the house of Jahve, according to their law, through 
 Aaron their father (ancestor), i.e. according to the lawful ar- 
 rangement which was made by Aaron for their official service, 
 as Jahve the God of Israel had commanded. This last clause 
 refers to the fact that the priestly service in all its parts was 
 prescribed by Jahve in the law. 1 
 
 Vers. 20-31. The classes of the Levites. The superscription, 
 " As to the other Levites " (ver. 20), when compared with the 
 subscription, " And they also cast lots, like to their brethren the 
 sons of Aaron" (ver. 31), leads us to expect a catalogue of these 
 classes of Levites, which performed the service in the house of 
 God at the hand of, i.e. as assistants to, the priests. D^nian are 
 
 1 Of these twenty-four classes, each one had to perform the service during 
 a week in order, and, as may be gathered with certainty from 2 Kings xi. 9 
 and 2 Chron. xxiii. 9, from Sabbath to Sabbath. Josephus bears witness 
 to this division in Antt. vii. 14. 7 : ^itfAtivtv ovros o ftfpifffto; dt%pi rij; ay/aipou 
 jiftipctf. Herzfeld, on the contrary (Geschichte des Volks Israel von der Zer- 
 storung des ersten Tempels, Bd. i. S. 381 ff.), following de Wette and Gramb., 
 has declared the reference of this organization of the priests to David to be 
 an invention of the chronicler, and maintains that the twenty-four classes of 
 priests were formed only after the exile, from the twenty-two families of 
 priests who returned out of exile with Zerubbabel. But this baseless hypo- 
 thesis is sufficiently refuted by the evidence adduced by Movers, die bibl.
 
 CHAP. XXIV. 20-31. 267 
 
 the Lcvites still remaining after the enumeration of the priests. 
 We might certainly regard the expression as including all the 
 Levites except the Aaronites (or priests) ; but the statement of the 
 subscription that they cast lots like the sons of Aaron, and the 
 circumstance that in chap. xxv. the twenty-four orders of singers 
 and musicians, in chap. xxvi. 1-19 the class of the doorkeepers, 
 and in xxvi. 20-32 the overseers of the treasures, and the scribes 
 and judges, are specially enumerated, prove that our passage 
 treats only of the classes of the Levites who were employed about 
 the worship. Bertheau has overlooked these circumstances, and, 
 misled by false ideas as to the catalogue in chap, xxiii. 623, has 
 moreover drawn the false conclusion that the catalogue in our 
 verses is imperfect, from the circumstance that a part of the 
 names of the fathers'-houses named in xxiii. 6-23 recur here in 
 vers. 20-29, and that we find a considerable number of the names 
 which are contained in chap, xxiii. 6-23 to be omitted from them. 
 Iii vers. 20-25, for example, we find only names of Kohathites, 
 and in vers. 26-29 of Merarites, and no Gershonites. But it by 
 no means follows from that, that the classes of the Gershonites 
 have been dropped out, or even omitted by the author of the 
 Chronicle as an unnecessary repetition. This conclusion would 
 only be warrantable if it were otherwise demonstrated, or demon- 
 strable, that the Levites who were at the hand of the priests in 
 carrying on the worship had been taken from all the three Levite 
 families, and that consequently Gershonites also must have been 
 included. But no such thing can be proved. Several fathers'- 
 houses of the Gershonites were, according to xxvi. 20 ff., entrusted 
 with the oversight of the treasures of the sanctuary. We have 
 indeed no further accounts as to the employment of the other 
 Gershonites ; but the statements about the management of the 
 treasures, and the scribes and judges, in chap. xxvi. 20-32, are 
 everywhere imperfect. David had appointed 6000 men to be 
 
 Chron. S. 279 ff., for the historical character of the arrangements attributed to 
 David, and described in our chapters ; but the remarks of Oehler in Herzog's 
 Reaknc. xii. S. 185 f. may also be compared. An unimpeachable witness 
 for the prae-cxilic origin of the division of the priests into twenty-four orders 
 is the vision of Ezekiel (chap. viii. 16-18), where the twenty-five men who 
 worship the sun in the priests' court represent the twenty-four classes of 
 priests, with the high priest at their head. In Neh. xii. 1-7 and 12-21 also 
 unimpeachable evidence for the Davidic origin of the division of the priests 
 into twenty-four classes is to be found, as we shall show in treating of these 
 passages.
 
 268 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 scribes and judges : those mentioned in chap. xxvi. 29 32 
 amounted to only 1700 and 2700, consequently only 4400 persons 
 in all ; so that it is quite possible the remaining 1600 were taken 
 from among the Gershonites. Thus, therefore, from the fact 
 that the Gershonites are omitted from our section, we cannot 
 conclude that our catalogue is mutilated. In it all the chief 
 branches of the Kohathites are named, viz. the two lines descended 
 from Moses' sons (vers. 20, 21) ; then the Izharites, Hebron ites, 
 and Uzzielites (vers. 22-25), and the main branches of the Mera- 
 rites (vers. 26-30). Ver. 20& is to be taken thus : Of the sons 
 of Amram, i.e. of the Kohathite Amram, from whom Moses 
 descended (xxiii. 13), that is, of the chief Shubael, descended 
 from Moses' son Gershon (xxiii. 16), his son Jehdeiah, who as 
 head and representative of the class made up of his sons, and 
 perhaps also of his brothers, is alone mentioned. Ver. 21. Of the 
 father' s-house Rehabiah, connected with Eliezer the second son 
 of Moses (xxiii. 16) ; of the sons of this Rehabiah, Isshiah was 
 the head. Ver. 22. Of the Izharites, namely of the father's- 
 house Shelomoth (xxiii. 18), his sons were under the head Jahath. 
 The heads of the class formed by David mentioned in vers. 
 20-22, Jehdeiah, Isshiah, and Jahath, are not met with in 
 chap, xxiii., a clear proof that chap, xxiii. treats of the fathers' - 
 houses ; our section, on the contrary, of the official classes of the 
 Levites. Ver. 23 treats of the Hebronites, as is clear from 
 xxiii. 19 ; but here the text is imperfect. Instead of enumerating 
 the names of the chiefs of the classes into which David divided 
 the four fathers'-houses into which Hebron's descendants fell for 
 the temple service, we find only the four names of the heads of 
 the fathers'-houses repeated, just as in xxiii. 19, introduced, 
 too, by "O^i as sons of ... Bertheau would therefore inter- 
 polate the name |i">3n after "0?' (according to xxiii. 19). This 
 interpolation is probably correct, but is not quite beyond doubt, 
 for possibly only the ^3 of the four sons of Hebron named 
 could be mentioned as being busied about the service of the sanc- 
 tuary according to their divisions. In any case, the names of the 
 heads of the classes formed by the Hebronites are wanting ; but 
 it is impossible to ascertain whether they have been dropped out 
 only by a later copyist, or were not contained in the authority 
 made use of by our historian, for even the LXX. had our text. 
 Vers. 26-28. The classes of the Merarites. As to Jaaziah 
 and his sons, see the remarks on xxiii. 31. As Mahli's son
 
 CHAP. XXV. 1-8. 269 
 
 Eleazar had no sons, only Jerahmeel from his second son Kish, as 
 head of the class formed by Mahli's sons, is named. Of Mushi's 
 sons only the names of the four fathers'-houses into which they fell 
 arc mentioned, the chiefs of the classes not being noticed. The 
 heads mentioned in our section are fifteen in all ; and supposing 
 that in the cases of the fathers'-houses of the Hebronites and of 
 the Merarite branch of the Mushites, where the heads of the 
 classes are not named, each father's-house formed only one class, 
 we would have only fifteen classes. It is, however, quite con- 
 ceivable that many of the fathers'-houses of the Hebronites and 
 Mushites were so numerous as to form more than one class ; and 
 so out of the Levite families mentioned in vers. 20-29 twenty- 
 four classes could be formed. The subscription, that they cast 
 the lot like their brethren, makes this probable ; and the analogy 
 of the division of the musicians into twenty-four classes (chap, 
 xxv.) turns the probability that the Levites who were appointed 
 to perform service for the priests, were divided into the s^me 
 number of classes, into a certainty, although we have no express 
 statement to that effect, and in the whole Old Testament no 
 information as to the order of succession of the Levites is any- 
 where to be found. Ver. 31. 'W TH ^ as in ver. 6. In the 
 last clause ni2X is used for ntaSVPa, as ni3N ^N"! stands frequently 
 for ni2X~JV3 'B>tn in these catalogues. B>N"in stands in apposi- 
 tion to ni3KVP3j the father's-house ; the head even as his younger 
 brother, i.e. he who was the head of the father's-house as etc., i.e. 
 the oldest among the brethren as his younger brethren. The 
 Vulgate gives the meaning correctly : tarn majores quam minores ; 
 omnes sors cequaliter dividebat. 
 
 Chap. xxv. The twenty-four classes of musicians. Ver. 1. 
 " David and the princes of the host separated for the service the 
 sons of Asaph," etc. N33?n l nb> are not princes of the Levite host ; 
 for although the service of the Levites is called X2 X3Y in Num. 
 iv. 23, yet the princes of the Levites are nowhere called N3Sn nfe'. 
 This expression rather denotes either the leaders of the army or 
 the chiefs of Israel, as the host of Jahve, Ex. xii. 17, 41, etc. 
 Here it is used in the last signification, as synonymous with princes 
 of Israel (xxiii. 2) ; in xxiv. 6 we have simply the princes, along 
 with whom the heads of the fathers'-houses of the priests and 
 the Levites are mentioned, i" 1 "]^ ^?n ? separate for the service ; 
 cf. Num. xvi. 9. The ^ in *|DK ^ is nota ace. Since Asaph 
 was, according to vi. 24-28, a descendant of Gershon, Heman,
 
 270 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 according to vi. 18-23, a descendant of Kohath, and Jeduthun 
 (= Ethan) a descendant of Merari (vi. 29-32), all the chief 
 families of Levi had representatives among the singers. The 
 Kethibh D"W23n is an orthographical error for Q^aan (Keri), 
 partic. Niph., corresponding to the singular N23n, vers. 2 and 3. 
 N33, proplietare, is here used in its wider signification of the 
 singing and playing to the praise of God performed in the power 
 of the Divine Spirit. In reference to the instruments of these 
 chief musicians, cf. xv. 16. The suffix in &7??*? refers to the 
 following noun, which is subordinated to the word I3p0 as geni- 
 tive ; cf. the similar construction V it?M, his, the sluggard's, soul, 
 Prov. xiii. 4, and Ew. 309, e. " Their number (the number) of 
 the workmen for the service, i.e. of those who performed the work 
 of the service, was (as follows)." Ver. 2. With *JDK *?.-?? tne 
 enumeration begins : ll Of Asaph's sons were, or to Asaph's sons 
 belonged, Zacchur," etc. Four are here named, but the number is 
 not stated, while it is given in the case of the sons of Jeduthun and 
 Heman. vers. 3 and 5. *&*$, at the hand, alternates with "V'Tf 
 
 * / 9 
 
 (vers. 3 and 6), and ^px T PJJ does not of itself express a diffe- 
 rent relationship to Asaph than that expressed by "^n "*!? '9 with 
 reference to the king. It signifies only " under (according to) 
 the direction of;" and in ver. 6 the king, Asaph, Jeduthun, and 
 Heman are co-ordinated, inasmuch as the musical part of the 
 worship was arranged by David and the three chief musicians in 
 common, although only the latter were concerned in its perform- 
 ance. In ver. 3 jsnVPp is placed at the beginning, because the 
 choir of singers led by him bore his name ; and so also in the case 
 of Heman, ver. 4. " As to Jeduthun, were sons of Jeduthun." 
 The word sons in these catalogues denotes not merely actual sons, 
 but those intellectually sons, i.e. scholars taught by the master. 
 This is clear from the fact that the twenty-four classes, each of 
 which numbered twelve men, consist of sons and brothers of the 
 leaders. The names given as those of the sons of Asaph, Jedu- 
 thun, and Heman, in vers. 25, do not represent the whole number 
 of the scholars of these masters, but only the presidents of the 
 twenty-four classes of Levites who were engaged under their 
 leadership in performing the sacred music. Only five sons of Jedu- 
 thun are named in our text, while according to the number given 
 there should be six. A comparison of the names in vers. 9-31 
 shows that in ver. 3 the name *yo:? (ver. 17) has been dropped 
 out. 11332 belongs to JVlVP : under the direction of their father
 
 CHAP. XXV. 1-8. 271 
 
 Jeduthun (the master), upon the kinnor (see on xv. 16), who was 
 inspired to sing praise, i.e. who played inspiredly to bring praise 
 and honour to the Lord ; cf. xvi. 4, xxiii. 30, etc. Ver. 4 f. 
 Fourteen sons of Heman are enumerated, "try 1| n& 1 i is one name, 
 cf. 31, although ">TJ? is without doubt to be supplied also after 
 vtaa. Probably also niK^no is to be supplied in thought after the 
 names. ^^P, I made full, and T'rrin, increased. 1 Heman is 
 called in ver. 5 the seer of the king in the words of God, because 
 he, along with his gift of song, was endowed also with the pro- 
 phetic gift, and as seer made known to the king revelations of 
 God. In 2 Chron. xxxv. 15 the same thing is predicated also of 
 Jeduthun, and in the same sense the prophet Gad is called in 
 xxi. 9 David's seer. Hi?, ^"l?? the Masoretes have connected with 
 the preceding, by placing Atlmach under the pp, and the phrase 
 has been wholly misunderstood by the Rabbins and Christian 
 commentators. Berth., e.g., connects it with 0*'T>&?!j! v ??> anc ^ 
 translates, u to sound loud upon horns, according to the divine 
 command," referring to 2 Chron. xxix. 15, where, however, both 
 meaning and accentuation forbid us to connect niiT 1 'ni'ia with 
 what follows. This interpretation of the words is thoroughly 
 wrong, not only because the Levites under Heman's direction did 
 not blow horns, the horn not being one of the instruments played 
 by the Levites in connection with the worship, but also because 
 on linguistic grounds it is objectionable. pi? D^n never has the 
 signification to blow the horn ; for to elevate the horn signifies 
 everywhere to heighten the power of any one, or unfold, show 
 power; cf. 1 Sam. ii. 10; Lam. ii. 17 ; Ps. cxlviii. 14, Ixxxix. 18, 
 xcii. 11, etc. That is the meaning of the phrase here, and the 
 words are to be connected, according to their sense, with what 
 follows : " to elevate the horn," i.e. to give power, God gave Heman 
 fourteen sons and three daughters; i.e. to make Heman's race 
 
 1 On these names Ewald says, ausf. Lehrl. der Tiebr. SpracJie, 274, S. 
 672, der 7 Ausg. : " It is thought that the utterance of a great prophet is to 
 be found cut up into names of near relatives, when the words, 
 
 1TJ) 
 
 nisnno 
 
 ' I have given great and lofty help, 
 I have to fulness spoken oracles,' 
 
 which manifestly form a verse, and may have been the commencement of a 
 famed ancient oracle, are found transferred to the five musical sons of Heman, 
 Giddalti(ezer), Komamtiezer, Mallo'thi, Hothir,.and Machazioth."
 
 272 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 mighty for the praise of God, God gave him so many sons and 
 daughters. Ver. 6 is the subscription to the enumeration, vers. 
 2-5. '"W~?3 are not the fourteen sons of Heman, but all the 
 sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman. All these were under 
 the direction of their fathers for song in the house of Jahve, 
 with cymbals . . . for the service in the house of God under the 
 direction of the king, etc. Br^ziX is used distributively of each 
 father of the sons named. Bertheau supplies after D^SK the 
 name Heman, and thereby the first half of the verse contradicts 
 the second, which he correctly understands to refer to the twenty- 
 four persons enumerated. In ver. 7 the total number is given. 
 Their number (the number) of the sons of Asaph, Jeduthun, 
 and Heman (i.e. of the twenty-four [4+6+14] mentioned by 
 name), with their brethren, was 288 (24x12) ; whence we learu 
 that each of those named had eleven E^ns ? all of them "VB> Hs?, 
 learned, practised in song for Jahve. In P3ti>rr73 the sons and 
 the brothers are both included, in order to give the total number. 
 r?, having understanding, knowledge of a thing, denotes here 
 those who by education and practice were skilled in song the 
 accomplished musicians. Their number was 288, and these were 
 divided into twenty-four choirs (classes). David had, according 
 to xxiii. 5, appointed 4000 Levites for the performance of the 
 music. Of these, 288 were B^?O skilled in song ; the others were 
 scholars (D^TDpn), as ver. 8 shows, where p3O and TD?n are the 
 two categories into which the musicians are divided. Ver. 8. 
 They cast lots, fl'iOE'p rri/nia, KXtfpovs e^yueptW (LXX.), by which 
 the rncCTO, the waiting upon the service, was fixed, that is, the 
 order of their succession in the official service, flsyp is variously 
 translated. As no name follows, R. Shel. and Kimchi would 
 repeat the preceding H'lOEip : one class as the other ; and this is 
 supported by xxvi. 16 and Neb. xii. 24, and by the fact that in 
 xvii. 5, after J2KT3O, the words |3H? 7SI have been dropped out. 
 But according to the accentuation rnoE'O belongs to rripnij, and so 
 the proposed completion is at once disposed of. Besides this, 
 however, the thought "class like class" does not appear quite 
 suitable, as the classes were only formed by the lots, and so were 
 not in existence so as to be able to cast lots. We therefore, with 
 Ewald, 360, a, and Berth., hold the clause bi!33 H3J33 to be the 
 genitive belonging to nsj?p, since HSJ? is in Eccles. v. 15 also con- 
 nected with a clause : " in the manner of, as the small, so the 
 great," i.e. the small and the great, the older as the younger.
 
 CHAP. XXV. 9-31. 273 
 
 This is further defined by " the skilled as the scholars." From 
 these words it is manifest that not merely the 288 cast lots, for 
 these were n~?3 (ver. 7), but also the other 3712 Levites ap- 
 pointed for the service of the singers ; whence it further follows 
 that only the 288 who were divided by lot into twenty-four classes, 
 each numbering twelve persons, were thoroughly skilled in singing 
 and playing, and the scholars were so distributed to them that each 
 class received an equal number of them, whom they had to edu- 
 cate and train. These, then, were probably trained up for and 
 employed in the temple music according to their progress in their 
 education, so that the l^fiepia which had at any time charge of 
 the service consisted not only of the twelve skilled musicians, but 
 also of a number of scholars who assisted in singing and playing 
 under their direction. 
 
 Vers. 9-31. The order of succession was so determined by lot, 
 that the four sons of Asaph (ver. 3) received the first, third, fifth, 
 and seventh places ; the six sons of Jeduthun, the second, fourth, 
 eighth, twelfth, and fourteenth ; and finally, the four sons of 
 Heman (first mentioned in ver. 4), the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and 
 thirteenth places ; while the remaining places, 15-24, fell to the 
 other sons of Heman. From this we learn that the lots of the 
 sons of the three chief musicians were not placed in separate 
 urns, and one lot drawn from each alternately ; but that, on the 
 contrary, all the lots were placed in one urn, and in drawing the 
 lots of Asaph and Jeduthun came out so, that after the fourteenth 
 drawing only sons of Heman remained. 1 As to the details in 
 ver. 9, after Joseph we miss the statement, " he and his sons and 
 his brothers, twelve ;" which, with the exception of the Kin, used 
 only of the second lot, and omitted for the sake of brevity in all 
 the other cases, is repeated with all the 23 numbers, and so can 
 have been dropped here only by an error. The words *19?- 
 ^Div are to be understood thus : The first lot drawn was for 
 
 1 Bertheau, S. 218, draws quite another conclusion from the above-men- 
 tioned order in which the lots were drawn. He supposes " that two series, 
 each of seven, were first included in the lot : to the one series belonged the 
 four sons of Asaph and the three sons of Heman, Mattaniah, Uzziel or Azarel, 
 and Shebuel or Shubael ; to the other, the six sons of Jeduthun and Bukkiah 
 the son of Heman. A lot was drawn from each series alternately, commencing 
 with the first, so that the four sons of Asaph and the three sons of Heman 
 obtained the places 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 ; while to the six sons of Jeduthun, 
 and the son of Heman added to them, fell the places 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14. 
 The still remaining ten sons of Heman were then finally drawn for, and re- 
 
 8
 
 274 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Asaph, viz. for his son Joseph. In the succeeding verses the 
 names are enumerated, sometimes with and sometimes without 
 K Some of the names diverge somewhat in form. Izri, ver. 11, 
 stands for Zeri, ver. 3 ; Jesharelah, ver. 14, for Asarelah, ver. 2 ; 
 Azarel, ver. 18, for Uzziel, ver. 4 (like the king's names Uzziah 
 and Azariah, iii. 12, and 2 Chron. xxvi. 1) ; Shubael, ver. 20, 
 for Shebuel, ver. 4 (cf. xxiii. 16 with xxiv. 20) ; Jeremoth, ver. 
 22, for Jerimoth, ver. 4 ; Eliyathah, ver. 27, for Eliathah, ver. 4. 
 Besides these, the fuller forms Nethanyahu (ver. 12), Hashab- 
 yahu (ver. 3), Hananyahu (ver. 23), are used instead of the 
 shorter Nethaniah, etc. (vers. 2, 19, 4). Of the 24 names which 
 are here enumerated, besides those of Asaph, Jeduthun, and 
 Heman, only Mattithiah recurs (xv. 18, 21) in the description 
 of the solemnities connected with the bringing in of the ark ; " but 
 we are not justified in seeking there the names of our twenty-four 
 classes" (Berth.). 
 
 Chap. xxvi. The classes of the doorkeepers, the steivards of the 
 treasures of the sanctuary, and the officers for the external business. 
 Vers. 1-19. The classes of the doorkeepers. Ver. 1. The super- 
 scription runs shortly thus : " As to (?) the divisions of the door- 
 keepers." The enumeration begins with D^lTiiW : to the Korahites 
 (belongs) Meshelemiah (in ver. 14, Shelemiah). Instead of ^"ft? 
 f|DN we should read, according to ix. 19, 1DJ3K V.?"??> for the 
 Korahites are descended from Kohath (Ex. vi. 21, xyiii. 16), 
 but Asaph is a descendant of Gershon (vi. 24 f.). In vers. 2, 3, 
 seven sons of Meshelemiah are enumerated ; the first-born Zecha- 
 riah is mentioned also in ix. 21, and was entrusted, according to 
 ver. 14, with the guarding of the north side. Vers. 4-8. Obed- 
 edom's family. Obed-edom has been already mentioned in chap, 
 xvi. 38 and xv. 24 as doorkeeper; see the commentary on the 
 passage. From our passage we learn that Obed-edom belonged 
 to the Kohathite family of the Korahites. According to ver. 19, 
 the doorkeepers were Korahites and Merarites. The Merarites, 
 
 ceived the places from the 15th to the 24th." This very artificial hypothesis 
 explains, indeed, the order of the lots, but we cannot think it probable, 
 because (1) for the supposed dividing of the lots to be drawn into divisions 
 of 10 and 14 no reason can be assigned ; (2) by any such division the sons of 
 Heman would have been placed at a disadvantage from the beginning as com- 
 pared with the sons of Asaph and Jeduthun, since not only Asaph's four sons, 
 but also all Jeduthun's six sons, would have been placed in the first rank, 
 while only four sons of Heman accompany them, Heman's ten remaining sons 
 having had the last place assigned them.
 
 CHAP. XXVI. 1-19. 275 
 
 however, are only treated of from ver. 10 and onwards, 
 (ver. 4) corresponds to ITIJD7BTO1 (ver. 2), and is consequently 
 thereby brought under B^rn;?? (ver. 1). Here, vers. 4, 5, eight sons 
 with whom God had blessed him (cf. xiii. 14), and in 6 and 7 his 
 grandchildren, are enumerated. The verb 1?3 is used in the 
 singular, with a subject following in the plural, as frequently (cf. 
 Ew. 316, a). The grandchildren of Obed-edom by his first- 
 born son Shemaiah are characterized as D^^osrij the dominions, 
 i.e. the lords (rulers) of the house of their fathers ('^*?, the 
 abstract dominion, for the concrete ?t^Q ; cf . Ew. 160, V), because 
 they were ??n ^isa, valiant heroes, and so qualified for the office 
 of doorkeepers. In the enumeration in ver. 7, the omission of 
 the 1 cop. with vns 13PX is strange ; probably we must supply 
 1. before both words, and take them thus : And Elzabad and his 
 brethren, valiant men, (viz.) Elihu and Semachiah. For the 
 conjecture that the names of the vns are not given (Berth.) is 
 not a very probable one. Ver. 8. The whole number of door- 
 keepers of Obed-edom's family, his sons and brethren, was sixty- 
 two ; able men with strength for the service. The singular B"N 
 T'.n, after the preceding plural, is most simply explained by taking 
 it to be in apposition to the $>b at the beginning of the verse, 
 by repeating ^b mentally before t^K. In ver. 9 the number of 
 Meshelemiah's sons and brothers is brought in in a supplemen- 
 tary way. Vers. 10, 11. The Merarites. Hosah's sons and 
 brothers. HDin has been already mentioned (xvi. 38) along with 
 Obed-edom as doorkeeper. Hosah made Shimri head of the 
 Merarites, wiio served as doorkeepers, because there was no first* 
 born, i.e. because his first-born son had died without leaving any 
 descendant, so that none of the families descended from Hosah 
 had the natural claim to the birthright. All the sons and 
 
 O 
 
 brothers of Hosah were thirteen. Meshelemiah had eighteen (cf. 
 ver. 9), and Obed-edom sixty-two (ver. 8) ; and all taken together 
 they make ninety-three, whom we are (according to ver. 12 f.) 
 to regard as the heads of the 4000 doorkeepers. In ix. 22 the 
 number of the doorkeepers appointed by David is stated to be 
 212, but that number most probably refers to a different time 
 (see on ix. 22). Bertheau further remarks : " According to xvi. 
 38, sixty-eight are reckoned to Obed-edom and Hosah, in our 
 passage seventy-five ; and the small difference between the num- 
 bers is explained by the fact that in the first passage only the 
 doorkeepers before the ark are referred to." Against this we
 
 276 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 have already shown, in our remarks on xvi. 38, that the number 
 there mentioned cannot be held with certainty to refer to the 
 doorkeepers. Vers. 12-19. The division of the doorkeepers 
 according to their posts of service. Ver. 12. " To these classes 
 of doorkeepers, viz. to the heads of the men, (were committed) 
 the watches, in common with their brethren, to serve in the house 
 of Jahve." By nippnz? n?s? it is placed beyond doubt that the 
 above-mentioned names and numbers give us the classes of the 
 doorkeepers. By the apposition B^an 'BWp, the meaning of 
 which is discussed in the commentary on xxiv. 4, 't?n nippno is 
 so defined as to show that properly the heads of the households 
 are meant, only these having been enumerated in the preceding 
 section, and not the classes. Ver. 13. The distribution of the 
 stations by lot followed (cf. xxv. 8), the small as the great ; i.e. 
 the younger as the older cast lots, according to their fathers'- 
 houses, " for door and door," i.e. for each door of the four sides 
 of the temple, which was built so that its sides corresponded to 
 the points of the compass. Ver. 14. The lot towards the east, 
 i.e. for the guarding of the east side, fell to Shelemiah (cf. 
 vers. 1, 2) ; while that towards the north fell to his first-born 
 Zechariah. Before W*^\ 7 is to be repeated. To him the title 
 
 f . T " f 
 
 73^3 pyi 1 " is given, for reasons unknown to us. 'U ^S?, (for him) 
 they threw lots. Ver. 15. To Obed-edom (fell the lot) towards 
 the south, and to his sons it fell (to guard) the house Asuppim. 
 As to Q^SpKnTVa, called for brevity O^DK in ver. 17, i.e. house 
 of collections or provisions (cf. Neh. xii. 25), we can say nothing 
 further than that it was a building used for the storing of the 
 temple goods, situated in the neighbourhood of the southern 
 door of the temple in the external court, and that it probably 
 had two entrances, since in ver. 19 it is stated that two guard- 
 stations were assigned to it. Ver. 16. The word B 11 !^? is un- 
 intelligible, and probably has come into the text merely by a 
 repetition of the two last syllables of the preceding word, since 
 the name E"S^ (vii. 12) has no connection with this passage. 
 To Hosah fell the lot towards the west, by the door Shallecheth 
 on the ascending highway. n?iyn Hjipion is the way which led 
 from the lower city up to the more lofty temple site. Instead 
 of the door on this highway, in ver. 18, in the statement as 
 to the distribution of the guard-stations, Parbar is named, and 
 the highway distinguished from it, four doorkeepers being ap- 
 pointed for the n ^"?D ; and two for ">|H5. }|ns>, probably identical
 
 CHAP. XXVI. 1-19. 277 
 
 \vith C1 1J"]3, 2 Kings xxiii. 11, a word of uncertain meaning, was 
 the name of an out-building on the western side, the back of the 
 outer court of the temple by the door Shallecheth, which con- 
 tained cells for the laying up of temple goods and furniture. 
 n??K>, Bottcher translates, Proben, S. 347, "refuse-door;" see on 
 2 Kings xxiii. 11. Nothing more definite can be said of it, unless 
 we hold, with Thenius on 2 Kings xxiii. 11, that Ezekiel's temple 
 is in all its details a copy of the Solomonic temple, and use it, in 
 an unjustifiable way, as a source of information as to the prse- 
 exilic temple. ">E^? JT2>J7? "iBBto (as in Neh. xii. 24), guard with 
 (over against ?) guard, or one guard as the other (cf. on nejjb, 
 ver. 12 and xxv. 8), Bertheau connects with Hosah, according 
 to the Masoretic punctuation, and explains it thus : " Because it 
 was Hosah's duty to set guards before the western gate of the 
 temple, and also before the gate Shallecheth, which lay over 
 against it." Clericus, on ^the contrary, refers the words to all 
 the guard-stations : cum ad omnes januas essent custodies, sibi ex 
 adverse respondelant. This reference, according to which the 
 words belong to what follows, and introduce the statement as to 
 the number of guards at the individual posts which follows in ver. 
 17 ff., seems to deserve the preference. So much is certain in 
 any case, that there is no ground in the text for distinguishing the 
 gate Shallecheth from the western gate of the temple, for the two 
 gates are not distinguished either in ver. 16 or in ver. 18. 
 Ver. 17 f. Settlement of the number of guard-stations at the 
 various sides and places. Towards morning (on the east side) 
 were six of the Levites (six kept guard) ; towards the north by day 
 (i.e. daily, on each day), four ; towards the south daily, four ; and 
 at the storehouse two and two, consequently four also ; at Parbar 
 towards the west, four on the highway and two at Parbar, i.e. six. 
 In all, therefore, there were twenty-four guard-stations to be 
 occupied daily ; but more than twenty-four persons were required, 
 because, even supposing that one man at a time was sufficient 
 for each post, one man could not stand the whole day at it : he 
 must have been relieved from time to time. Probably, however, 
 there were always more than one person on guard at each post. 
 It further suggests itself that the number twenty-four may be in 
 some way connected with the divisions or classes of doorkeepers ; 
 but there is only a deceptive appearance of a connection. The 
 division of the priests and musicians each into twenty-four classes 
 respectively is no sufficient analogy in the case, for these classes
 
 278 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 had to perform the service in succession each for a week at a 
 time, while the twenty-four doorkeepers' stations had to be all 
 occupied simultaneously every day. In vers. 211, then, twenty- 
 eight heads in all are enumerated by name (Meshelemiah with 
 seven sons, Obed-edom with eight sons and six grandsons, and 
 Hosah with four sons) ; but the total number in all the three 
 families of doorkeepers is stated at ninety-three, and neither the 
 one nor the other of these numbers bears any relation to twenty- 
 four. Finally, the posts are so distributed that Meshelemiah 
 with his eighteen sons and brothers kept guard on the east and 
 north sides with six posts ; Obed-edom with his sixty-two sons 
 and brothers on the south side with four and 2X2, that is, 
 eight posts ; and Hosah with his thirteen sons and brothers on the 
 western side with four and two, that is, six ; so that even here 
 no symmetrical distribution of the service can be discovered. 
 Ver. 19. Subscription, in which it is again stated that the 
 classes of doorkeepers were taken from among the Korahites and 
 Merarites. 
 
 Vers. 20-28. The stewards of the treasures of the sanctuary. 
 Ver. 20 appears to contain the superscription of the succeeding 
 section. For here the treasures of the house of God and the 
 treasures of the consecrated things are grouped together, while 
 in vers. 22 and 26 they are separated, and placed under the over- 
 sight of two Levite families : the treasures of the house of Jahve 
 under the sons of the Gershonite Laadan (vers. 21, 22) ; the 
 treasures of the consecrated things under the charge of the 
 Amramites. But with this the words n s nx D^n cannot be made 
 
 T -; ; i . 
 
 to harmonize. According to the Masoretic accentuation, Enbn 
 alone would be the superscription ; but t^vp alone gives no suit- 
 able sense, for the Levites have been treated of already from 
 chap xxiii. onwards. Moreover, it appears somewhat strange 
 that there is no further characterization of n *?K, for the name is 
 a very common one, but has not before occurred in our chapter, 
 whence we would expect a statement of his descent and his 
 family, such as we find in the case of the succeeding chief over- 
 seers. All these things tend to throw doubt upon the correctness 
 of the Masoretic reading, while the LXX., on the contrary, in ical 
 oiAevirai aSeX^ot avrtav eTrl T&V OiijaavpwV) /c.r.X., give a perfectly 
 suitable superscription, which involves the reading Bn l| ns instead 
 of n>ns. This reading we, with J. D. Mich, and Berth., hold to 
 be the original. On Dn'riK D^n, c f. vi. 29, 2 Chron. xxix. 34. 
 
 O : :/ /
 
 CHAP. XXVI. '20-28. 279 
 
 Vers. 21 and 22 go together : "The sons of Laadan, (namely) the 
 sons of the Gershonite family which belong to Laadan, (namely) 
 the heads of the fathers'-houses of Laadan of the Gershonite 
 family : Jehieli, (namely) the sons of Jehieli, Zetham and his 
 brother Joel (see xxiii. 7), were over the treasures of the house 
 of Jahve." The meaning is this : " Over the treasures of the 
 house of Jahve were Zetham and Joel, the heads of the father's- 
 house of Jehieli, which belonged to the Laadan branch of the 
 Gershonites." Light is thrown upon these words, so obscure 
 through their brevity, by chap, xxiii. 7, 8, according to which 
 the sons of Jehiel, or the Jehielites, are descended from Laadan, 
 the older branch of the Gershonites. This descent is briefly but 
 fully stated in the three clauses of the 21st verse, each of which 
 contains a more definite characterization of the father's-house 
 Jehieli, whose two heads Zetham and Joel were entrusted with the 
 oversight of the treasures of the house of God. Vers. 23 and 24 
 also go together : " As to the Amramites, Jisharites, Hebronites, 
 and Uzzielites (the four chief branches of the Kohathite family 
 of Levites, chap, xsiii. 1520), Shebuel the son of Gershon, the 
 son of Moses, was prince over the treasures " (i before Shebuel 
 introduces the apodosis, cf. Ew. 348, a, and = Germ. " so 
 war"). Ver. 25. "And his (Shebuel's) brethren of Eliezer were 
 Rehabiah his (Eliezer's) son, and Jeshaiah his son, . . . and 
 Shelomoth his son." These descendants of Eliezer were called 
 brethren of Shebuel, because they were descended through Eli- 
 ezer from Moses, as Shebuel was through his father Gershon. 
 Ver. 26. This Shelomoth (a descendant of Eliezer, and so to be 
 distinguished both from the Jisharite Shelomith (xxiii. 18 and 
 xxiv. 22), and the Gershonite of the same name (xxiii. 9)), and 
 his brethren were over the treasures of the consecrated things 
 which David the king had consecrated, and the heads of the 
 fathers'-houses, etc. Instead of ^jf? we must read ^'l, according 
 to xxix. 6. The princes over the thousands and hundreds are 
 the war captains, and the fctaJfn n^ are the commanders-in-chief, 
 e.g. Abner, Joab, xxvii. 34, 2 Sam. viii. 16, 1 Chron. xviii. 15. 
 The 27th verse is an explanatory parenthesis : "from the wars 
 and from the booty," i.e. from the booty taken in war had they 
 consecrated. p?.Dr> to make strong, i.e. to preserve in strength and 
 good condition the house of Jahve. Pjtn elsewhere of the reno- 
 vation of old buildings, 2 Kings xii. 8 ff., Neh. iii. 2 ff., here in a 
 somewhat general signification. In ver. 28 the enumeration of
 
 280 , THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 those who had consecrated, thus interrupted, is resumed, but in 
 the form of a new sentence, which concludes with a predicate of 
 its own. In E^pnn the article represents "it?K, as in xxix. 17, 
 2 Chron. xxix. 36J and elsewhere; cf. Ew. 331, b. With 
 SS^'npsn l ?3 ) a ll wno na( j consecrated, the enumeration is concluded, 
 and the predicate, " was at the hand of Shelomith and his 
 brethren," is then brought in. T^, laid upon the hand, i.e. 
 entrusted to them for preservation ; Germ, unter der Hand (under 
 the hand). 
 
 If we glance back at the statements as to the stewards of the 
 treasures (vers. 20-28), we find that the treasures of the house 
 of Jahve were under the oversight of the Jehielites Zetham and 
 Joel, with their brethren, a branch of the Gershonites (ver. 22) ; 
 and the treasures of the consecrated things under the oversight 
 of the Kohathite Shelomith, who was of the family of Moses' 
 second son Eliezer, with his brethren (ver. 28). But in what re- 
 lation does the statement in ver. 24, that Shebuel, the descendant 
 of Moses through Gershon, was Dii^sn'pj; TJ3, stand to this? 
 Bertheau thinks " that three kinds of treasures are distinguished, 
 the guarding of which was committed to different officials: (1) 
 The sons of Jehieli, Zetham and Joel, had the oversight of the 
 treasures of the house of God, which, as we may conclude from 
 xxix. 8, had been collected by voluntary gifts : (2) Shebuel was 
 prince over the treasures, perhaps over the sums which resulted 
 from regular assessment for the temple (Ex. xxx. 1116), from re- 
 demption-money, e.g. for the first-born (Num. xviii. 16 ff.), or for 
 vows (Lev. xxvii.) ; consequently over a part of the sums which 
 are designated in 2 Kings xii. 5 by the name D'CHpn spa : (3) 
 Shelomith and his brothers had the oversight of all the nnvis 
 D^Enpn, i.e. of the consecrated gifts which are called in 2 Kings 
 xii. 19 D^CHp, and distinguished from the D'BHp f)D3 in ver. 5." 
 But this view has no support in the text. Both in the super- 
 scription (ver. 20) and in the enumeration (vers. 22, 26) only 
 two kinds of treasures treasures of the house of God (of Jahve), 
 and treasures of the D^enp are mentioned. Neither by the facts 
 nor by the language used are we justified in supposing that there 
 was a third kind of treasures, viz. the sums resulting from the 
 regular assessment for the holy place. For it is thoroughly 
 arbitrary to confine the treasures of the house of God to the 
 voluntary contributions and the consecrated gifts given from the 
 war-booty ; and it is still more arbitrary to limit the treasures
 
 CHAP. XXVI. 29-32. 281 
 
 over which Shebuel was prince to the sums flowing into the 
 temple treasures from the regular assessment ; for the reference 
 to 2 Kings xii. 19 and 5 is no proof of this, because, though two 
 kinds of D^tSHp are there distinguished, yet both are further de- 
 fined. The quite general expression nhxxn, the treasures, can 
 naturally be referred only to the two different kinds of treasures 
 distinguished in ver. 22. This reference is also demanded by the 
 words T3J . . . kx'OC' (ver. 24). Heads of fathers'-houses, with 
 their brethren (Dl^nx), are mentioned as guardians of the two 
 kinds of treasures spoken of in ver. 20 ; while here, on the con- 
 trary, we have Shebuel alone, without assistants. Further, the 
 other guardians are not called T'JJ, as Shebuel is. The word 
 TJ3 denotes not an overseer or steward, but only princes of king- 
 doms (kings), princes of tribes (xii. 27, xiii. 1, xxvii. 16 ; 2 
 Chron. xxxii. 21), ministers of the palace and the temple, and 
 commauders-in-chief (2 Chron. xi. 11, xxviii. 7), and is con- 
 sequently used in our section neither of Zetham and Joel, nor 
 of Shelomoth. The calling of Shebuel "VJJ consequently shows 
 that he was the chief guardian of the sacred treasures, under 
 whose oversight the guardians of the two different kinds of 
 treasures were placed. This is stated in vers. 23, 24 ; and the 
 statement would not have been misunderstood if it had been 
 placed at the beginning or the end of the enumeration ; and 
 its position in the middle between the Gershonites and the 
 Kohathites is explained by the fact that this prince was, accord- 
 ing to xxiii. 16, the head of the four Levite families descended 
 from Kohath. 
 
 Vers. 29-32. The officials for the external business. Ver. 29. 
 " As to the Izharites, Chenaniah (see on xv. 22) with his sons 
 was for the outward business over Israel for scribes and judges." 
 According to this, the external business of the Levites consisted 
 of service as scribes and judges, for which David had set apart 
 6000 Levites (xxiii. 4). Without sufficient reason, Bertheau 
 would refer the external business to the exaction of the dues for 
 the temple, because in Neh. xi. 16 njV'nri nasTSn for the temple 
 is spoken of. But it does not at all follow that in our verse the 
 external work had any reference to the temple, and that the 
 scribes and judges had only this narrow sphere of action, since 
 here, instead of the house of God, ?*P T B* 7JJ is mentioned as the 
 object with which the external service was connected. Ver. 30. 
 Of Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brethren, 1700 valiant men,
 
 282 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 were '& rnps ?J?, for the oversight (inspection) of Israel this side 
 Jordan, for all the business of Jahve and the service of the king. 
 Bertheau takes rnj^a to mean " due," " fixed tribute," a meaning 
 which the word cannot be shown to have. The LXX. have 
 translated correctly, evrl T?}? eTTKr/ceifretos rov 'I<rpar)\ : ad inspec- 
 tionem Israelis, i.e. prcefecti erant (J. H. Mich.). For fnpa ?y is 
 in ver. 32 rendered by ?J? T 1 !??!. IT!.? "^P is shown by the addi- 
 tion i " | 2'W to refer to the land of Canaan, as in Josh. v. 1, 
 xxii. 7, since Israel, both under Joshua and also after the exile, 
 had come from the eastward over Jordan into Canaan. The 
 words r>2N?p and JTPJJ are synonymous, and are consequently 
 both represented in ver. 32 by "Q1.. Ver. 31 f. David set an- 
 other branch of the Hebronites, under the head Jeriah (cf. 
 xxiii. 9), over the East-Jordan tribes. Between the words 
 "Jeriah the head," ver. 31, and vnto, ver. 32, a parenthesis 
 is inserted, which gives the reason why David made these 
 Hebronites scribes and judges among the East-Jordan tribes. 
 The parenthesis runs thus : " As to the Hebronites, according to 
 their generations, according to fathers, they were sought out in 
 the fortieth year of David's rule, and valiant heroes were found 
 among them in Jazer of Gilead." Jazer was a Levite city in 
 the tribal domain of Gad, assigned, according to Josh. xxi. 39, to 
 the Merarites (see on vi. 66). The number of these Hebronites 
 was 2700 valiant men (ver. 32). The additional niisn ^jn is 
 obscure, for if we take HUN to be, as it often is in the genealogies, 
 a contraction for rn2K~rV3, the number given does not suit ; for 
 a branch of the Hebronites cannot possibly have numbered 2700 
 fathers'-houses (iraTpiai, groups of related households) : they must 
 be only 2700 men (D'nria), or heads of families, i.e. households. 
 Not only the large number demands this signification, but also 
 the comparison of this statement with that in ver. 30. The 
 1700 ^0 V.3 of which the Hebronite branch, Hashabiah with his 
 brethren, consisted, were not so many Trarpiai, but only so many 
 men of this Trarpid. In the same way, the Hebronite branch of 
 which Jeriah was head, with his brethren, 2700 ??n ^3, were also 
 not 2700 irarpiaij but only so many men, that is, fathers of 
 families. It is thus placed beyond doubt that nias 'tJ'&a cannot 
 here denote the heads of fathers'-houses, but only heads of house- 
 holds. And accordingly we must not understand fi^iO (ver. 31) 
 of fathers'-houses, as the LXX. and all commentators do, but 
 only of heads of households. The use of the verb ^Bn-u also
 
 CHAP, xxvii. 283 
 
 favours this view, for this verb is not elsewhere used of the legal 
 
 ' O 
 
 census of the people, i.e. the numbering and entering of them 
 in the public lists, according to the great families and fathers'- 
 houses. There may therefore be in lEn"T3 a hint that it was not 
 a genealogical census which was undertaken, but only a number- 
 ing of the heads of households, in order to ascertain the number 
 of scribes and judges to be appointed. There yet remain in this 
 section three things which are somewhat strange : 1. Only 1700 
 scribes and judges were set over the cis-Jordanic land, inhabited 
 as it was by ten and a half tribes, while 2700 were set over 
 the trans- Jordanic land with its two and a half tribes. 2. Both 
 numbers taken together amount to only 4400 men, while David 
 appointed GOOO Levites to be scribes and judges. 3. The scribes 
 and judges w r ere taken only from two fathers'-houses of the 
 Kohathites, while most of the other Levitical offices were filled 
 by men of all the families of the tribe of Levi. On all these 
 grounds, it is probable that our catalogue of the Levites appointed 
 to be scribes and judges, i.e. for the external business, is im- 
 perfect. 
 
 CHAP. XXVII. DIVISION OF THE ARMY. TRIBAL PRINCES, AD- 
 MINISTRATORS OF THE DOMAINS, AND COUNCILLORS OF 
 STATE. 
 
 This chapter treats of the organization of the army (vers. 1-15) 
 and the public administration; in vers. 16-24, the princes of the 
 twelve tribes being enumerated ; in vers. 25-31, the managers 
 of the royal possessions and domains ; and in vers. 32-34, the 
 chief councillors of the king. The information on tnese points 
 immediately succeeds the arrangement of the service of the 
 Levites, because, as we learn from ver. 23 f., David attempted 
 in the last year of his reign to give a more stable form to the 
 political constitution of the kingdom also. In the enumeration 
 of the twelve divisions of the army, with their leaders (vers. 1-15), 
 it is not indeed said when David organized the men capable of 
 bearing arms for the alternating monthly service ; but the refer- 
 ence in ver. 23 f. of our chapter to the numbering of the people, 
 spoken of in chap, xxi., leaves no doubt of the fact that this 
 division of the people stands in intimate connection with that 
 numbering of the people, and that David caused the people to be 
 numbered in order to perfect the military constitution of the
 
 284 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 kingdom, and to leave his kingdom to his son strong within and 
 mighty without. 
 
 Vers. 1-15. The twelve divisions of the army. Ver. 1. The 
 lengthy superscription, " And the sons of Israel according to their 
 number, the heads of the fathers'-houses, and the princes over the 
 thousands and the hundreds, and their scribes, who served the king 
 in regard to every matter of the divisions ; which month for month 
 of all months of the year went and came, one division 24,000 
 men," is towards the end so intimately interwoven with the 
 divisions of the army, that it can only refer to this, i.e. only to 
 the catalogue, vers. 2-15. Since, then, we find in this catalogue 
 only the twelve classes, the number of the men belonging to 
 each, and their leaders, and since for this the short superscription, 
 *' the Israelites according to their number, and the princes of 
 the divisions which served the king," would be amply sufficient, 
 Bertheau thinks that the superscription originally belonged to 
 a more complete description of the classes and their different 
 officers, of which only a short extract is here communicated. 
 This hypothesis is indeed possible, but is not at all certain ; for 
 it is questionable whether, according to the above superscription, 
 we have a right to expect an enumeration by name of the various 
 officials who served the king in the classes of the army. The 
 answer to this question depends upon our view of the relation of 
 the words, " the heads of the fathers'-houses, and the princes," to 
 the first clause, " the sons of Israel according to their number." 
 Had these words been connected by the conjunction 1 (^fcOl.) with 
 this clause, and thereby made co-ordinate with it, we should be 
 justified in having such an expectation. But the want of the 
 conjunction shows that these words form an apposition, which as 
 to signification is subordinate to the main idea. If we take this 
 appositional explanation to mean something like this, " the 
 sons of Israel, according to their number, with the heads of the 
 fathers'-houses and the princes," the emphasis of the superscrip- 
 tion falls upon D^SDDp, and the number of the sons of Israel, 
 who with their heads and princes were divided into classes, is 
 announced to be the important thing in the following catalogue. 
 That this is the meaning and object of the words may be gathered 
 from this, that in the second half of the verse, the number of 
 the men fit for service, who from month to month came and went 
 as one class, is stated nnKn ? one at a time (distributive), as in 
 Judg. viii. 18, Num. xvii. 18, etc. ; cf. Evv. 313, a, note 1. Ki3
 
 CHAP. XXVII. 1-15. 285 
 
 K1, used of entering upon and leaving the service (cf. 2 Chron. 
 xxiii. 4, 8 ; 2 Kings xi. 5, 7, 9). But the words are hardly 
 to be understood to mean that the classes which were in service 
 each month were ordered from various parts of the kingdom 
 to the capital, and there remained under arms ; but rather, as 
 Clericus, that they paratce essent ducum imperils parere, si quid 
 contigisset) dum ceterce copice, si necesse essent, convenirent. Ver. 
 2 ff. Over the first division was Jashobeam, scil. commander. 
 The second ifli??n>? 7JJ is to be rendered, " in his division were 
 24,000 men," i.e. they were reckoned to it. As to Jashobeam, 
 see on xi. 11 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. Ver. 3 further relates of him 
 that he was of the sons (descendants) of Perez, and the head of 
 all the army chiefs in the first month (i.e. in the division for the 
 first month). Ver. 4. Before 'Ify according to xi. 12, |3 "ijy?N 
 has been dropped out (see on 2 Sam. xxiii. 9). The words ifii^npl 
 TJ3H ni7ip1 are obscure. At the end of the sixth verse similar 
 words occur, and hence Bertheau concludes that 1 before ni7j? i s 
 to be struck out, and translates, " and his divisions, Mikloth the 
 prince," which might denote, perhaps, " and his division is that 
 over which Mikloth was prince." Older commentators have 
 already translated the word in a similar manner, as signify- 
 ing that Mikloth was prince or chief of this division under the 
 Ahohite Eleazar. All that is certain is, that nvi?& is a name 
 which occurred in viii. 32 and ix. 37 among the Benjamites. 
 Ver. 5. Here the form of expression is changed ; K3Jfn ib>, the 
 chief of the third host, begins the sentence. As to Benaiah, see 
 xi. 22 and the commentary on 2 Sam. xxiii. 20. K'Ni does not 
 belong to jnbn, but is the predicate of Benaiah : " the prince of the 
 . . . was Benaiah ... as head," sc. of the division for the third month. 
 This is added, because in ver. 6 still a third military office held 
 by Benaiah is mentioned. He was hero of the (among the) thirty, 
 and over the thirty, i.e. more honoured than they (cf. xi. 25 and 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 23). With ver. 6b cf. what is said on the similar 
 words, ver. 4. Ver. 7. From here onwards the mode of expression 
 is very much compressed : the fourth of the fourth month, instead 
 of the chief of the fourth host of the fourth month. Asahel (see 
 xi. 26 and on 2 Sam. xxiii. 24) was slain by Abner (2 Sam. ii. 
 18-23) in the beginning of David's reign, and consequently long 
 before the division of the army here recorded. The words, " and 
 Zebadiah his son after him," point to his death, as they mention his 
 son as his successor in the command of the fourth division of the
 
 286 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 army. When Asahel, therefore, is called commander of the fourth 
 division of the host, it is done merely honoris causa, since the 
 division over which his son was named, de patris defuncti nomine 
 (Cler.). Ver. 8. Shamhuth is called in xi. 27 Shammoth, and in 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 25 Shamma. He was born in Harod ; here he is called 
 rnrrt, the Jizrahite, = ''TWi, ver. 13, of the family of Zerah the 
 son of Judah (ii. 4, 6). Ver. 9. Ira; see si. 28, 2 Sam. xxiii. 26. 
 Ver. 10. Helez: xi. 27; 2 Sam. xxiii. 26. Ver. 11. Sibbecai; 
 see xi. 29, 2 Sam. xxiii. 27. Ver. 12. Abiezer ; see xi. 28, 2 Sam. 
 xxiii. 27 ; he was of Anathoth in the tribe of Benjamin (Jer. i. 1). 
 Ver. 13. Maharai (see xi. 30, 2 Sam. xxiii. 28) belonged also 
 to the family of Zerah ; see vers. 11, 8. Ver. 14. Benaiah of 
 Pirathon; see xi. 31, 2 Sam. xxiii. 30. Ver. 15. Heldai, in xi. 30 
 Heled, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 29 erroneously called Heleb, belonging to 
 Othniel's family (Josh. xv. 17). 
 
 Vers. 16-24. The princes of the twelve tribes. The enumera- 
 tion of the tribal princes, commencing with the words, " and over 
 the tribes of Israel," immediately follows the catalogue of the 
 divisions of the army with their commanders, because the subjects 
 are in so far connected as the chief management of the internal 
 business of the people, divided as they were into tribes, was depo- 
 sited in their hands. In the catalogue the tribes Gad and Asher 
 are omitted for reasons unknown to us, just as in chap, iv.-vii., 
 in the genealogies of the tribes, Dan and Zebulun are. In refer- 
 ence to Levi, on the contrary, the Nagid of Aaron, i.e. the head 
 of the priesthood, is named, viz. Zadok, the high priest of the 
 family of Eleazar. Ver. 18. Elihu, of the brethren of David, is 
 only another form of the name Eliab, ii. 13, David's eldest 
 brother, who, as Jesse's first-born, had become tribal prince of 
 Judah. Ver. 20 f. Of Manasseh two tribal princes are named, 
 because the one half of this tribe had received its inheritance on 
 this side Jordan, the other beyond Jordan. "TT$3, towards Gilead, 
 to designate the East- Jordan Manassites. Vers. 23 and 24 contain 
 a concluding remark on the catalogue of the twelve detachments 
 into which the men capable of bearing arms in Israel were 
 divided, contained in vers. 2-15. David had not taken their 
 number from the men of twenty years and under, i.e. he had only 
 caused those to be numbered who were over twenty years old. The 
 word B"ipO points back to D^apo^ ver. 1. ">Spp KB>3 as in Num. iii. 
 40 = BttV Kiw, Ex. xxx. 12, Num. i. 49, to take up the sum or total. 
 The reason of this is given in the clause, " for Jahve had said
 
 CHAP. XXVII. 25-31. 287 
 
 (promised) to increase Israel like to the stars of heaven " (Gen. 
 xxii. 17), which cannot mean: For it was impossible for David 
 to number all, because they were as numerous as the stars of 
 heaven, which of course cannot be numbered (Berth.). The 
 thought is rather that David never intended to number the whole 
 people from the youngest to the eldest, for he did not desire in 
 fidem divinarum promissionum inquirere aut earn labefactare (J. H. 
 Mich.) ; and he accordingly caused only the men capable of bear- 
 ing arms to be numbered, in order to organize the military consti- 
 tution of the kingdom in the manner recorded in vers. 2-15. But 
 even this numbering which Joab had begun was not completed, 
 because wrath came on Israel because of it, as is narrated in chap. 
 xxi. For this reason also the number, i.e. the result of the 
 numbering begun by Joab, but not completed, is not included in 
 the number of the chronicle of King David, i.e. in the official 
 number which was usually inserted in the public annals. 13DO3 
 neither stands for ">BD2 (according to 2 Chron. xx. 34), nor does it 
 denote, " in the section which treats of the numberings " (Berth.). 
 ^^*0 ^^. is a shorter expression for 'n 'nrn "iDp ? book of the events 
 of the day. 
 
 Vers. 25-31. The managers of Davids possessions and domains. 
 The property and the income of the king were (ver. 25) divided 
 into treasures of the king, and treasures in the country, in the 
 cities, the villages, and the castles. By the " treasures of the 
 king" we must therefore .understand those which were in Jeru- 
 salem, i.e. the treasures of the royal palace. These were managed 
 by Azmaveth. The remaining treasures are specified in ver. 
 26 ff. They consisted in fields which were cultivated by labourers 
 (ver. 26) ; in vineyards (ver. 27) ; plantations of olive trees and 
 sycamores in the Shephelah, the fruitful plain on the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea (ver. 28) ; in cattle, which pastured partly in the plain 
 of Sharon between Csesarea Palestina and Joppa (see p. 107 f.), 
 partly in various valleys of the country (ver. 29) ; and in camels, 
 asses, and sheep (ver. 30 f.). All these possessions are called twan, 
 and the overseers of them t^D-in "nt?. They consisted in the pro- 
 
 duce of agriculture and cattle-breeding, the two main branches 
 of Israelitish industry. Ver. 27. Special officers were set over 
 the vineyards and the stores of wine. The ^ in D'wsat? is a 
 
 v v " T I " 
 
 contraction of "it^K ; " over that which was in the vineyards of 
 treasures (stores) of wine." The officer over the vineyards, 
 Shimei, was of Ramah in Benjamin (cf. Josh, xviii. 25) ; he who
 
 288 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 was over the stores of wine, Zabdi, is called ^SBfy probably not 
 from 22^ on the northern frontier of Canaan, Num. xxxiv. 10, 
 the situation of which has not yet been discovered, but from the 
 equally unknown J"riBQK> in the Negeb of Judah, 1 Sam. xxx. 28. 
 For since the vineyards, in which the stores of wine were laid up, 
 must certainly have lain in the tribal domain of Judah, so rich 
 in wine (Num. xiii. 23 ff. ; Gen. xlix. 11), probably the overseers 
 of it were born in the same district. Ver. 28. As to the fvSC', 
 see on Josh. xv. 33. ^TfW, he who was born in Geder, not Gedera, 
 for which we should expect 'W'lsn (xii. 4), although the situation 
 of Gedera, south-east from Jabne (see on xii. 4), appears to suit 
 better than that of "Hjj or "til 3 in the hill country of Judah ; see 
 Josh. xii. 13 and xv. 58. Ver. 30. The name of the Ishmaelite 
 who was set over the camels, Obil (^?iK), reminds us of the Arab 
 
 Jj! multos possedit vel acquisivit camelos. ^isn, he of Mero- 
 / 
 
 noth (ver. 30 and Neh. iii. 17). The situation of this place is 
 unknown. According to Neh. iii. 7, it is perhaps to be sought in 
 the neighbourhood of Mizpah. Over the smaller cattle (sheep 
 and goats) Jaziz the Hagarite, of the people Hagar (cf. v. 10), 
 was set. The oversight, consequently, of the camels and sheep 
 was committed to a Hagarite and an Ishmaelite, probably because 
 they pastured in the neighbourhood where the Ishmaelites and 
 Hagarites had nomadized from early times, they having been 
 brought under the dominion of Israel by David. The total 
 number of these officials amounted to twelve, of whom we may 
 conjecture that the ten overseers over the agricultural and cattle- 
 breeding affairs of the king had to deliver over the annual pro- 
 ceeds of the property committed to them to the chief manager of 
 the treasures in the field, in the cities, and villages, and towns. 
 
 Vers. 32-34. Davids councillors. This catalogue of the king's 
 officials forms a supplementary companion piece to the catalogues 
 of the public officials, chap, xviii. 15-17, and 2 Sam. viii. 15-18 
 and xx. 25, 26. Besides Joab, who is met with in all catalogues 
 as prince of the host, i.e. commander-in-chief, we find in our 
 catalogue partly other men introduced, partly other duties of the 
 men formerly named, than are mentioned in these three cata- 
 logues. From this it is clear that it is not the chief public 
 officials who are enumerated, but only the first councillors of the 
 king, who formed as it were his senate, and that the catalogue 
 probably is derived from the same source as the preceding cata
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. XXIX. 289 
 
 logucs. Jonathan, the "in of David. The word "in generally 
 denotes a father's brother ; but since a Jonathan, son of Shimea, 
 the brother of David, occurs xx. 7 and 2 Sam. xxi. 21, Schmidt 
 and Bertheau hold him to be the same as our Jonathan, when 
 in would be used in the general signification of " relative," here 
 of a nephew. Nothing certain can be ascertained in reference to 
 it. He was }'W\ councillor, and, as is added, a wise and learned 
 man. i3iD is here not an official designation, but signifies lite- 
 ratus, learned, scholarly, as in Ezra vii. 6. Jehiel, the son of 
 Hachmon, was with the children of the king, i.e. was governor of 
 the royal princes. Ver. 33. Ahithophel was also, according to 2 
 Sam. xv. 31, xvi. 23, David's confidential adviser, and took his 
 own life when Absalom, in his conspiracy against David, did not 
 regard his counsel (2 Sam. xvii.). Hushai the Archite was also 
 a friend and adviser of David (2 Sam. xv. 37 and xvi. 16), who 
 caused Absalom to reject Ahithophel's counsel (2 Sam. xvii.). 
 Ver. 34. After Ahithophel, i.e. after his death, was Jehoiada the 
 son of Benaiah (soil, counsellor of the king), and Abiathar. As 
 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada is elsewhere, when named among 
 the public officials of David, called chief of the royal body-guard 
 (cf. xviii. 17), Bertheau does not scruple to transpose the names 
 here. But the hypothesis of such a transposition is neither neces- 
 sary nor probable in the case of a name which, like Benaiah the 
 son of Jehoiada, so frequently occurs (e.g. in ver. 5). Since sons 
 not unfrequently received the name of the grandfather, Jehoiada 
 the son of the hero Benaiah may have been named after his 
 grandfather Jehoiada. Abiathar is without doubt the high priest 
 of this name of Ithamar's family (xv. 11, etc.; see on v. 27-31), 
 and is here mentioned as being also a friend and adviser of David. 
 As to Joab, see on xviii. 15. 
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. AND XXIX. DAVID'S LAST DIRECTIONS, AND 
 HIS DEATH. 
 
 In order to give over the throne before his death to his son 
 Solomon, and so secure to him the succession, and facilitate his 
 accomplishment of the great work of his reign, the building of 
 the temple, David summoned the estates of his kingdom, the 
 court officials, and the heroes of the people in Jerusalem. In a 
 solemn address he designated Solomon as his divinely chosen suc- 
 cessor on the throne, and exhorted him to keep the command- 
 
 T
 
 290 THE FIEST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ments of God, to serve the Lord with devoted heart, and to build 
 Him a house for a sanctuary (xxviii. 1-10). He then committed 
 to Solomon the sketches and plans for the sacred buildings and 
 sacred objects of various sorts, with the confident promise that 
 he, by the help of God, and with the co-operation of the priests 
 and of the people, would complete the work (vers. 11-21). 
 Finally, he announced, in the presence of the whole assembly, 
 that he gave over his treasures of gold and silver to this building, 
 and called upon the chiefs of the people and kingdom for a 
 voluntary contribution for the same purpose ; and on their freely 
 answering this call, concluded with a solemn prayer of thanks, to 
 which the whole assembly responded, bowing low before God and 
 the king (xxix. 1-20). This reverence they confirmed by nume- 
 rous burnt - offerings and thank-offerings, and by the repeated 
 anointing of Solomon to be king (vers. 21 and 22). 
 
 Chap, xxviii. 1-10. David summoned the estates of the king- 
 dom, and presented Solomon to them as his divinely chosen 
 successor on the throne. Ver. 1. " All the princes of Israel" 
 is the general designation, which is then specialized. In it are 
 included the princes of the tribes who are enumerated in chap, 
 xxvii. 16-22, and the princes of the divisions which served the 
 king, who are enumerated in xxvii. 1-15 ; the princes of thousands 
 and hundreds are the chiefs and captains of the twelve army 
 corps (xxvii. 1), who are subordinate to the princes of the host ; 
 the princes of all the substance and possessions of the king are 
 the managers of the domains enumerated in xxvii. 25-31. VJSTI 
 
 L L T T: 
 
 is added to '=]???, " of the king and of his sons," because the 
 possession of the king as a property belonging to the house 
 (domanium) belonged also to his sons. The Vulg. incorrectly 
 translates VJnp filiosque suos, for in this connection ? cannot be 
 nota accus. &&~!>] BJJ, with (together with) the court officials. 
 D'p'nD are not eunuchs, but royal chamberlains, as in 1 Sam. 
 viii. 15 ; see on Gen. xxxvii. 36. D'Hiaan has been well translated 
 by the LXX. TOI><? Swda-ras, for here the word does not denote 
 properly or merely war heroes, but powerful influential men in 
 general, who did not occupy any special public or court office. 
 In 7[n liaa~?3?} all the others who were present in the assembly 
 are comprehended. Ver. 2. The king rose to his feet, in order to 
 speak to the assembly standing ; till then he had, on account of 
 his age and feebleness, sat, not lain in bed, as Kimchi and others 
 infer from 1 Kings i. Ver. 3. The address, " My brethren and
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. 1-10. 291 
 
 my people," is expressive of condescending goodwill ; cf. on "flx, 
 1 Sam. xxx. 23, 2 Sam. xix. 13. What David here says (vers. 
 3-7) of the temple building, he had in substance already (chap, 
 xxii. 7-13) said to his son Solomon : I, it was with my heart, i.e. 
 I purposed (cf. xxii. 7) to build a house of rest for the ark of the 
 covenant of Jahve, and the footstool of the feet of our God, i.e. 
 for the ark and for the capporeth upon it, which is called " foot- 
 stool of the feet of our God," because God was enthroned above 
 the cherubim upon the capporeth. " And I have prepared to 
 build," i.e. prepared labour and materials, xxii. 2-4 and 14 if. ; 
 on ver. 3, cf. xxii. 8. In ver. 4 David states how his election to 
 be king was of God, who had chosen Judah to be ruler (cf. v. 2) ; 
 and just so (vers. 5, 6) had God chosen Solomon from among 
 all his many sons to be heir to the throne, and committed to 
 him the building of the temple ; cf . xxii. 10. The expression, 
 " throne of the kingdom of Jahve," and more briefly, " throne 
 of Jahve " (xxix. 23, or ^nwpio, xvii. 14), denotes that Jahve is 
 the true King of Israel, and had chosen Solomon as He had chosen 
 David to be holder and administrator of His kingly dominion. 
 On vers. 66 and 7, cf. xxii. 10 and xvii. 11 f. ; and with the 
 condition 'W p)iT DS ? cf. 1 Kings iii. 14, ix. 4, where God imposes 
 an exactly similar condition on Solomon. n*n Qi s 3, as is done at 
 this time ; cf . 1 Kings viii. 61, and the commentary on Deut. 
 ii. 30. On this speech J. H. Mich, well remarks: "tota hcec 
 narratio aptata est ad propositum Davidis : vult enim Salomoni 
 auctoritatem apud princes et fratres conciliare^ ostendendo, non 
 humana, sed divina voluntate electum esse." To this David adds 
 an exhortation to the whole assembly (ver. 8), and to his son 
 Solomon (ver. 9), to hold fast their faithfulness to God. Ver. 8. 
 " And now before the eyes of all Israel, of the congregation of 
 Jahve (collected in their representatives), and into the ears of 
 our God (so that God should hear as witness), (scil. I exhort 
 you), observe and seek . . . that ye may possess (that is, keep as 
 possession) the good land (cf. Deut. iv. 21 f.), and leave it to 
 your sons after you for an inheritance " (cf . Lev. xxv. 46). In 
 ver. 9 he turns to his son Solomon in particular with the 
 fatherly exhortation, " My son, know thou the God of thy father 
 (i.e. of David, who has ever helped him, Ps. xviii. 3), and serve 
 Him with whole (undivided) heart (xxix. 9, 19 ; 1 Kings viii. 61) 
 and willing soul." To strengthen this exhortation, David reminds 
 him of the omniscience of God. Jahve seeks, i.e. searches, all
 
 292 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 hearts and knows all the imagination of the thoughts ; cf. Ps. 
 vii. 10, 1 Sam. xvi. 7, Jer. xi. 20, Ps. cxxxix. 1 ff. rrt2B>n "W as 
 in Gen. vi. 5. With the last clauses cf. Deut. iv. 29, Isa. Iv. 6, 
 etc. rw, only here and 2 Chron. xi. 14, xxix. 19. With ver. 10 
 the discourse turns to the building of the temple. The exhorta- 
 tion HK'Jtt PTH is interrupted by the giving over of the sketches 
 and plans of the temple, and is taken up again only in ver. 20. 
 
 Vers. 11-19. The sketches and plans of the sacred buildings 
 and vessels. The enumeration begins in ver. 11 with the temple 
 house, progressing from, outside to inside, and in ver. 12 goes on 
 to the courts and the buildings in them, and in ver. 13 ff. to the 
 vessels, etc. fl^n, model, pattern ; cf . Ex. xxv. 9 ; here the 
 sketches and drawings of the individual things. vria'DNl is a con- 
 traction for 1TO JVJDrrnxi and the suffix refers, as the succeedin <* 
 
 T T ; . - v ;7 -> 
 
 words show, not to DWRJ, but to JV3H, which may be easily supplied 
 from the context (ver. 10). In the porch there were no houses. 
 The 0*713 are the buildings of the temple house, viz. the holy 
 place and the most holy, with the three-storeyed side-building, 
 which are specified in the following words. V3M3 occurs only 
 here, but is related to D^S, Esth. iii. 9, iv. 7, Ezra xxvii. 24, and 
 to the Chald. H??, Ezra vii. 20, and signifies store and treasure 
 chambers, for which the chambers of the three-storeyed side- 
 building served. fii s pj? are the upper chambers over the most 
 holy place, 2 Chron. iii. 9 ; D^an Vtin are the inner rooms of 
 the porch and of the holy place, since rnasn JV3, the house of the 
 ark with the mercy-seat, i.e. the most holy place, is mentioned 
 immediately after. Ver. 12. And the pattern, i.e. the description 
 of all that was in the spirit with him, i.e. what his spirit had 
 designed, rri'iynp, as to the courts. MD ribtyprrprjpj in reference to 
 all the chambers round about, i.e. to all the rooms on the four 
 sides of the courts, ni"iyiy, for the treasures of the house of 
 God ; see on xxvi. 20. Ver. 13. 'an frtpfaefa (continuation of 
 nmKp), " and for the divisions of the priests and Levites, and for 
 all the work of the service, and for all vessels," for for all these 
 purposes, viz. for the sojourn of the priests and Levites in the 
 service, as well as for the performance of the necessary works, 
 e.g. preparation of the shew-bread, cooking of the sacrificial flesh, 
 holding of the sacrificial meals, and for the storing of the vessels 
 necessary for these purposes, the cells and buildings of the courts 
 were set apart. With ver. 14 begins the enumeration of the 
 vessels. an is co-ordinate with ntoB^rrio'? . . . Hfrliffe ver. 12 :
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. 11-19. 293 
 
 he gave him the description of that which he had in mind " witli 
 regard to the golden (i.e. to the golden vessels, cf. xxix. 2), 
 according to the weight of the golden, for all vessels of every 
 service," in regard to all silver vessels according to the weight. 
 With ver. 15 the construction hitherto employed is dropped. 
 According to the usual supposition, the verb JfW is to be supplied 
 from ver. 11 after *$&: "and gave him the weight for the 
 golden candlesticks and their golden lamps," 3HT being in a state 
 of free subordination to the word Cn i< n v ipl (J. H. Mich., Berth., 
 and others). But apart from the fact that no analogous case can 
 be found for such a subordination (for in 2 Chron. ix. 15, which 
 Berth, cites as such, there is no subordination, for there the first 
 mnv 2HT is the accusative of the material dependent upon BW?!), 
 the supplying of \f\y_ gives no suitable sense ; for David here does 
 not give Solomon the metal for the vessels, but, according to 
 vers. 11, 12, 19, only a rpjan, pattern or model for them. If \FW 
 be supplied, jro must be " he appointed," and so have a different 
 sense here from that which it has in ver. 11. This appears very 
 questionable, and it is simpler to take ?i??'O without the article, 
 as an accusative of nearer definition, and to connect the verse 
 thus : " and (what he had in mind) as weight for the golden 
 candlesticks and their lamps, in gold, according to the weight of 
 each candlestick and its lamps, and for the silver candlesticks, 
 in weight rni3J?3, according to the service of each candlestick" 
 (as it corresponded to the service of each). In ver. 16 the 
 enumeration is continued in very loose connection : " And as to 
 the gold (US, quoad ; cf. Ew. 277, d) by weight (^Bb, ace. of 
 free subordination) for the tables of the spreading out, i.e. of the 
 shew-bread (n^Jflo = Dr6 nanjjo, 2 Chron. xiii. 11 ; see on Lev. 
 xxiv. 6), for each table, and silver for the silver tables." Silver 
 tables, i.e. tables overlaid with silver-lamin, and silver candle- 
 sticks (ver. 15), are not elsewhere expressly mentioned among 
 the temple vessels, since the whole of the vessels are nowhere 
 individually registered even in the description of the building of 
 the temple. Yet, when the temple was repaired under Joash, 
 2 Kings xii. 14, 2 Chron. xxiv. 14, and when it was destroyed by 
 the Chaldeans, 2 Kings xxv. 15, vessels of gold and silver are 
 spoken of. The silver candlesticks were probably, as Kimchi has 
 conjectured, intended for the priests engaged in the service, and 
 the tables for reception of the sacrificial flesh after it had been pre- 
 pared for burning upon the altar. Ver. 17. Before '
 
 294 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 we should probably supply from ver. 11 : " he gave him the pattern 
 of the forks . . . "niMpl, and for the golden tankards, according 
 to the weight of each tankard." For niJ?Tp and nip^t?, see on 
 2 Chron. iv. 22. 1'^i?, (nrovSeia, cups for the libations, occur 
 only in Ex. xxv. 29, xxxvii. 16, and Num. iv. 7. "lints 3HT, in 
 free subordination : of pure gold. D'niBS from "IB^, to cover, are 
 vessels provided with covers, tankards ; only mentioned here and 
 in Ezra i. 10, viii. 27. Ver. 18. And (the pattern) for the altar 
 of incense of pure gold by weight. In the second member of the 
 verse, at the close of the enumeration, rpjarj, from vers. 11, 12, 
 is again taken up, but with p, which Berth, rightly takes to be 
 nota accus. : and (gave him) " the model of the chariot of the 
 cherubim of gold, as spreading out (wings), and sheltering over 
 the ark of the covenant of Jahve." 0*3Vi3n is not subordinated 
 in the genitive to rDSnsin, but is in explanatory apposition to it. 
 The cherubim, not the ark, are the chariot upon which God 
 enters or is throned ; cf. Ps. xviii. 11, xcix. 1, Ex. xxv. 22. The 
 conception of the cherubim set upon the golden cover of the 
 ark as n ?3") 1 ? is derived from the idea Sn|T3J 33-P, Ps. xviii. 11. 
 Ezekiel, it is true, saw wheels on the throne of God under the 
 cherubim (i. 15 ff., 26), and in accordance with this the LXX. 
 and Vulg. have made a cherubim-chariot out of the words (apfia 
 rwv Xepov(3i/ji, quadriga cherubim) ; but as against this Berth, 
 rightly remarks, that the idea of a chariot of the cherubim does 
 not at all appear in the two sculptured cherubim upon the 
 ark, nor yet in our passage. D^KHQ? (without the article, and with 
 ?) Berth, thinks quite unintelligible, and would alter the text, 
 reading D'33'Dni D^bnsn, because the two participles should be in 
 apposition to D'OTisn. But this is an error ; for neither by the 
 meaning of the words, nor by the passages, 2 Chron. v. 8, Ex. 
 xxv. 20, 1 Kings viii. 7, are we compelled to make this alteration. 
 The two first-mentioned passages prove the opposite, viz. that 
 these participles state for what purpose the cherubim are to 
 serve. O^^bl D^KHap have the signification of Hsn.js D'QVisn vrn 
 D1B33, "that the cherubim might be spreading wings and pro- 
 tecting" (Ex. xxv. 20), as J. H. Mich, has rightly seen. This 
 use of p, where in 7 even without a verb the idea of " becoming 
 something" lies, but which Berth, does not understand, has been 
 already discussed, Ew. 217, d, and illustrated by passages, among 
 which 1 Chron. xxviii. 18 is one. The reference to Ex. xxv. 20 
 explains also the use of fens without B'BJS, the author of the
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. 11-19. 295 
 
 Chronicle not thinking it necessary to give the object of ena^ 
 as he might assume that that passage would be known to readers 
 of his book. Ver. 19. In giving over to Solomon the model of 
 all the parts and vessels of the temple enumerated in vers. 11-18, 
 David said : " All this, viz. all the works of the pattern, has He 
 taught by writing from the hand of Jahve which came upon 
 me." i>3n is more closely defined by the apposition nisxta i>3 
 'nn. That the verse contains words of David is clear from vy. 
 The subject of s^&n is Jahve, w r hich is easily supplied from 
 niPP TO. It is, however, a question with what we should connect 
 
 f . L 
 
 vy. Its position before the verb, and the circumstance that ^3B>n 
 construed with ?y pers. does not elsewhere occur, are against its 
 being taken with ^bn ; and there remains, therefore, only the 
 choice between connecting it with nin* 1*D and with 37133. In 
 favour of the last, Ps. xl. 8, vJ? 3V13, prescribed to me, may be 
 compared ; and according to that, yV 3TI3 can only mean, " what 
 is prescribed to me ;" cf. for the use of 3TI3 for written prescrip- 
 tion, the command in 2 Chron. xxxv. 4. Bertheau accordingly 
 translates vJJ fin 11 "TO? ^??, " by a writing given to me for a rule 
 from Jahve's hand," and understands the law of Moses to be 
 meant, because the description of the holy things in Ex. xxv. ff. 
 is manifestly the basis of that in our verses. But had David 
 wished to say nothing further than that he had taken the law 
 in the Scriptures for the basis of his pattern for the holy things, 
 the expression which he employs would be exceedingly forced 
 and wilfully obscure. And, moreover, the position of the words 
 would scarcely allow us to connect 37133 with vJ>, for in that case 
 we should rather have expected nirv TO vy 3033. We must there 
 take vy along with nirp To : " writing from the hand of Jahve 
 came upon me," i.e., according to the analogy of the phrase nJVn 
 ^y nw T (2 Kings iii. 15, Ezek. i. 3, iii. 14, etc.), a writing 
 coming by divine revelation, or a writing composed in con- 
 sequence of divine revelation, and founded upon divine inspira- 
 tion. David therefore says that he had been instructed by a 
 writing resting upon divine inspiration as to all the works of the 
 pattern of the temple. This need not, however, be understood to 
 mean that David had received exemplar vel ideam templi et vaso- 
 rum sacrorum immediately from Jahve, either by a prophet or by 
 vision, as the model of the tabernacle was shown to Moses on the 
 mount (Ex. xxv. 40, xxvii. 8) ; for it signifies only that he had 
 not himself invented the pattern which he had committed to
 
 296 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 writing, i.e. the sketches and descriptions of the temple and its 
 furniture and vessels, but had drawn them up under the influence 
 of divine inspiration. 
 
 Vers. 20, 21. In conclusion, David encourages his son to go 
 forward to the work with good courage, for his God would not 
 forsake him ; and the priests and Levites, cunning workmen, and 
 the princes, together with the whole people, would willingly 
 support him. With the encouragement, ver. 20a, cf. xxii. 13 ; 
 and with the promise, ver. 206, cf. Deut. xxxi. 6, 8, Josh. i. 5. 
 *?PK., my God, says David, ut in mentem ei revocet, quomodo multis 
 in periculis servatus sit (Lav.). n l^J? fl?**?*? "'-p, all the work- 
 business, i.e. all the labour necessary for the building of the 
 house of God. Ver. 21. nani i s fittingly translated by Clericus, 
 " en habes." The reference which lies in the nan to the classes 
 of the priests and Levites, i.e. the priests and Levites divided 
 into classes, does not presuppose their presence in the assembly. 
 With the nam corresponds ^Bj?v with thee, i.e. for assistance to 
 
 '*"" * ** t ft 
 
 thee, in the second half of the verse. The ? before 2 < n:r7:i:>, " are 
 all freely willing with wisdom," in the middle of the sentence 
 introducing the subject is strange ; Bertheau would therefore 
 strike it out, thinking that, as ^ goes immediately before, and 
 follows immediately afterwards twice, W> here may easily be an 
 error for '3. This is certainly possible ; but since this p is very 
 frequently used in the Chronicle, it is a question whether it 
 should not be regarded as authentic, "serving to bring into 
 emphatic prominence the idea of the 2H3 ^3 : with thee is for 
 each business, what regards each willing person, for also all 
 willing persons;" cf. Ew. 310, a. 3HJ = 3H3, 2 Chron. 
 xxix. 31, Ex. xxxv. 5, 22, usually denotes him who brings volun 
 tary gifts, but here, him who voluntarily brings wisdom to every 
 service, who willingly employs his wisdom and knowledge in a 
 service. Cunning, intelligent workmen and artists are meant, 
 xxii. 15, 2 Chron. ii. 6. "fWffe^, towards all thy words," i.e. 
 as thou sayest or commandest them, the princes and the people, 
 or callest upon them for assistance in the work. 
 
 Chap. xxix. 1-9. Contributions of the collected princes for the 
 building of the temple. David then turns to the assembled princes 
 to press upon them the furthering of the building of the temple. 
 After referring to the youth of his son, and to the greatness of 
 the work to be accomplished (ver. 1), he mentions what materials 
 he has prepared for the building of the temple (ver. 2) ; then
 
 CHAP. xxix. i-?. 297 
 
 further states what he has resolved to give in addition from his 
 private resources (ver. 4) ; and finally, after this introduction, 
 calls upon those present to make a voluntary collection for this 
 great work (ver. 5). The words, " as only one hath God chosen 
 him," form a parenthesis, which is to be translated as a relative 
 sentence for " my son, whom alone God hath chosen." ^ ">!W 
 as in xxii. 5. The work is great, because not for man the palace, 
 soil, is intended, i.e. shall be built, but for Jahve God. nyan, 
 the citadel, the palace ; a later word, generally used of the resi- 
 dence of the Persian king (Esth. i. 2, 5, ii. 3 ; Neh. i. 1), only 
 in Neh. ii. 8 of the citadel by the temple ;.here transferred to the 
 temple as the glorious palace of Jahve, the God-king of Israel. 
 With ver. 2a, cf . xxii. 14. 'w 3n$ 3njn, the gold for the golden, 
 etc., i.e. for the vessels and ornaments of gold, cf. xxviii. 14. ^26? 
 D*RW?H Dnb> as in Ex. xxv. 7, xxxv. 9, precious stones for the 
 ephod and choshen. Dnb>, probably beryl. D'Wpo ^IX, stones of 
 filling, that is, precious stones which are put in settings. ^3 '33K, 
 stones of pigment, i.e. ornament, conjecturally precious stones 
 which, from their black colour, were in appearance like 7ji3, 
 stibium, a common eye pigment (see 2 Kings ix. 30). '""?P1 ^3K, 
 stones of variegated colour, i.e. with veins of different colours. 
 rni? 1 ; px ? precious stones, according to 2 Chron. iii. 6, for orna- 
 menting the walls. &W V.? 5 *, white marble stones. Ver. 3. 
 "And moreover, because I have pleasure in the house of my 
 God, there is to me a treasure of gold and silver ; it have I 
 appointed for the house of my God over and above all that . . ." 
 Trtrari with 5b without the relative, cf. xv. 12. Ver. 4. Gold 
 3000 talents, i.e. about 13^, or, reckoning according to the royal 
 shekel, Gf millions of pounds ; 7000 talents of silver, circa 2^ or 
 1 millions of pounds : see on xxii. 14. Gold of Ophir, i.e. the 
 finest, best gold, corresponding to the pure silver. fW7, to over- 
 lay the inner walls of the houses with gold and silver leaf. B^an 
 as in xxviii. 11, the different buildings of the temple. The walls 
 of the holy place and of the most holy, of the porch and of the 
 upper chambers, were overlaid with gold (cf. 2 Chron. iii. 4-6, 
 8, 9), and probably only the inner walls of the side buildings. 
 Ver. 5. 2W srttpj for every golden thing, etc., cf. ver. 2. /i^ 
 '"I3N7E, and in general for every work to be wrought by the hands 
 of the artificer. "W, who then is willing (* expressing it as the 
 consequence). To fill one's hand to the Lord, means to provide 
 oneself with something which one brings to the Lord ; see on
 
 298 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Ex. xxxii. 29. The infinitive riis^D occurs also in Ex. xxxi. 5 
 and Dan. ix. 4, and along with fc&D, 2 Chron. xiii. 9. Ver. 6 f. 
 The princes follow the example, and willingly respond to David's 
 call. ntoKn fyy = nnsn B'S-J, xxiv. 31, xxvii. 1, etc. *$& 
 'on rDfcra?, and as regards the princes of the work of the king. 
 The "if?? rupD! JJ^GI "njy xxviii. 1, the officials enumerated in 
 
 v v v : " " f 
 
 xxvii. 25-31 are meant; on p see on xxviii. 21. They gave 5000 
 talents of gold (22^ or 11^ millions of pounds), and 1000 darics 
 = 11^ millions of pounds. liS"!"!??, with K prostli. here and in 
 Ezra viii. 27, and P2-n, Ezra ii. '69, Neh. vii. 70 ff., does not 
 correspond to the Greek Spa^rj^ Arab, dirhem, but to the Greek 
 Sapeucos, as the Syrian translation ]joru5j, Ezra viii. 27, shows; 
 a Persian gold coin worth about 22s. 6d. See the description of 
 these coins, of which several specimens still exist, in Cavedoni 
 bibl. Numismatik) ubers. von A. Werlhof , S. 84 ff. ; J. Brando, 
 das Munz-Mass und Gewichtssystem in Vorderasien (1866), 
 S. 244 ; and my bibl. Arc/idol. 127, 3. " Our historian uses 
 the words used in his time to designate the current gold coins, 
 without intending to assume that there were darics in use in 
 the time of David, to state in a way intelligible to his readers 
 the amount of the sum contributed by the princes " (Bertheau). 
 This perfectly correct remark does not, however, explain why the 
 author of the Chronicle has stated the contribution in gold and 
 that in silver in different values, in talents and in darics, since 
 the second cannot be an explanation of the first, the two sums 
 being different. Probably the sum in darics is the amount 
 which they contributed in gold pieces received as coins ; the 
 talents, on the other hand, probably represent the weight of the 
 vessels and other articles of gold which they brought as offerings 
 for the building. The amount contributed in silver is not large 
 when compared with that in gold : 10,000 talents = 3,500,000, 
 or one half that amount. The contribution in copper also, 
 18,000 talents, is not very large. Besides these, those who 
 had stones, i.e. precious stones, also brought them. iflN N^IM"!!, 
 that was found with him, for : that which he (each one) had 
 of stones they gave. The sing. WK is to be taken distribu- 
 tively, and is consequently carried on in the plural, ttfU; cf 
 Ew. 319, a. D^3K is accus. of subordination. T fy jro, to 
 give over for administration (Ew. 282, &). ?**$ the Levite 
 family of this name which had the oversight of the treasures 
 of the house of God (xxvi. 21 f.). Ver. 9. The people and
 
 CHAP. XXIX. 10-19. 299 
 
 the king rejoiced over this willingness to give. DjJ' 273, as 
 in xxviii. 9. 
 
 Vers. 1019. DavicCs thanksgiving prayer. David gives fit- 
 ting expression to his joy on the success of the deepest wish of 
 his heart, in a prayer with which he closes the last parliament of 
 his reign. Since according to the divine decree, not he, the man 
 of war, but his son, the peace-king Solomon, was to build a 
 temple to the Lord, David had taken it upon himself to prepare 
 as far as possible for the carrying out of the work. He had also 
 found the princes and chiefs of the people willing to further it, 
 and to assist his son Solomon in it. In this the pious and grey- 
 haired servant of the Lord saw a special proof of the divine 
 favour, for which he must thank God the Lord before the 
 whole congregation. He praises Jahve, " the God of Israel our 
 father," ver. 10, or, as it is in ver. 18, fl the God of Abraham, 
 of Isaac, and of Jacob, our fathers." Jahve had clearly revealed 
 himself to David and his people as the God of Israel and of the 
 patriarchs, by fulfilling in so glorious a manner to the people of 
 Israel, by David, the promises made to the patriarchs. God the 
 Lord had not only by David made His people great and powerful, 
 and secured to them the peaceful possession of the good land, 
 by humbling all their enemies round about, but He had also 
 awakened in the heart of the people such love to and trust in 
 their God, that the assembled dignitaries of the kingdom showed 
 themselves perfectly willing to assist in furthering the building 
 of the house of God. In this God had revealed His greatness, 
 power, glory, etc., as David (in vers. 11, 12) acknowledges with 
 praise : " Thine, Jahve, is the greatness," etc. ITCjn, according 
 to the Aramaic usage, gloria, splendour, honour. ?3 *3 } yea all, 
 still dependent on v at the commencement of the sentence, so 
 that we do not need to supply ^ after ^a. " Thine is the dominion, 
 and the raising of oneself to be head over all." In His n37iDD 
 God reveals His greatness, might, glory, etc. NfrJTO is not a 
 participle requiring nriN ? " thou art," to be supplied (Berth.), 
 but an appellative, an Aramaic infinitive, the raising oneself 
 (Ew. 160, e). Ver. 12. " From Thee came the riches and 
 the glory . . ., and in Thy hand is it (it lies) to make all things 
 great and strong." Ver. 13. For this we must thank God, 
 and sing praise to His holy name. By the partic. 0^? from 
 ^nin, confess, praise, the praising of God is characterized as an 
 enduring praise, always rising anew. Ver. 14. For man of him-
 
 300 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 self can give nothing : " What am I, and what is my people, that 
 we should be able to show ourselves so liberal ? " ni3 "ixy, to 
 hold strength together ; both to have power to do anything (here 
 and 2 Chron. ii. 5, xxii. 9), and also to retain strength (2 Chron. 
 xiii. 20; Dan. x. 8, 16, xi. 6), only found in Daniel and in the 
 Chronicle, ^nrij to show oneself willing, especially in giving. 
 nxf3 refers to the contribution to the building of the temple (vers. 
 3-8). From Thy hand, i.e. that which is received from Thee, have 
 we given. Ver. 15. For we are strangers (as Ps. xxxix. 13), i.e. 
 in this connection we have no property, no enduring possession, 
 since God had only given them the usufruct of the land ; and as 
 of the land, so also of all the property of man. it is only a gift 
 committed to us by God in usufruct. The truth that our life is 
 a pilgrimage (Heb. xi. 12, 13, 14), is presented to us by the 
 brevity of life. As a shadow, so swiftly passing away, are our 
 days upon the earth (cf. Job viii. 9, Ps. xc. 9 f., cii. 12, cxliv. 4). 
 mprp psi, and there is no trust, scil. in the continuance of life (cf. 
 Jer. xiv. 8). Ver. 16. All the riches which we have prepared 
 for the building of the temple come from the hand of God. 
 The Keth. fc^n is neuter, the Keri Kin corresponds to Jtonn. 
 Ver. 17. Before God, who searches the heart and loves upright- 
 ness, David can declare that he has willingly given in uprightness 
 of heart, and that the people also have, to his joy, shown equal 
 willingness. ""I?**"' 3 ., all the treasures enumerated (vers. 3-8). 
 The plural IN?*??!} refers to ^y, and the demonstrative n stands 
 for "i^K as in xxvi. 28. Ver. 18. He prays that God may enable 
 the people ever to retain this frame of heart. DNT is more closely 
 defined by 'no "ttv, viz. the frame of the thoughts of the heart of 
 Thy people. " And direct their heart (the people's heart) to 
 Thee," cf. 1 Sam. vii. 3. Ver. 19. And to Solomon may God 
 give a whole (undivided) heart, that he may keep all the divine 
 commands and do them, and build the temple. D?^ X> as in ver. 
 
 L" L 
 
 9. ?3H nitJ>J>p, that he may do all, scil. that the commands, testi- 
 monies, and statutes require. For iTVan, see ver. 1. 
 
 Vers. 20-22. Close of the public assembly. Ver. 20. At the 
 conclusion of the prayer, David calls upon the whole assembly 
 to praise God ; which they do, bowing before God and the king, 
 and worshipping, ^innt^! ^iPlj connected as in Ex. iv. 31, Gen. 
 xliii. 28, etc. Ver. 21. To seal their confession, thus made in 
 word and deed, the assembled dignitaries prepared a great sacri- 
 ficial feast to the Lord on the following day. They sacrificed to
 
 CHAP. XXIX. 23-30. 301 
 
 the Lord sacrifices, viz. 1000 bullocks, 1000 rams, and 1000 
 lambs as burnt-offering, with drink-offerings to correspond, and 
 sacrifices, i.e. thank-offerings (D'E^t?), in multitude for all Israel, 
 i.e. so that all those present could take part in the sacrificial meal 
 prepared from these sacrifices. While &n2t in the first clause 
 is the general designation of the bloody offerings as distinguished 
 from the meat-offerings, in the last clause it is restricted by the 
 
 t L ' 
 
 contrast with ni?y and the 2^^, from which joyous sacrificial 
 meals were prepared. Ver. 22. On this day they made Solomon 
 king a second time, anointing him king to the Lord, and Zadok 
 to be priest, i.e. high priest. The JV3B> refers back to chap, 
 xxiii. 1, and the first anointing of Solomon narrated in 1 Kings 
 i. 32 ff. DTP?, not : before Jahve, which ? cannot signify, but : 
 " to Jahve," in accordance with His will expressed in His choice 
 of Solomon (xxviii. 4). The ? before pi"TC is nota accus,, as in 
 
 {__ : T 
 
 nEWp. From the last words we learn that Zadok received the 
 high-priesthood with the consent of the estates of the kingdom. 
 
 Vers. 23-30. Solomon's accession and David's death, with a 
 statement as to the length of his reign and the sources of the 
 history. Vers. 23-25. The remarks on Solomon's accession and 
 reign contained in these verses are necessary to the complete 
 conclusion of a history of David's reign, for they show how 
 David's wishes for his son Solomon, whom Jahve chose to be his 
 successor, were fulfilled. On rnrp ND3~7y see the commentary on 
 xxviii. 5. fi?V?], he was prosperous, corresponds to the hope 
 expressed by David (xxii. 13), which was also fulfilled by the 
 submission of all princes and heroes, and also of all the king's 
 sons, to King Solomon (ver. 24). There can hardly, however, 
 be in these last words a reference to the frustrating of Adonijah's 
 attempted usurpation of the throne (cf. 1 Kings i. 15 ff.). 1^3 
 nnn T=to submit. But this meaning is not derived (Rashi) from 
 the custom of taking oaths of fidelity by clasping of hands, for this 
 custom cannot be certainly proved to have existed among the 
 Israelites ; still less can it have arisen from the ancient custom 
 mentioned in Gen. xxiv. 2, 9, xlvii. 29, of laying the hand under the 
 thigh of the person to whom one swore in making promises with 
 oath. The hand, as the instrument of all activity, is here simply 
 a symbol of power. Ver. 25. Jahve made Solomon very great, 
 by giving him the glory of the kingdom, as no king before him 
 had had it. ?3 is to be taken along with fc6, nullus, and does not 
 presuppose a number of kings before Solomon ; it involves only
 
 302 THE FIRST BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 more than one. Before him, Saul, Ishbosheth, and David had 
 been kings, and the kingship of the latter had been covered with 
 glory. Ver. 2 6- 30. H**^ *& (as in xi. 1, xii. 38), referring to 
 the fact that David had been for a time king only over Judah, 
 but had been recognised at a later time by all the tribes of Israel 
 as king. The length of his reign as in 1 Kings ii. 11. In 
 Hebron seven years ; according to 2 Sam. v. 5, more exactly 
 seven years and six months. Ver. 28. On 1133} "iBty cf. 1 Kings 
 iii. 13, 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Ver. 29. On the authorities cited see 
 the Introduction, p. 30 ff. 'Wl toD^rb Dy goes with a'atffc D3H : 
 the acts of David . . . are written . . . together with his whole 
 reign and his power, and the times which went over him. D^Vn, 
 the times, with their joys and sorrows, as in Ps. xxxi. 16, Job 
 xxiv. 1. The kingdoms of the lands (cf. 2 Chron. xii. 8, xvii. 
 10, xx. 29) are the kingdoms with which the Israelites under 
 David came into contact, Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, 
 Aram.
 
 THE SECOND BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. 
 
 III. HISTORY OF SOLOMON'S KINGSHIP. CHAP. I.-IX. 
 
 I HE kingship of Solomon centres in the building of the 
 temple of the Lord, and the account of that begins in 
 chap. ii. with a statement of the preparations which 
 Solomon made for the accomplishment of this great 
 work, so much pressed upon him by his father, and concludes in 
 chap. vii. with the answer which the Lord gave to his consecrat- 
 ing prayer in a vision. In chap, i., before the history of the 
 temple building, we have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon by 
 which Solomon inaugurated his reign (ver. 1-13), with some short 
 notices of his power and riches (vers. 14-17) ; and in chap. viii. 
 and ix., after the temple building, we have summary statements 
 about the palaces and cities which he built (viii. 1-11), the 
 arrangement of the regular religious service (vers. 1216), the 
 voyage to Ophir (vers. 17 and 18), the visit of the queen of 
 Sheba (ix. 1-12), his riches and his royal magnificence and glory 
 (vers. 13-28), with the concluding notices of the duration of his 
 reign, and of his death (vers. 29, 30). If we compare with this 
 the description of Solomon's reign in 1 Kings J.-xi., we find that 
 in the Chronicle not only are the narratives of his accession to 
 the throne in consequence of Adonijah's attempted usurpation, and 
 his confirming his kingdom by punishing the revolter (1 Kings 
 chap. i. and ii.), of his marriage to the Egyptian princess (iii. 1 
 and 2), his wise judgment (iii. 16-28), his public officers, his 
 official men, his royal magnificence and glory (1 Kings iv. 1-v. 
 14), omitted, but also the accounts of the building of his palace 
 (1 Kings vii. 1-12), of his idolatry, and of the adversaries who 
 rose against him (1 Kings xi. 1-40). On the other hand, the 
 description of the building and consecration of the temple is sup- 
 plemented by various important details which are omitted from 
 the first book of Kings. Hence it is clear that the author of the 
 Chronicle purposed only to portray more exactly the building of 
 
 303
 
 304 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 the house of God, and has only shortly touched upon all the other 
 undertakings of this wise and fortunate king. 
 
 CHAP. i. 1-17. SOLOMON'S SACRIFICE, AND THE THEOPHANY 
 
 AT GIBEON. CHARIOTS, HORSES, AND RICHES OF SOLOMON. 
 
 Vers. 113. The sacrifice at Gibeon, and the theophany. 
 Vers. 16. When Solomon had established himself upon his 
 throne, he went with the princes and representatives of the con- 
 gregation of Israel to Gibeon, to seek for the divine blessing upon 
 his reign by a solemn sacrifice to be offered there before the 
 tabernacle. Ver. 1 forms, as it were, the superscription of the 
 account of Solomon's reign which follows. In *W p^n^ Solo- 
 mon established himself in his kingdom, i.e. he became strong 
 and mighty in his kingdom, the older commentators saw a refer- 
 ence to the defeat of Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and 
 his followers (1 Kings ii.). But this view of the words is too 
 narrow ; we find the same remark made of other kings whose 
 succession to the throne had not been questioned (cf. xii. 13, 
 xiii. 21, xvii. 1, and xxi. 4), and the remark refers to the whole 
 reign, to all that Solomon undertook in order to establish a firm 
 dominion, not merely to his entry upon it. With this view of 
 the words, the second clause, " his God was with him, and made 
 him very great," coincides. God gave His blessing to all that 
 Solomon did for this end. With the last words cf. 1 Chron. 
 xxix. 25. 
 
 We have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon (vers. 7-13) 
 in 1 Kings iii. 4-15 also. The two narratives agree in all the 
 main points, but, in so far as their form is concerned, it is at once 
 discernible that they are two independent descriptions of the 
 same thing, but derived from the same sources. In 1 Kings iii. 
 the theophany in our text, on the contrary, that aspect of the 
 sacrifice which connected it with the public worship is more cir- 
 cumstantially narrated. While in 1 Kings iii. 4 it is briefly said 
 the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, our historian records 
 that Solomon summoned the princes and representatives of the 
 people to this solemn act, and accompanied by them went to 
 Gibeon. This sacrifice was no mere private sacrifice, it was the 
 religious consecration of the opening of his reign, at which the 
 estates of the kingdom were present as a matter of course. " All 
 Israel " is defined by " the princes over the thousands . . ., the
 
 CHAP. I. 1-13. 305 
 
 judges, and all the honourable;" then Xfitrrx is again taken up 
 and explained by the apposition niaxn ^'&n : to all Israel, viz. the 
 heads of the fathers'-houses. p is to be repeated before 'BW. 
 What Solomon said to all Israel through its representatives, is 
 not communicated ; but it may be gathered from what succeeds, 
 that he summoned them to accompany him to Gibeon to offer 
 the sacrifice. The reason why he offered his sacrifice at the 
 noa, i.e. place of sacrifice, is given in ver. 3 f . There the Mosaic 
 tabernacle stood, yet without the ark, which David had caused 
 to be brought up from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 
 xiii. and xv f.). In v PH? the article in 3 represents the rela- 
 tive iv* = iv K3 or pan ncfc Dipoa ; cf. Jud. v. 27, Ruth i. 16, 1 
 Kings xxi. 19 ; see on 1 Chron. xxvi. 28. Although the ark was 
 separated from the tabernacle, yet by the latter at Gibeon was the 
 Mosaic altar of burnt-offering, and on that account the sanctuary 
 at Gibeon was Jahve's dwelling, and the legal place of worship 
 for burnt- offerings of national -theocratic import. "As our his- 
 torian here brings forward emphatically the fact that Solomon 
 offered his burnt-offering at the legal place of worship, so he 
 points out in 1 Chron. xxi. 28-xxx. 1, how David was only 
 brought by extraordinary events, and special signs from God, to 
 sacrifice on the altar of burnt-offering erected by him on the 
 threshing-floor of Oman, and also states how he was prevented 
 from offering his burnt-offering in Gibeon" (Berth.). As to 
 Bezaleel, the maker of the brazen altar, cf. Ex. xxxi. 2 and 
 xxxvii. 1. Instead of D^, which most manuscripts and many 
 editions have before V.??? and which the Targ. and Syr. also 
 express, there is found in most editions of the 16th century, and 
 also in manuscripts, 2^, which the LXX. and Vulgate also read. 
 The reading DU> is unquestionably better and more correct, and 
 the Masoretic pointing DK>, posuit, has arisen by an undue assimila- 
 tion of it to Ex. xl. 29. The suffix in *i"i/"]T. does not refer to the 
 altar, but to the preceding word niiV ; cf. B^K ti'TJ, 1 Chron. 
 xxi. 30, xv. 13, etc. Vers. 7-13. The theophany, cf. 1 Kings 
 iii. 5-15. In that night, i.e. on the night succeeding the day of 
 the sacrifice. The appearance of God by night points to a dream, 
 and in 1 Kings xxxv. 15 we are expressly informed that He 
 appeared in a vision. Solomon's address to God, versl 8-10, is 
 in 1 Kings v. 6-10 given more at length. The mode of expres- 
 sion brings to mind 1 Chron. xvii. 23, and recurs in 2 Chron. vi. 
 17, 1 Kings viii. 26. Jn, with Pathach in the second syllable, 
 
 u
 
 306 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 elsewhere JttB (vers. 11, 12), occurs elsewhere only in Dan. i. 4, 17, 
 Eccles. x. 20. Vers. 11 and 12. The divine promise. Here "itJty 
 is strengthened by the addition B 11 !?^, treasures (Josh. xxii. 8 ; 
 Eccles. v. 18, vi. 2). BSBfa "IB>K 5 utjudieare possis. In general, the 
 mode of expression is briefer than in 1 Kings iii. 11-13, and the 
 conditional promise, "long life" (1 Kings iii. 14), is omitted, 
 because Solomon did not fulfil the condition, and the promise was 
 not fulfilled. In ver. 13 nap is unintelligible, and has probably 
 come into our text only by a backward glance at ver. 3, instead 
 of noanip, which the contents demand, and as the LXX. and Vul- 
 gate have rightly translated it. The addition, " from before the 
 tabernacle," which seems superfluous after the preceding "from 
 the Bamah at Gibeon," is inserted in order again to point to the 
 place of sacrifice at Gibeon, and to the legal validity of the sacri- 
 fices offered there (Berth.). According to 1 Kings iii. 15, Solo- 
 mon, on his return to Jerusalem, offered before the ark still other 
 burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, and prepared a meal for his 
 servants. This is omitted by the author of the Chronicle, because 
 these sacrifices had no ultimate import for Solomon's reign, and not, 
 as Then, supposes, because in his view only the sacrifices offered on 
 the ancient brazen altar of burnt-offering belonging to the temple 
 had legal validity. For he narrates at length in 1 Chron. xxi. 18, 
 26 ff. how God Himself directed David to sacrifice in Jerusalem, 
 and how the sacrifice offered there was graciously accepted by 
 fire from heaven, and the threshing-floor of Araunah thereby 
 consecrated as a place of sacrifice ; and it is only with the purpose 
 of explaining to his readers why Solomon offered the solemn 
 burnt-offering in Gibeon, and not, as we should have expected 
 from 1 Chron. xxi., in Jerusalem, that he is so circumstantial in 
 his statements as to the tabernacle. The last clause of ver. 13, 
 " and he was king over Israel," does not belong to the section 
 treating of the sacrifice at Gibeon, but corresponds to the remark 
 in 1 Kings iv. 1, and forms the transition to what follows. 
 
 Vers. 1417. Solomon's chariots, horses, and riches. In order 
 to prove by facts the fulfilment of the divine promise which 
 Solomon received in answer to his prayer at Gibeon, we have in 
 1 Kings iii. 1628 a narrative of Solomon's wise judgment, then 
 in chap. iv. an account of his public officers ; and in chap. v. 114 
 the royal magnificence, glory, and wisdom of his reign is further 
 portrayed. In our Chronicle, on the contrary, we have in vers. 
 14-17 only a short statement as to his chariots and horses, and
 
 CHAP. I. 18-11. 17. 307 
 
 the wealth in silver and gold to be found in the land, merely for 
 the purpose of showing how God had given him riches and pos- 
 sessions. This statement recurs verbally in 1 Kings x. 26-29, in 
 the concluding remarks on the riches and splendour of Solomon's 
 reign ; while in the parallel passage, 2 Chron. ix. 13-28, it is 
 repeated in an abridged form, and interwoven with other state- 
 ments. From this we see in how free and peculiar a manner 
 the author of the Chronicle has made use of his authorities, and 
 how he has arranged the material derived from them according to 
 his own special plan. 1 For the commentary on this section, see 
 on 1 Kings x. 26-28. Vers. 14, 15, with the exception of one 
 divergence in form and one in matter, correspond word for word 
 to 1 Kings x. 26 and 27. Instead of Drw, he led them (Kings), 
 there stands in ver. 15, as in ix. 25, the more expressive word 
 Drvs^i, " he laid them" in the chariot cities ; and in ver. 153|WT1S} 
 is added to *]D3rrns while it is omitted from both 1 Kin^s x. 27 
 
 V V V 9 O 
 
 and also 2 Chron. ix. 27. It is, however, very suitable in this con- 
 nection, since the comparison " like stones" has reference to quan- 
 tity, and Solomon had collected not only silver, but also gold, in 
 quantity. Vers. 16, 17 coincide with 1 Kings x. 28, 29, except 
 that N.1J50 is used for mj?D, and arani n^rn is altered into j|3 
 ^yi'l. For the commentary on these verses, see 1 Kings x. 28 f. 
 
 CHAP. i. 18-n. 17. SOLOMON'S PREPARATIONS FOR THE BUILDING 
 
 OF THE TEMPLE. (CF. 1 KINGS V. 15-32.) 
 
 The account of these is introduced by i. 18 : " Solomon 
 thought to build." "H?X with an infinitive following does not 
 signify here to command one to do anything, as e.g. in 1 Chron. 
 xxi. 17, but to purpose to do something, as e.g. in 1 Kings v. 19. 
 For niiV D-A see on 1 Kings v. 17. ina^ JV3, house for his 
 
 :/ O ;-;-/ 
 
 kingdom, i.e. the royal palace. The building of this palace is 
 indeed shortly spoken of' in ii. 11, vii. 11, and viii. 1, but is not 
 in the Chronicle described in detail as in 1 Kings vii. 1-12. 
 
 1 The assertion of Thenius on 1 Kings x. 26 ff., that he found this section 
 in his authorities in two different places and in different connections, copied 
 them mechanically, and only towards the end of the second passage remarked 
 the repetition and then abridged the statement, is at once refuted by observ- 
 ing, that in the supposed repetition the first half (ix. 25, 26) does not at 
 all agree with 1 Kings x. 26, but coincides with the statement in 1 Kings 
 v. 6, 7.
 
 308 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 With chap. ii. 1 begins the account of the preparations which 
 Solomon made for the erection of these buildings, especially of 
 the temple building, accompanied by a statement that the king 
 caused all the workmen of the necessary sort in his kingdom to 
 be numbered. There follows thereafter an account of the nego- 
 tiations with King Hiram of Tyre in regard to the sending of a 
 skilful architect, and of the necessary materials, such as cedar 
 wood and hewn stones, from Lebanon (vers. 2-15) ; and, in con- 
 clusion, the statements as to the levying of the statute labourers 
 of Israel (ver. 1) are repeated and rendered more complete (vers. 
 16, 17). If we compare the parallel account in 1 Kings v. 15-32, 
 we find that Solomon's negotiation with Hiram about the pro- 
 posed buildings is preceded (ver. 15) by a notice, that Hiram, 
 after he had heard of Solomon's accession, had sent him an 
 embassy to congratulate him. This notice is omitted in the 
 Chronicle, because it was of no importance in the negotiations 
 which succeeded. In the account of Solomon's negotiation with 
 Hiram, both narratives (Chron. vers. 2-15 and 1 Kings v. 16-26) 
 agree in the main, but differ in form so considerably, that it is 
 manifest that they are free adaptations of one common original 
 document, quite independent of each other, as has been already 
 remarked on 1 Kings v. 15. On ver. 1 see further on ver. 16 f. 
 
 Vers. 2-9. Solomon, through his ambassadors, addressed him- 
 self to Huram king of Tyre, with the request that he would 
 send him an architect and building wood for the temple. On 
 the Tyrian king Huram or Hiram, the contemporary of David 
 and Solomon, see the discussion on 2 Sam. v. 11. According to 
 the account in 1 Kings v., Solomon asked cedar wood from 
 Lebanon from Hiram ; according to our account, which is more 
 exact, he desired an architect, and cedar, cypress, and other 
 wood. In 1 Kings v. the motive of Solomon's request is given 
 in the communication to Hiram, viz. that David could not carry 
 out the building of the proposed temple on account of his wars, 
 but that Jahve had given him (Solomon) rest and peace, so that 
 he now, in accordance with the divine promise to David, desired 
 to carry on the building (vers. 17-19). In the Chron. vers. 2-5, 
 on the contrary, Solomon reminds the Tyrian king of the friend- 
 liness with which he had supplied his father David with cedar 
 wood for his palace, and then announces to him his purpose to 
 build a temple to the Lord, at the same time stating that it was 
 designed for the worship of God, whom the heavens and the
 
 CHAP. II. 2-9. 309 
 
 earth cannot contain. It is clear, therefore, that both authors 
 have expanded the fundamental thoughts of their authority in 
 somewhat freer fashion. The apodosis of the clause beginning 
 with "it?N? is wanting, and the sentence is an anacolouthon. The 
 apodosis should be : il do so also for me, and send me cedars." 
 This latter clause follows in vers. 6, 7, while the first can easily 
 be supplied, as is done e.g. in the Vulg., by sic fac mecum. 
 Ver. 3. " Behold, I will build." nan with a participle of that 
 
 t f 
 
 which is imminent, what one intends to do. i? ^i???, to sanctify 
 (the house) to Him. The infinitive clause which follows (T'l?i?nf> 
 '1J1) defines more clearly the design of the temple. The temple 
 is to be consecrated by worshipping Him there in the manner 
 prescribed, by burning incense, etc. C^BD rnbj?, incense of odours, 
 Ex. xxv. 6, which was burnt every morning and evening on the 
 altar of incense, Ex. xxx. 7 f. The clauses which follow are to 
 be connected by zeugma with "VBpn?, i.e. the verbs corresponding 
 to the objects are to be supplied from TDpn : " and to spread the 
 continual spreading of bread" (Ex. xxv. 30), and to offer burnt- 
 offerings, as is prescribed in Num. xxviii. andxxix. 'Wl DNf Q^iV?, 
 for ever is this enjoined upon Israel, cf. 1 Chron. xxiii. 31. 
 Ver. 4. In order properly to worship Jahve by these sacrifices, 
 the temple must be large, because Jahve is greater than all 
 gods; cf. Ex. xviii. 11, Deut. x. 17. Ver. 5. No one is able 
 (nia "ivy as in 1 Chron. xxix. 14) to build a house in which this 
 God could dwell, for the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him. 
 These words are a reminiscence of Solomon's prayer (1 Kings 
 viii. 27; 2 Chron. vi. 18). How should I (Solomon) be able to 
 build Him a house, sell, that He should dwell therein ? In con- 
 nection with this, there then comes the thought : and that is not 
 my purpose, but only to offer incense before Him will I build a 
 temple, "VEpn is used as pars pro toto, to designate the whole 
 worship of the Lord. After this declaration of the purpose, there 
 follows in ver. 6 the request that he would send him for this end 
 a skilful chief workman, and the necessary material, viz. costly 
 woods. The chief workman was to be a man wise to work in 
 gold, silver, etc. According to chap. iv. 11-16 and 1 Kings 
 vii. 13 ff., he prepared the brazen and metal work, and the 
 vessels of the temple ; here, on the contrary, and in ver. 13 also, 
 he is described as a man who was skilful also in purple weaving, 
 and in stone and wood work, to denote that he was an artificer 
 who could take charge of all the artistic work connected with
 
 310 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 the building of the temple. To indicate this, all the costly 
 materials which were to be employed for the temple and its 
 vessels are enumerated, fais, the later form of fl?3ix deep-red 
 
 T; : / - T T . / j. 
 
 purple, see on Ex. xxv. 4. **CH3, occurring only here, vers. 
 6, 13, and in iii. 14, in the signification of the Heb. ^ J"iy?ifl, 
 crimson or scarlet purple, see on Ex. xxv. 4. It is not originally 
 a Hebrew word, but is probably derived from the Old-Persian, 
 and has been imported, along with the thing itself, from Persia 
 by the Hebrews, fl^-fi, deep-blue purple, hyacinth purple, see 
 on Ex. xxv. 4. D^fWis nFiSj to make engraved work, and Ex. 
 xxviii. 9, 11, 36, and xxxix. 6, of engraving precious stones, but 
 used here, as rpm3~?3, ver. 13, shows, in the general signification 
 of engraved work in metal or carved work in wood ; cf . 1 Kings 
 vi. 29. D'tpanPTDj; depends upon nibp : to work in gold . . ., 
 together with the wise (skilful) men which are with me in Judah. 
 prin "IB>K O quos comparavitj cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 21, xxii. 15. 
 Ver. 7. The materials Hiram was to send were cedar, cypress, 
 and algummim wood from Lebanon. D^ipx, ver. 7 and ix. 10, 
 instead of E^JppK, 1 Kings x. 11, probably means sandal wood, 
 which was employed in the temple, according to 1 Kings x. 12, 
 for stairs and musical instruments, and is therefore mentioned 
 here, although it did not grow in Lebanon, but, according to 
 ix. 10 and 1 Kings x. 11, was procured at Ophir. Here, in our 
 enumeration, it is inexactly grouped along with the cedars and 
 cypresses brought from Lebanon. Ver. 8. The infinitive T??^ 
 cannot be regarded as the continuation of fii" 1 ??, nor is it a con- 
 tinuation of the imperat. v npt? (ver. 7), with the signification, 
 " and let there be prepared for me" (Berth.). It is subordinated 
 to the preceding clauses : send me cedars, which thy people who 
 are skilful in the matter hew, and in that my servants will assist, in 
 order, viz. to prepare me building timber in plenty (the ) is explic.}. 
 On ver. Sb cf. ver. 4. The infin. abs. N?sn is used adverbially : 
 u wonderfully " (Ew. 280, c). In return, Solomon promises to 
 supply the Tyrian workmen with grain, wine, and oil for their 
 maintenance, a circumstance which is omitted in 1 Kings v. 10 ; 
 see on ver. 14. D^tphp is more closely defined by E^yvn "'rnbp, and 
 ? is the introductory ? : " and behold, as to the hewers, the fellers 
 of trees." SDn, to hew (wood), and to dress it (Deut. xxix. 10 ; 
 Josh. ix. 21, 23), would seem to have been supplanted by 3?n, 
 which in vers. 1, 17 is used for it, and it is therefore explained 
 by B'Vyn rna. " I will give wheat rriso to thy servants " (the
 
 CHAP. II. 10-15. 311 
 
 hewers of wood). The word niso gives no suitable sense; for 
 " wheat of the strokes," for threshed wheat, would be a very 
 extraordinary expression, even apart from the facts that wheat, 
 which is always reckoned by measure, is as a matter of course 
 supposed to be threshed, and that no such addition is made use 
 of with the barley. ni30 is probably only an orthographical error 
 for fl?3O, food, as may be seen from 1 Kings v. 25. 
 
 Vers. 1015. The answer of King Hiram; cf. 1 Kings v. 
 21-25. Hiram answered 2nD3, in a writing, a letter, which he 
 sent to Solomon. In 1 Kings v. 21 Hiram first expresses his 
 joy at Solomon's request, because it was of importance to him 
 to be on a friendly footing with the king of Israel. In the 
 Chronicle his writing begins with the congratulation: because 
 Jahve loveth His people, hath He made thee king over them. 
 Cf. for the expression, ix. 8 and 1 Kings x. 9. He then, accord- 
 ing to both narratives, praises God that He has given David so 
 wise a son. ")?N' S !>, ver. 11, means : then he said further. The 
 praise of God is heightened in the Chronicle by Hiram's enter- 
 ing into Solomon's religious ideas, calling Jahve the Creator of 
 heaven and earth. Then, further, D3H i? is strengthened by 
 n^li byy jni^ having understanding and discernment ; and this 
 predicate is specially referred to Solomon's resolve to build a 
 temple to the Lord. Then in ver. 12 f. he promises to send 
 Solomon the artificer Huram-Abi. On the title '3K, my father, 
 i.e. minister, counsellor, and the descent of this man, cf. the com- 
 mentary on 1 Kings vii. 13, 14. In ver. 13 of the Chronicle 
 his artistic skill is described in terms coinciding with Solomon's 
 wish in ver. 6, only heightened by small additions. To the 
 metals as materials in which he could work, there are added 
 stone and wood work, and to the woven fabrics ^2 (byssus), the 
 later word for W; and finally, to exhaust the whole, he is said 
 to be able 'n~73 2b>npl, to devise all manner of devices which 
 shall be put to him, as in Ex. xxxi. 4, he being thus raised to the 
 level of Bezaleel, the chief artificer of the tabernacle. TD3n-Dy 
 
 . / v T -; 
 
 is dependent upon riibj??, as in ver. 6. The promise to send 
 cedars and cypresses is for the sake of brevity here omitted, and 
 only indirectly indicated in ver. 15. In ver. 14, however, it is 
 mentioned that Hiram accepted the promised supply of grain, 
 wine, and oil for the labourers ; and ver. 15 closes with the pro- 
 mise to fell the wood required in Lebanon, and to cause it to be 
 sent in floats to Joppa (Jaffa), whence Solomon could take it up
 
 312 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 to Jerusalem. The word ?p>', " need," is a aTraf Xey. in the Old 
 Testament, but is very common in Aramaic writings. nilbEn, 
 "floats," too, occurs only here instead of ninnM, 1 Kings v. 23, 
 and its etymology is unknown. If we compare vers. 12-15 with 
 the parallel account in 1 Kings v. 22-25, we find that, besides 
 Hiram's somewhat verbose promise to fell the desired quantity of 
 cedars and cypresses on Lebanon, and to send them in floats by 
 sea to the place appointed by Solomon, the latter contains a 
 request from Hiram that Solomon would give him CH?, mainte- 
 nance for his house, and a concluding remark that Hiram sent 
 Solomon cedar wood, while Solomon gave Hiram, year by year, 
 20,000 kor of wheat as food for his house, i.e. the royal house- 
 hold, and twenty kor beaten oil, that is, of the finest oil. In 
 the book of Kings, therefore, the promised wages of grain, wine, 
 and oil, which were sent to the Tyrian woodcutters, is passed 
 over, and only the quantity of wheat and finest oil which Solo- 
 mon gave to the Tyrian king for his household, year by year, in 
 return for the timber sent, is mentioned. In the Chronicle, on 
 the contrary, only the wages or payment to the woodcutters is 
 mentioned, and the return made for the building timber is not 
 spoken of ; but there is no reason for bringing these two passages, 
 which treat of different things, into harmony by alterations of the 
 text. For further discussion of this and of the measures, see on 
 1 Kings v. 22. 
 
 In vers. 16 and 17 the short statement in ver. 1 as to Solo- 
 mon's statute labourers is again taken up and expanded. Solo- 
 mon caused all the men to be numbered who dwelt in the land 
 of Israel as strangers, viz. the descendants of the Canaanites who 
 were not exterminated, " according to the numbering (ISO occurs 
 only here) as his father David had numbered them." This 
 remark refers to 1 Chron. xxii. 2, where, however, it is only said 
 that David commanded the strangers to be assembled. But as 
 he caused them to be assembled in order to secure labourers 
 for the building of the temple, he doubtless caused them to be 
 numbered ; and to this reference is here made. The numbering 
 gave a total of 153,000 men, of whom 70,000 were made bearers 
 of burdens, 80,000 3h ? i.e. probably hewers of stone and wood 
 ">H3 i.e. on Lebanon, and 3600 foremen or overseers over the 
 
 T T / ' * 
 
 workmen, oyrrns "vaynp, to cause the people to work, that is, to 
 hold them to their task. With this cf. 1 Kings v. 29 f., where 
 the number of the overseers is stated at 3300. This difference
 
 CHAP. III.-V. 1. 313 
 
 is explained by the fact that in the Chronicle the total number 
 of overseers, of higher and lower rank, is given, while in the 
 book of Kings only the number of overseers of the lower rank is 
 given without the higher overseers. Solomon had in all 550 
 higher overseers of the builders (Israelite and Canaanite), cf. 
 1 Kings ix. 23 ; and of these, 250 were Israelites, who alone are 
 mentioned in 2 Chron. viii. 10, while the remaining 300 were 
 Canaanites. The total number of overseers is the same in both 
 accounts 3850; who are divided in the Chronicle into 3600 
 Canaanitish and 250 Israelitish, in the book of Kings into 3300 
 lower and 550 higher overseers (see on 1 Kings v. 30). It is, 
 moreover, stated in 1 Kings v. 27 f. that Solomon had levied a 
 force of 30,000 statute labourers from among the people of 
 Israel, with the design that a third part of them, that is, 10,000 
 men, should labour alternately for a month at a time in Lebanon, 
 looking after their own affairs at home during the two following 
 months. This levy of workmen from among the people of Israel 
 is not mentioned in the Chronicle. 
 
 CHAP. III.-V. 1. THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE. 
 (CF. 1 KINGS VI., VII. 13-51.) 
 
 The description of the building begins with a statement of 
 the place where and of the time when the temple was built (iii. 
 1, 2). Then follows an account of the proportions of the build- 
 ing, a description of the individual parts, commencing on the 
 outside and advancing inwards. First we have the porch (vers. 
 3, 4), then the house, i.e. the interior apartment or the holy 
 place (vers. 5-7), then the holiest of all, and cherubim therein 
 (vers. 8-13), and the veil of partition between the holy place and 
 the most holy (ver. 14). After that we have the furniture of 
 the court, the pillars of the porch (vers. 15-17), the brazen 
 altar (iv. 1), the brazen sea (iv. 2-5), the ten lavers (ver. 6), 
 the furniture of the holy place, candlesticks and tables (vers. 
 7, 8), and of the two courts (vers. 9, 10), and finally a 
 summary enumeration of the brazen and golden utensils of 
 the temple (vers. 11, 12). The description in 1 Kings vi. and 
 vii. is differently arranged ; the divine promise which Solomon 
 received while the building was in progress, and a description 
 of the building of the palace, being inserted : see on 1 Kings vi. 
 and vii.
 
 314 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHKONICLES. 
 
 Chap. iii. The building of the temple. Vers. 1-3. The state- 
 ments as to the place where the temple was built (ver. 1) are 
 found here only. Mount Moriah is manifestly the mountain in 
 the land of Moriah where Abraham was to have sacrificed his 
 son Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2), which had received the name np.ton, i.e. 
 11 the appearance of Jahve," from that event. It is the moun- 
 tain which lies to the north-east of Zion, now called Harain 
 after the most sacred mosque of the Mohammedans, which is 
 built there ; cf. Rosen, das Haram von Jerusalem, Gotha 1866. 
 '"1? nisns "iJ>K is usually translated : " which was pointed out to 
 David his father." But n&o has not in Niphal the signification 
 " to be pointed out," which is peculiar to the Hophal (cf . Ex. 
 xxv. 40, xxvi. 30, Deut. iv. 35, etc.) ; it means only " to be seen," 
 "to let oneself be seen," to appear, especially used of appear- 
 ances of God. It cannot be shown to be anywhere used of a 
 place which lets itself be seen, or appears to one. We must 
 therefore translate: "on mount Moriah, where He had appeared 
 to David his father." The unexpressed subject mrp is easily 
 supplied from the context ; and with "icte "1H3, " on the mountain 
 where," cf. iBte Dips?, Gen. xxxv. 13 f., and Ew. 331, c, 3. 
 pan n^s is separated from what precedes, and connected with 
 what follows, by the Athnach under ^as, and is translated,"af ter 
 the LXX., Vulg., and Syr., as a hyperbaton thus : " in the 
 place where David had prepared," soil, the building of the temple 
 by the laying up of the materials there (1 Chron. xxii. 5, xxix. 2). 
 But there are no proper analogies to such a hyperbaton, since 
 Jer. xiv. 1 and xlvi. 1 are differently constituted. Berth, there- 
 fore is of opinion that our text can only signify, " which temple 
 he prepared on the place of David," and that this reading cannot 
 be the original, because r?i? occurs elsewhere only of David's 
 activity in preparing for the building of the temple, and " place 
 of David" cannot, without further ceremony, mean the place which 
 David had chosen. He would therefore transpose the words 
 thus : Tn pan *IB>K Dlp03. But this conjecture is by no means 
 certain. In the first place, the mere transposition of the words 
 is not sufficient ; we must also alter Eipo? into QipB?, to get the 
 required sense; and, further, Bertheau's reasons are not conclusive. 
 P?n means not merely to make ready for (zuriisten), to prepare, 
 but also to make ready, make (bereiten), found e.g. 1 Kings 
 vi. 19, Ezra iii. 3 ; and the frequent use of this word in reference 
 to David's action in preparing for the building of the temple
 
 CHAP. III. 4-7. 315 
 
 does not prove that it has this signification here also. The clause 
 may be quite well translated, with J. J. Rambach : " quam domurn 
 prceparavit (Salomo) in loco Davidis." The expression " David's 
 place," for "place which David had fixed upon," cannot in this 
 connection be misunderstood, but yet it cannot be denied that the 
 clause is stiff and constrained if we refer it to nirp JVavis*. We 
 would therefore prefer to give up the Masoretic punctuation, 
 and construe the words otherwise, connecting i^n "IB>K with the 
 preceding thus : where Jahve had appeared to his father David, 
 who had prepared (the house, i.e. the building of it), and make 
 'l DipCQ, with the following designation of the place, to depend 
 upon niJ2p as a further explanation of the 'on "ire, viz. in the 
 place of David, i.e. on the place fixed by David on the threshing- 
 floor of the Jebusite Oman ; cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 18. In ver. 2 
 ni32p brM is repeated in order to fix the time of the building. In 
 1 Kings vi. 1 the time is fixed by its relation to the exodus of 
 the Israelites from Egypt. ^$3, which the older commentators 
 always understood of the second day of the month, is strange. 
 Elsewhere the day of the month is always designated by the 
 cardinal number with the addition of Bnnp or Di" 1 , the month 
 having been previously given. Berth, therefore considers *J$3 
 to be a gloss which has come into the text by a repetition of 
 "Otf'Lij since the LXX. and Vulg. have not expressed it. Ver. 3. 
 "And this is Solomon's founding, to build the house of God;" 
 i.e. this is the foundation which Solomon laid for the building 
 of the house of God. The infin. Hoph. Ipin is used here and 
 in Ezra iii. 11 substantively. The measurements only of the 
 length and breadth of the building are given ; the height, 
 which is stated in 1 Kings vi. 2, is omitted here. The former, 
 i.e. the ancient measurement, is the Mosaic or sacred cubit, 
 which, according to Ezek. xl. 5 and xliii. 13, was a handbreadth 
 longer than the civil cubit of the earlier time ; see on 1 Kings 
 vi. 2. 
 
 Vers. 4-7. Tlie porch and the interior of the holy place. Ver. 4. 
 The porch which was before (i.e. in front of) the length (of the 
 house), was twenty cubits before the breadth of the house, i.e. 
 was as broad as the house. So understood, the words give an 
 intelligible sense. ^"J.xn with the article refers back to ^P.Nrt in 
 ver. 3 (the length of the house), and ^'^V in the two defining 
 clauses means "in front;" but in the first clause it is "lying in 
 front of the house," i.e. built in front ; in the second it is " mea-
 
 316 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 sured across the front 'of the breadth of the house." 1 There is 
 certainly either a corruption of the text, or a wrong number in 
 the statement of the height of the porch, 120 cubits ; for a front 
 120 cubits high to a house only thirty cubits high could not be 
 called DTiN ; it would have been a T^B, a tower. It cannot with 
 certainty be determined whether we should read twenty or thirty 
 cubits ; see in 1 Kings vi. 3. He overlaid it (the porch) with 
 pure gold ; cf. 1 Kings vi. 21. Vers. 57. The interior of the 
 holy place. Ver. 5. The " great house," i.e. the large apartment 
 of the house, the holy place, he wainscotted with cypresses, and 
 overlaid it with good gold, and carved thereon palms and gar- 
 lands. nan from narij to cover, cover over, alternates with the 
 synonymous nav in the signification to coat or overlay with wood 
 and gold. D^bn as in Ezek. xli. 18, for nnbri, 1 Kings vi. 29, 
 35, are artificial palms as wall ornaments, rihantt' are in Ex. 
 xxviii. 14 small scroll-formed chains of gold wire, here spiral 
 chain-like decorations on the walls, garlands of flowers carved on 
 the wainscot, as we learn from 1 Kings vi. 18. Ver. 6. And he 
 garnished the house with precious stones for ornament (of the 
 inner sides of the walls) ; cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 2, on which Bahr 
 on 1 Kings vi. 7 appositely remarks, that the ornamenting of the 
 walls with precious stones is very easily credible, since among 
 the things which Solomon brought in quantity from Ophir they 
 are expressly mentioned (1 Kings x. 11), and it was a common 
 custom in the East so to employ them in buildings and in vessels ; 
 cf. Symbolik des mos. Cult. i. S. 280, 294, 297. The gold was 
 from D^.r.3. This, the name of a place rich in gold, does not 
 
 1 There is consequently no need to alter the text according to 1 Kings 
 vi. 3, from which passage Berth, would interpolate the words ")b>jj JTan 
 V3S i>P i2rn naX3 between ''JB^y and TpNHj and thereby get the signifi- 
 cation : "and the porch which is before the house, ten cubits is its breadth 
 before the same, and the length which is before the breadth twenty cubits." 
 But this conjecture is neither necessary nor probable. It is not necessary, 
 for (1) the present text gives an intelligible sense ; (2) the assertion that 
 the length and breadth of the porch must be stated cannot be justified, if for 
 no other reason, for this, that even of the main buildings all three dimensions 
 are not given, only two being stated, and that it was not the purpose of the 
 author of the Chronicle to give an architecturally complete statement, his 
 main anxiety being to supply a general idea of the splendour of the temple. 
 It is not probable ; because the chronicler, if he had followed 1 Kings vi. 3, 
 
 would not have written V3B~y but JVan 'JS-y and instead of 
 
 T T ; -) 
 
 would have written isixi to correspond with iam 
 
 :T:> : T*
 
 CHAP. III. 8-14. 317 
 
 elsewhere occur, and has not as yet been satisfactorily explained. 
 Gesen. with Wilson compares the Sanscrit parvam, the first, 
 foremost, and takes it to be the name of the foremost, i.e. eastern 
 regions ; others hold the word to be the name of some city in 
 southern or eastern Arabia, whence Indian gold was brought to 
 Palestine. In ver. 7 the garnishing of the house with gold is 
 more exactly and completely described. He garnished the house, 
 the beams (of the roof), the thresholds (of the doors), and its 
 walls and its doors with gold, and carved cherubs on the walls. 
 For details as to the internal garnishing, decoration, and gilding 
 of the house, see 1 Kings vi. 18, 29, and 30, and for the doors, 
 vers. 32-35. 
 
 Vers. 8-14. The most holy place, with the figures of the cheru- 
 bim and the veil; cf. 1 Kings vi. 19-28. The length of the 
 most holy place in front of the breadth of the house, twenty 
 cubits, consequently measured in the same way as the porch 
 (ver. 4) ; the breadth, i.e. the depth of it, also twenty cubits. 
 The height, which was the same (1 Kings vi. 20), is not stated ; 
 but instead of that we have the weight of the gold which was 
 used for the gilding, which is omitted in 1 Kings vi., viz. 600 
 talents for the overlaying of the walls, and 50 shekels for the 
 nails to fasten the sheet gold on the wainscotting. He covered 
 the upper chambers of the most holy place also with gold ; see 
 1 Chron. xxviii. 11. This is not noticed in 1 Kings vi. Vers. 
 10 ff. The figures of the cherubim are called ^V-ttre nfeJjrc^ sculp- 
 ture work. The air. \ey. D^JNf comes from Jft, Arab. cU, 
 
 formavit, finxit, and signifies sculptures. The plur. 13*1, " they 
 overlaid them," is indefinite. The length of the wings was five 
 cubits, and the four outspread wings extended across the whole 
 width of the most holy place from one wall to the other. The 
 repetition of the clauses "inKn irian . . . IPINH ejaa (vers. 11, 12) has 
 a distributive force : the top of one wing of each cherub reached 
 the wall of the house, that of the other wing reached the wing of 
 the other cherub standing by. In the repetition the masc. JPao 
 alternates with the fern, nyao, being construed in a freer way as 
 the principal gender with the fern. f|J3, and also with n^nn, 
 adhcerebat, in the last clause. In ver. 12 Bertheau would strike 
 out the word ""B33 because it does not suit ^Bns, which occurs in 
 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, 2 Chron. v. 8, 1 Kings viii. 7, in the tran- 
 sitive signification, " to stretch out the wings." But nothing is
 
 318 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 gained by that, for we must then supply the erased word after 
 D^KHS again. And, moreover, the succeeding clause is introduced 
 by D, just because in the first clause the wings, and not the 
 cherubim, were the subject. We hold the text to be correct, 
 and translate : " the wings of these cherubim were, for they 
 stretched them out, twenty cubits." EHl. refers to SWan. They 
 stood upon their feet, consequently upright, and were, according 
 to 1 Kings vi. 26, ten cubits high. " And their faces towards 
 the house," i.e. turned towards the holy place, not having their 
 faces turned towards each other, as was the case with the cheru- 
 bim upon the Capporeth (Ex. xxv. 20). Ver. 14. The veil be- 
 tween the holy place and the most holy, not mentioned in 
 1 Kings vi. 21, was made of the same materials and colours as 
 the veil on the tabernacle, and was inwoven with similar cherub 
 figures ; cf. Ex. xxvi. 31. Pi f>W3 as in ii. 13. ty r6y, to bring 
 upon ; an indefinite expression for : to weave into the material. 
 
 Vers. 15-17. The two brazen pillars before the house, i.e. 
 before the porch, whose form is more accurately described in 
 1 Kings vii. 15-22. The height of it is here given at thirty-five 
 cubits, while, according to 1 Kings vii. 15, 2 Kings xxv. 17, 
 Jer. Hi. 21, it was only eighteen cubits. The number thirty-five 
 has arisen by confounding fT 1 = 18 with n? = 35 ; see on 1 Kings 
 vii. 16. fl?-? 1 "!? (air. Xey.) from n3 ? overlay, cover, is the hood of 
 the pillar, i.e. the capital, called in 1 Kings vii. 16 ff. rnnbj crown, 
 capital, five cubits high, as in 1 Kings vii. 16. Ver. 16. "And 
 he made little chains on the collar (Halsreife), and put it on the 
 top of the pillars, and made 100 pomegranates, and put them on 
 the chains." In the first clause of this verse, "^3, " in (on) the 
 most holy place," has no meaning, for the most holy place is not 
 here being discussed, but the pillars before the porch, or rather 
 an ornament on the capital of these pillars. We must not there- 
 fore think of chains in the most holy place, which extended thence 
 out to the pillars, as the Syriac and Arabic seem to have done, 
 paraphrasing as they do : chains of fifty cubits (i.e. the length of 
 the holy place and the porch). According to 1 Kings vii. 17-20 
 and ver. 41 f., compared with 2 Chron. iv. 12, 13, each capital 
 consisted of two parts. The lower part was a circumvolution 
 (Wulst) covered with chain-like net-work, one cubit high, with a 
 setting of carved pomegranates one row above and one row below. 
 The upper part, or that which formed the crown of the capital, 
 was four cubits high, and carved in the form of an open lily-calyx.
 
 CHAP. IV. 1-1L 319 
 
 In our verse it is the lower part of the capital, the circumvolu- 
 tion, with the chain net-work and the pomegranates, which is 
 spoken of. From this, Bertheau concludes that "''S'n must signify 
 the same as the more usual ^IV, viz. " the lattice-work which 
 was set about the top of the pillars, and served to fasten the 
 pomegranates," and that "Pill has arisen out of T^na by a 
 transposition of the letters. T 1 ^? (chains) should be read here. 
 This conjecture so decidedly commends itself, that we regard it 
 as certainly correct, since T^n denotes in Gen. xli. 42, Ezek. 
 xvi. 11, a necklace, and so may easily denote also a ring or 
 hoop ; but we cannot adopt the translation " chains on a ring," 
 nor the idea that the n ?3!?, since it surrounded the head of the 
 pillars as a girdle or broad ring, is called the ring of the pillars. 
 For this idea does not agree with the translation " chains in a 
 ring," even when they are conceived of as " chain-like ornaments, 
 which could scarcely otherwise be made visible on the ring than 
 by open work." Then the chain-like decorations were not, as 
 Bertheau thinks, on the upper and under border of the ring, but 
 formed a net-work which surrounded the lower part of the 
 capital of the pillar like a ring, as though a necklace had been 
 drawn round it. T^n consequently is not the same as | " | ?3b > , but 
 rather corresponds to that part of the capital which is called n?3 
 (ni?3) in 1 Kings vii. 14 ; for the nianty served to cover the 
 ni?3, and were consequently placed on or over the ni?3, as the 
 pomegranates were on the chains or woven work. !"6.2n denotes 
 the curve, the circumvolution, which is in 1 Kings vii. 20 called 
 JB2H, a broad-arched band, bulging towards the middle, which 
 formed the lower part of the capital. This arched part of the 
 capital the author of the Chronicle calls T'Sn, ring or collar, 
 because it may be regarded as the neck ornament of the head of 
 the pillar, in contrast to the upper part of the capital, that con- 
 sisted in lily-work, i.e. the ball wrought into the form of an open 
 lily-calyx (JTVjb). Ver. 17. As to the position of the pillars, and 
 their names, see on 1 Kings vii. 21. 
 
 Chap. iv. 1-1 la. The sacred furniture and the courts of the 
 temple. Vers. 1-6. The copper furniture of the court. Ver. 1. 
 The altar of burnt-offering. Its preparation is passed over in 1 
 Kings vi. and vii., so that there it is only mentioned incidentally 
 in connection with the consecration of the temple, viii. 22, 54, and 
 ix. 25. It was twenty cubits square (long and broad) and ten 
 cubits high, and constructed on the model of the Mosaic altar of
 
 320 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 burnt-offering, and probably of brass plates, which enclosed the 
 inner core, consisting of earth and unhewn stones ; and if we may 
 judge from Ezekiel's description, chap, xliii. 13-17, it rose in steps, 
 as it were, so that at each step its extent was smaller ; and the 
 measurement of twenty cubits refers only to the lowest scale, 
 while the space at the top, with the hearth, was only twelve cubits 
 square ; cf. my Bibl. ArchceoL i. S. 127, with the figure, plate iii. 
 fig. 2. Vers. 2-5. The brazen sea described as in 1 Kings vii. 
 23-26. See the commentary on that passage, and the sketch in 
 my ArchceoL i. plate iii. fig. 1. The differences in substance, such 
 as the occurrence of Q^f and ">P. 3?, ver. 3, instead of D^S and 
 Dv^an, and 3000 baths instead of 2000, are probably the" result 
 of orthographical errors in the Chronicle. T'' 1 ^ in ver. 5 appears 
 superfluous after the preceding P^no, and Berth, considers it a 
 gloss which has come from 1 Kings into our text by mistake. 
 But the expression is only pleonastic : " receiving baths, 3000 it 
 held;" and there is no sufficient reason to strike out the words. 
 Ver. 6. The ten lavers which, according to 1 Kings vii. 38, stood 
 upon ten brazen stands, i.e. chests provided with carriage wheels. 
 These stands, the artistic work on which is circumstantially 
 described in 1 Kings vii. 27-37, are omitted in the Chronicle, 
 because they are merely subordinate parts of the lavers. The 
 size or capacity of the lavers is not stated, only their position on 
 both sides of the temple porch, and the purpose for which they 
 were designed, "to wash therein, viz. the work of the burnt- 
 offering (the flesh of the burnt-offering which was to be burnt 
 upon the altar) they rinsed therein," being mentioned. For 
 details, see in 1 Kings vii. 38 f. and the figure in my ArchceoL i. 
 plate iii. fig. 4. Occasion is here taken to mention in a supple- 
 mentary way the use of the brazen sea. Vers. 7-9. The golden 
 furniture of the holy place and the courts. These three verses are 
 not found in the parallel narrative 1 Kings vii., where in ver. 396 
 the statement as to the position of the brazen sea (ver. 10 of 
 Chron.) follows immediately the statement of the position of the 
 stands with the lavers. The candlesticks and the table of the 
 shew-bread are indeed mentioned in the summary enumeration of 
 the temple furniture, 1 Kings vii. 48 and 49, as in the corre- 
 sponding passage of the Chronicle (vers. 19 and 20) they again 
 occur ; and in 1 Kings vi. 36 and vii. 12, in the description of the 
 temple building, the inner court is spoken of, but the outer court 
 is not expressly mentioned. No reason can be given for the
 
 CHAP. IV. 11-22. 321 
 
 omission of these verses in 1 Kings vii. ; but that they have been 
 omitted or have dropped out, may be concluded from the fact that 
 not only do the whole contents of our fourth chapter correspond to 
 the section 1 Kings vii. 23-50, but both passages are rounded off 
 by the same concluding verse (Chron. v. 1 and 1 Kings li.). Ver. 7. 
 He made ten golden candlesticks Dtpa^'02, according to their right, 
 i.e. as they should be according to the prescript, or corresponding 
 to the prescript as to the golden candlesticks in the Mosaic sanctuary 
 (Ex. xxv. 31 ff.). BBBto is the law established by the Mosaic legisla- 
 tion. Ver. 8. Ten golden tables, corresponding to the ten candle- 
 sticks, and, like these, placed five on the right and five on the left 
 side of the holy place. The tables were not intended to bear the 
 candlesticks (Berth.), but for the shew-bread; cf. on ver. 19 and 
 1 Chron. xxviii. 16. And a hundred golden basins, not for the 
 catching and sprinkling of the blood (Berth.), but, as their connec- 
 tion with the tables for the shew-bread shows, wine flagons, or sacri- 
 ficial vessels for wine libations, probably corresponding to theni^D 
 on the table of shew-bread in the tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 29). The 
 signification, wine flagons, for O^t*?, is placed beyond a doubt by 
 Amos vi. 6. Ver. 9. The two courts are not further described. 
 For the court of the priests, see on 1 Kings vi. 36 and vii. 12. 
 As to the great or outer court, the only remark made is that it 
 had doors, and its doors, i.e. the folds or leaves of the doors, w r ere 
 overlaid with copper. In ver. 10 we have a supplementary 
 statement as to the position of the brazen sea, which coincides 
 with 1 Kings vii. 39; see on the passage. In ver. Ha the 
 heavier brazen (copper) utensils, belonging to the altar of burnt- 
 offering, are mentioned : niVDj pots for the removal of the 
 ashes ; DT, shovels, to take the ashes out from the altar ; and 
 rnp^tt, basins to catch and sprinkle the sacrificial blood. This 
 half verse belongs to the preceding, notwithstanding that Huram 
 is mentioned as the maker. This is clear beyond doubt, from the 
 fact that the same utensils are again introduced in the summary 
 catalogue which follows (ver. 16). 
 
 Vers. 115-22. Summary catalogue of the temple utensils and 
 furniture. Vers. 11518. The brass work wrought by Huram. 
 Ver. 19-22. The golden furniture of the holy place and the 
 gilded doors of the temple. This section is found also in 1 
 Kings vii. 406-50. The enumeration of the things wrought in 
 brass coincides to a word, with the exception of trifling linguistic 
 differences and some defects in the text, with 1 Kings vii. 406- 
 
 X
 
 322 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 47. In ver. 12 Diiribni Jlipan is the true reading, and we should 
 so read in 1 Kings vii. 41 also, since the ni?j ? circumvolutions, are 
 to be distinguished from the niinbj crowns ; see on iii. 16. In 
 ver. 14 the first n^V is a mistake for ">^, the second for "QtW, 
 Kings ver. 43 ; for the verb nbp is not required nor expected, as 
 the accusative depends upon nib^-?, ver. 11, while the number 
 cannot b6 omitted, since it is always given with the other things. 
 In ver. 16 nwf is an orthographic error for nipnto ; cf. ver. 11 
 
 T : . c?. a. 
 
 and 1 Kings vii. 44. Dnv3~?3"nxi is surprising, for there is no 
 meaning in speaking of the utensils of the utensils enumerated 
 in ver. 12 16c. According to 1 Kings vii. 45, we should read 
 n^xn D^arrfcp ns. As to va, see on ii. 12. pno n^m is accu- 
 sative of the material, of polished brass ; and so also B'lbp 'D3, 1 
 Kings vii. 45, with a similar signification. In reference to the 
 rest, see the commentary on 1 Kings vii. 40 ff. Vers. 19-22. 
 In the enumeration of the golden furniture of the holy place, our 
 text diverges somewhat more from 1 Kings vii. 48-50. On 
 the difference in respect to the tables of the shew-bread, see on 
 1 Kings vii. 48. In ver. 20 the number and position of the 
 candlesticks in the holy place are not stated as they are in 1 
 Kings vii. 49, both having been already given in ver. 7. Instead 
 of that, their use is emphasized : to light them, according to the 
 right, before the most holy place (D5IBT33 as in ver. 7). As to the 
 decorations and subordinate utensils of the candlesticks, see on 1 
 Kings vii. 49. To 3HT, ver. 21 (accus. of the material), is added 
 ant nibtD wn, that is perfect gold." n*o, which occurs only 
 
 TT : 7 r..o T.: 7 J 
 
 here, is synonymous with ?^?D ? perfection. This addition seems 
 superfluous, because before and afterwards it is remarked of these 
 vessels that they were of precious gold ("MD 3HT), and it is conse- 
 quently omitted by the LXX., perhaps also because riipJD was not 
 intelligible to them. The words, probably, are meant to indicate 
 that even the decorations and the subordinate utensils of the 
 candlesticks (lamps, snuffers, etc.) were of solid gold, and not 
 merely gilded. Ver. 22. nfrtptD, knives, probably used along with 
 the snuffers for the cleansing and trimming of the candlesticks 
 and lamps, are not met with among the utensils of the taber- 
 nacle, but are here mentioned (Chron. and Kings), and in 2 
 Kings xii. 14 and Jer. Iii. 18, among the temple utensils. Along 
 with the rrip7?P, sacrificial vessels (see on ver. 8), in 1 Chron. 
 xxviii. 17 niJ?n?, forks of gold, are also mentioned, which are not 
 elsewhere spoken of. Among the utensils of the tabernacle we
 
 CHAP. V. 2-VII. 22. 323 
 
 find only ni&D of brass, flesh-forks, as an appurtenance of the 
 altar of burnt-offering (Ex. xxvii. 3, xxxviii. 3, Num. iv. 14 ; cf. 
 1 Sam. ii. 13 f.), which, however, cannot be intended here, because 
 all the utensils here enumerated belonged to the holy place. 
 What purpose the golden forks served cannot be determined, but 
 the mention of golden knives might lead us to presuppose that 
 there would be golden forks as well. That the forks are not 
 mentioned in our verse does not render their existence doubtful, 
 for the enumeration is not complete : e.g. the Hi 3D, 1 Kings vii. 
 50, are also omitted. niB3, vessels for the incense, and JTinn, 
 extinguishers, as in 1 Kings vii. 50. Instead of VniDTn JV3n nns 1 ), 
 " and as regards the opening (door) of the house, its door-leaves," 
 in 1 Kings vii. 50 we have JVan ninpnp nhbrn, and the hinges 
 of the door-leaves of the house." This suggests that HDD is only 
 an orthographical error for nhb ; but then if \ye take it to be so. 
 
 f L L 
 
 we must alter vriiriTn into ^fiinTi?. And, moreover, the expres- 
 sion IVan nhb, door-hinges of the house, is strange, as Dia pro- 
 perly denotes a recess or space between, and which renders the 
 above-mentioned conjecture improbable. The author of the 
 Chronicle seems rather himself to have generalized the expression, 
 and emphasizes merely the fact that even the leaves of the doors 
 in the most holy place and on the holy place were of gold ; 
 of course not of solid gold ; but they were, as we learn from iii. 
 7, overlaid with gold. This interpretation is favoured by the 
 simple 2nj being used without the predicate "MD. To the sing. 
 nna no objection can be made, for the word in its fundamental 
 signification, " opening," may easily be taken collectively. Chap. 
 v. 1 contains the conclusion of the account of the preparation of 
 the sacred utensils as in 1 Kings vii. 51, and with it also the 
 whole account of the building of the temple is brought to an end. 
 The 1 before *lD3rrnx and sn-irrnx corresponds to the Lat. et et, 
 both and also. As to David's offerings, cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 10 
 and 11 ; and on the whole matter, compare also the remarks on 
 1 Kings vii. 51. 
 
 CHAP. V. 2 VII. 22. THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE. 
 
 (CF. 1 KINGS VIII. AND IX. 1-9.) 
 
 This solemnity, to which Solomon had invited the elders and 
 heads of all Israel to Jerusalem, consisted in four acts : (a) the 
 transfer of the ark into the temple (v. 2-vi. 11) ; (6) Solomon's
 
 324 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 dedicatory prayer (vi. 1242) ; (c) the solemn sacrifice (vii. 1-10) ; 
 and (d) the Lord's answer to Solomon's prayer (vii. 1122). By 
 the first two acts the temple was dedicated by the king and the 
 congregation of Israel to its holy purpose ; by the two last it was 
 consecrated by Jahve to be the dwelling-place of His name. If 
 we compare our account of this solemnity with the account given 
 in the book of Kings, we find that they agree in their main sub- 
 stance, and for the most part even verbally coincide. Only, in 
 the Chronicle the part performed by the priests and Levites is 
 described more in detail ; and in treating of the third act, instead 
 of the blessing spoken by Solomon (1 Kings viii. 54-61), we have 
 in Chron. vii. 1-3 a narrative of the devouring of the sacrifices 
 by fire from heaven. 
 
 Chap. v. 2-vi. 11. The first part of the celebration was the 
 transfer of the ark from Mount Zion to the temple (v. 2-14), 
 and in connection with this we have the words in which Solomon 
 celebrates the entry of the Lord into the new temple (vi. 1-11). 
 This section has been already commented on in the remarks on 
 1 Kings viii. 1-21, and we have here, consequently, only to set 
 down briefly those discrepancies between our account and that 
 other, which have any influence upon the meaning. In ver. 3 the 
 name of the month, D^nsn rrva (Kings ver. 2), with which the 
 supplementary clause, " that is the seventh month," is there 
 connected, is omitted, so 'that we must either change ^.nn into 
 unrQj or supply the name of the month ; for the festival is not 
 the seventh month, but was held in that month. Ver. 4. Instead 
 of DW, we have in 2 Kings E^nbn, the priests bare the ark ; and 
 since even according to the Chronicle (ver. 7) the priests bare the 
 ark into the holy place, we must understand by D?vji such Levites 
 were also priests. In ver. 5, too, the words DW D^nan are inexact, 
 and are to be corrected by Kings ver. 4, E'PpI 0^3?. For even 
 if the Levitic priests bare the ark and the sacred utensils of the 
 tabernacle into the temple, yet the tabernacle itself (the planks, 
 hangings, and coverings of it) was borne into the temple, to be 
 preserved as a holy relic, not by priests, but only by Levites. The 
 conj. i before D^n has probably been omitted only by a copyist, 
 who was thinking of D^lSn D^ron (Josh. iii. 3, Deut. xvii. 9, 18, 
 etc.). In ver. 8 ^3^ is an orthographical error for *30J1, 1 Kings 
 viii. 7; cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, Ex. xxv. 20. In ver. 9, too, 
 JiisrrjD has probably come into our text only by a copyist's mis- 
 take instead of Bhpn'fl? (Kings ver. 8). Ver. 10. in: nefc, who
 
 CHAP. V. 2-VI. 11. 325 
 
 bad given, i.e. laid in, is not so exact as 05^ IT3H IK'S (Kings 
 ver. 9), but may be justified by a reference to Ex. xl. 20. Vers. 
 Ilb-l'da describe the part which the priests and Levitical singers 
 and musicians took in the solemn act of transferring the ark to 
 the temple, a matter entirely passed over in the narrative in 
 Kincrs viii. 11, which confines itself to the main transaction. The 
 
 O 
 
 mention of the priests gives occasion for the remark, ver. 11&, 
 " for all the priests present had sanctified themselves, but the 
 courses were not to be observed," i.e. the courses of the priests 
 (1 Chron. xxiv.) could not be observed. The festival was so 
 great, that not merely the course appointed to perform the 
 service of that week, but also all the courses had sanctified them- 
 selves and co-operated in the celebration. In reference to the 
 construction ito'fl 3 r*?, cf. Ew. 321, 1. Ver. 12. All the Levitic 
 singers and musicians were also engaged in it, to make the festival 
 glorious by song and instrumental music : " and the Levites, the 
 singers, all of them, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, and their 
 sons and brethren, clad in byssus, with cymbals, psalteries, and 
 harps, stood eastward from the altar, and with them priests to 120, 
 blowing trumpets." The ? before D?3 and the following noun 
 is the introductory ? : "as regards." On the form Dmvno, see 
 on 1 Chron. xv. 24 ; on these singers and musicians, their clothing, 
 and their instruments, see on 1 Chron. xv. 17-28 and chap. xxv. 
 1-8. Ver. 13a runs thus literally : " And it came to pass, as 
 one, regarding the trumpeters and the singers, that they sang 
 with one voice to praise and thank Jahve." The meaning is : 
 and the trumpeters and singers, together as one man, sang with 
 one voice to praise. "1HX3 is placed first for emphasis ; stress is 
 laid upon the subject, the trumpeters and singers, by the in- 
 troductory p ; and nvi is construed with the following infinitive 
 (rpti'np) : it was to sound, to cause to hear, for they were causing 
 to hear, where p c. injin. is connected with rvn, as the participle 
 is elsewhere, to describe the circumstances ; cf. Ew. 237. But 
 in order to express very strongly the idea of the unisono of 
 the trumpet-sound, and the singing accompanied by the harp- 
 playing, which lies in inss, inx ^>ip is added to ?*l?f&. By 
 'Ul ^ip D^iHi} all that was to be said of the song and music is 
 drawn together in the form of a protasis, to which is joined n^ni 
 tfta, the apodosis both of this latter and also of the protasis 
 which was interrupted by the parenthesis in ver. 11 : " When 
 the priests went forth from the holy place, for . . . (ver. 11), and
 
 326 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 when they lifted up the voice with trumpets and with cymbals, 
 and the (other) instruments of song, and with the praise of Jahve, 
 that He is good, that His mercy endureth for ever (cf. 1 Chron. 
 xvi. 34), then was the house filled with the cloud of the house 
 of Jahve." The absence of the article before fJJ? requires us thus 
 to connect the niPP rva at the close of the verse with }3V (stat. 
 constr.\ since the indefinite \W (without the article) is not at all 
 suitable here ; for it is not any cloud which is here spoken of, but 
 that which overshadowed the glory of the Lord in the most holy 
 place. Ver. 14, again, agrees with 1 Kings viii. 6, and has been 
 there commented upon, chap. vi. 1-11. The words with which 
 Solomon celebrates this wondrous evidence of divine favour, 
 entirely coincide with the narrative in 1 Kings viii. 12-21, except 
 that in ver. 5 f. the actual words of Solomon's speech are more 
 completely given than in 1 Kings viii. 16, where the words, " and 
 I have not chosen a man to be prince over my people Israel, and 
 I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might be there," are 
 omitted. For the commentary on this address, see on 1 Kings 
 viii. 12-21. 
 
 Chap. vi. 12-42. Solomon's dedicatory prayer likewise corre- 
 sponds exactly with the account of it given in 1 Kings viii. 22-53 
 till near the end (vers. 4042), w r here it takes quite a different 
 turn. Besides this, in the introduction (ver. 13) Solomon's posi- 
 tion during the prayer is more accurately described, it being 
 there stated that Solomon had caused a high stage pi*?, a basin- 
 like elevation)- to be erected, which he ascended, and kneeling, 
 spoke the prayer which follows. This fact is not stated in 
 1 Kings viii. 22, and Then, and Berth, conjecture that it has 
 been dropped out of our text only by mistake. Perhaps so, but 
 it may have been passed over by the author of the books of Kings 
 as a point of subordinate importance. On the contents of the 
 prayer, which begins with the joyful confession that the Lord 
 had fulfilled His promise to David in reference to the building of 
 the temple, and proceeds with a request for a further bestowment 
 of the blessing promised to His people, and a supplication that all 
 prayers made to the Lord in the temple may be heard, see the 
 Com. on 1 Kings viii. 22 ff. The conclusion of the prayer in 
 the Chronicle is different from that in 1 Kings viii. There the 
 last supplication, that the prayers might be heard, is followed by 
 the thought : for they (the Israelites) are Thy people and inherit- 
 ance ; and in the further amplification of this thought the prayer
 
 CHAP. VI. 12-42. S27 
 
 returns to the idea with which it commenced. In the narrative 
 of the Chronicle, on the other hand, the supplications conclude with 
 the general thought (ver. 40) : " Now, my God, let, I beseech 
 Thee, Thine eyes be open, and Thine ears attend unto the prayer 
 of this place " (i.e. unto the prayer spoken in this place). There 
 follows, then, the conclusion of the whole prayer, a summons to 
 the Lord (ver. 41 f .) : " And now, Lord God, arise into Thy rest, 
 Thou and the ark of Thy strength ; let Thy priests, Lord God, 
 clothe themselves in salvation, and Thy saints rejoice in good ! 
 Lord God, turn not away the face of Thine anointed : remember 
 the pious deeds of Thy servant David." E^Dn as in 2 Chron. 
 xxxiii. 32, xxxv. 26, and Neh. xiii. 14. On this Thenius remarks, 
 to 1 Kings viii. 53 : " This conclusion is probably authentic, 
 for there is in the text of the prayer, 1 Kings viii., no special 
 expression of dedication, and this the summons to enter into 
 possession of the temple very fittingly supplies. The whole con- 
 tents of the conclusion are in perfect correspondence with the 
 situation, and, as to form, nothing better could be desired. It 
 can scarcely be thought an arbitrary addition made by the 
 chronicler for no other reason than that the summons spoken of, 
 if taken literally, is irreconcilable with the entrance of the cloud 
 into the temple, of which he has already given us an account." 
 Berth, indeed thinks that it does not thence follow that our con- 
 clusion is authentic, and considers it more probable that it was 
 introduced because it appeared more suitable, in place of the 
 somewhat obscure words in 1 Kings viii. 51-53, though not by 
 the author of the Chronicle, and scarcely at an earlier time. The 
 decision on this question can only be arrived at in connection 
 with the question as to the origin of the statements peculiar to 
 the Chronicle contained in chap. vii. 1-3. If we consider, in the 
 first place, our verses in themselves, they contain no thought 
 which Solomon might not have spoken, and consequently nothing 
 which would tend to show that they are not authentic. It is 
 true that the phrase rrt2$j3 fpJTN occurs only here and in vii. 15, 
 and again in Ps. cxxx. 2, and the noun rw instead of nrmo is 
 found only in Esth. ix. 16-18 in the form ni3 ; but even if these 
 two expressions be peculiar to the later time, no further conclusion 
 can be drawn from that, than that the author of the Chronicle 
 has here, as often elsewhere, given the thoughts of his authority 
 in the language of his own time. Nor is the relation in w^hich 
 vers. 41 and 42 stand to Ps. cxxxii. 810 a valid proof of the
 
 328 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 later composition of the conclusion of our prayer. For (a) it is still 
 a question whether our verses have been borrowed from Ps. cxxxii., 
 or the verses of the psalm from our passage ; and (b) the period 
 when Ps. cxxxviii. was written is so doubtful, that some regard it 
 as a Solomonic psalm, while others place it in the post-exilic 
 period. Neither the one nor the other of these questions can be 
 determined on convincing grounds. The appeal to the fact that 
 the chronicler has compounded the hymn in 1 Chron. xv. also 
 out of post-exilic psalms proves nothing, for even in that case it 
 is at least doubtful if that be a correct account of the matter. 
 But the further assertion, that the conclusion (ver. 42) resembles 
 Isa. Iv. 3, and that recollections of this passage may have had 
 some effect also on the conclusion (ver. 41), is undoubtedly errone- 
 ous, for Ttt non in ver. 42 has quite a different meaning from 
 that which it has in Isa. Iv, 3. There TH 'npn are the favours 
 granted to David by the Lord ; in ver. 42, on the contrary, they 
 are the pious deeds of David, all that he had done for the raising 
 and advancement of the public worship (see above). The phrase 
 'Wl nt^pj "Arise, O Lord God, into Thy rest," is modelled on 
 the formula which was spoken when the ark was lifted and when 
 it was set down on the journey through the wilderness, which 
 explains both ncfip and the use of 10^?, which is formed after 
 nrwa, Num. x. 36. The call to arise into rest is not inconsistent 
 with the fact that the ark had already been brought into the 
 most holy place, for HEnp has merely the general signification, 
 " to set oneself to anything." The idea is, that God would now 
 take the rest to which the throne of His glory had attained, show 
 Himself to His people from this His throne to be the God of 
 salvation, endue His priests, the guardians of His sanctuary, with 
 salvation, and cause the pious to rejoice in -His goodness. WOK'* 
 ate? is generalized in Ps. cxxxii. 9 into jrv. 'a r?> 3#n, to 
 turn away the face of any one, i.e. to deny the request, cf. 
 1 Kings ii. 16. 
 
 Chap. vii. 1-22. TJie divine confirmation of the dedication of 
 the temple. Vers. 1-10. The consecration of the sacrificial ser- 
 vice by fire from heaven (vers. 1-3), and the sacrifices and festival 
 of the people (vers. 4-10). Vers. 1-3. At the conclusion of 
 Solomon's prayer there fell fire from heaven, which devoured 
 the burnt-offering and the thank-offering, and the glory of the 
 Lord filled the house, so that the priests could not enter the 
 house of Jahve. The assembled congregation, when they saw
 
 CHAP. VII. 1-22. 329 
 
 the fire and the glory of the Lord descend, bowed themselves 
 with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and wor- 
 shipped God to praise. Now since this narrative is not found in 
 1 Kings viii. 54 ff., and there a speech of Solomon to the whole 
 congregation, in which he thanks God for the fulfilment of His 
 promise, and expresses the desire that the Lord would hear his 
 prayers at all times, and bestow the promised salvation on the 
 people, is communicated, modern criticism has rejected this nar- 
 rative of the Chronicle as a later unhistorical embellishment of 
 the temple dedication. " If we turn our attention," says Berth, 
 in agreement with Then., "to chap. v. 11-14, and compare chap. 
 v. 14 with our second verse, we must maintain that our historian 
 found that there existed two different narratives of the proceed- 
 ings at the dedication of the temple, and received both into his 
 work. According to the one narrative, the clouds filled the 
 house (1 Kings viii. 10, cf. 2 Chron. v. 11-14) ; and after this 
 was done Solomon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which 
 we find in 1 Kings viii. ; according to the other narrative, Solo- 
 mon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which we find in 
 Chron., and God thereafter gave the confirmatory signs. Now 
 we can hardly imagine that the course of events was, that the 
 glory of Jahve filled the house (chap. v. 14) ; that then Solo- 
 mon spoke the words and the prayer in chap. vi. ; that while he 
 uttered the prayer the glory of Jahve again left the house, and 
 then came down in a way manifest to all the people (chap. vii. 3), 
 in order to fill the house for a second time." Certainly it was 
 not so ; but the narrative itself gives no ground for any such 
 representation. Not a word is said in the text of the glory of 
 Jahve having left the temple during Solomon's prayer. The 
 supposed contradiction between chap. v. 14 and the account in 
 chap. vii. 1-3 is founded entirely on a misinterpretation of our 
 verse. The course of events described here was, as the words 
 run, this : Fire came down from heaven upon the sacrifices and 
 devoured them, and the glory of the Lord filled the house; and 
 this is in ver. 3 more exactly and precisely repeated by the state- 
 ment that the people saw the fire and the glory of Jahve descend 
 upon the house. According to these plain words, the glory of 
 Jahve descended upon the temple in the fire which came down 
 from heaven. In the heavenly fire which devoured the sacri- 
 fices, the assembled congregation saw the glory of the Lord 
 descend upon the temple and fill it. But the filling of the
 
 330 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 temple by the clqud when the ark was brought in and set in its 
 place (v. 14) can be without difficulty reconciled with this mani- 
 festation of the divine glory in the fire. Just as the manifesta- 
 tion of the gracious divine presence in the temple by a cloud, as 
 its visible vehicle, does not exclude the omnipresence of God or 
 His sitting enthroned in heaven, God's essence not being so con- 
 fined to the visible vehicle of His gracious presence among His 
 people that He ceases thereby to be enthroned in heaven, and to 
 manifest Himself therefrom ; so the revelation of the same God 
 from heaven by a descending fire is not excluded or set aside by 
 the presence of the cloud in the holy place of the temple, and 
 in the most holy. We may consequently quite well represent 
 to ourselves the course of events, by supposing, that while the 
 gracious presence of God enthroned above the cherubim on the 
 ark made itself known in the cloud which filled the temple, 
 or while the cloud filled the interior of the temple, God revealed 
 His glory from heaven, before the eyes of the assembled congre- 
 gation, in the fire which descended upon the sacrifices, so that 
 the temple was covered or overshadowed by His glory. The 
 parts of this double manifestation of the divine glory are clearly 
 distinguished even in our narrative ; for in chap. v. 13, 14 the 
 cloud which filled the house, as vehicle of the manifestation of the 
 divine glory, and which hindered the priests from standing and 
 serving (in the house, i.e. in the holy place and the most holy), 
 is spoken of ; while in our verses, again, it is the glory of God 
 which descended upon the temple in the fire coming down from 
 heaven on the sacrifices, and so filled it that the priests could not 
 enter it, which is noticed. 
 
 Since, therefore, the two passages involve no contradiction, 
 the hypothesis of a compounding together of discrepant narra- 
 tives loses all standing ground ; and it only remains to determine 
 the mutual relations of the two narratives, and to answer the 
 question, why the author of the book of Kings has omitted the 
 account of the fire which came down from heaven upon the sacri- 
 fices, and the author of the Chronicle the blessing of the con- 
 gregation (1 Kings viii. 54-61). From the whole plan and 
 character of the two histories, there can be no doubt that in 
 these accounts we have not a perfect enumeration of all the 
 different occurrences, but only a record of the chief things which 
 were done. The authority made use of by both, however, doubt- 
 less contained both the blessing of the congregation (1 Kings viii.
 
 CHAP. VII. 1-22. 331 
 
 55-G1) and the account of the fire which devoured the sacrifices 
 (2 Chron. vii. 2, 3) ; and probably the latter preceded the bless- 
 ing spoken by Solomon to the congregation (Kings). In all 
 probability, the fire came down from heaven immediately after 
 the conclusion of the dedicatory prayer, and devoured the sacri- 
 fices lying upon the altar of burnt-offering ; and after this had 
 happened, Solomon turned towards the assembled congregation 
 and praised the Lord, because He had given rest to His people, of 
 which the completion of the temple, and the filling of it with the 
 cloud of the divine glory, was a pledge. To record this speech 
 of Solomon to the congregation, falls wholly in with the plan of 
 the book of Kings, in which the prophetic interest, the realization 
 of the divine purpose of grace by the acts and omissions of the 
 kings, is the prominent one ; while it did not lie within the scope 
 of his purpose to enter upon a detailed history of the public 
 worship. We should be justified in expecting the fire which 
 devoured the sacrifices to be mentioned in the book of Kings, 
 only if the temple had been first consecrated by this divine act 
 to be the dwelling-place of the gracious presence of God, or a 
 sanctuary of the Lord ; but such significance the devouring of 
 the sacrifices by fire coming forth from God did not possess. 
 Jahve consecrated the temple to be the dwelling-place of His 
 name, and the abode of His gracious presence, in proclaiming His 
 presence by the cloud which filled the sanctuary, when the ark 
 was brought into the most holy place. The devouring of the 
 sacrifices upon the altar by fire from heaven was merely the con- 
 firmatory sign that the Lord, enthroned above the ark in the 
 temple, accepted, well pleased, the sacrificial service carried on 
 on the altar of this temple ; and since the people could draw near 
 to the Lord only with sacrifices before the altar, it was a con- 
 firmatory sign that He from His throne would bestow His cove- 
 nant grace upon those who appeared before Him with sacrifices ; 
 cf. Lev. ix. 23 f. Implicitly, this grace was already secured 
 to the people by God's consecrating the sanctuary to be the throne 
 of His grace by the cloud which filled the temple ; and the author 
 of the book of Kings thought it sufficient to mention this sign, 
 and passed over the second, which only served as a confirmation 
 of the first. With the chronicler the case was different ; for 
 his plan to portray in detail the glory of the worship of the 
 former time, the divine confirmation of the sacrificial worship, 
 which was to be carried on continually in the temple as the only
 
 332 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 legitimate place of worship, by fire from heaven, was so important 
 that he could not leave it unmentioned ; while the words of bless- 
 ing spoken by Solomon to the congregation, as being already 
 implicitly contained in the dedicatory prayer, did not appear 
 important enough to be received into his book. For the rest, 
 the sacrifices which the fire from heaven devoured are the sacri- 
 fices mentioned in chap. v. 6, which the king and the congrega- 
 tion had offered when the ark was borne into the temple. As 
 there was an immense number of these sacrifices, they cannot all 
 have been offered on the altar of burnt-offering, but, like the 
 thank-offerings afterwards brought by Solomon and the congre- 
 
 O O v O 
 
 gation, must have been offered on the whole space which had 
 been consecrated in the court for this purpose (ver. 7). This is 
 expressly attested by ver. 7, for the ni?j?n can only be the sacri- 
 fices in v. 6, since the sacrifices in ver. 5 of our chapter were 
 only &>?& ; cf . 1 Kings viii. 62. 
 
 Vers. 4-10. The sacrifices and the festival. After fire from 
 heaven had devoured the sacrifices, and Solomon had praised the 
 Lord for the fulfilment of His word, and sought for the congrega- 
 tion the further bestowal of the divine blessing (1 Kings viii. 54 
 61), the dedication of the temple was concluded by a great thank- 
 offering, of which we have in vers. 5, 6 an account which completely 
 agrees with 1 Kings viii. 62, 63. In ver. 6 the author of the Chron. 
 again makes express mention of the singing and playing of the 
 Levites when these offerings were presented. In the performance 
 of this sacrificial act the priests stood Driiiot^'py, in their stations; 
 but that does not signify separated according to their divisions 
 (Berth.), but in officiis suis (Vulg.), i.e. ordines suos et funcliones 
 suas a Davide 1 Chron. xxiv. 7 sqq. institutes servarunt (Ramb.) ; 
 see on Num. viii. 26. The Levites with the instruments of song of 
 Jahve, which David had made, i.e. with the instruments invented 
 and appointed by David for song to the praise of the Lord. /?r\3. 
 DT3 TH, not liymnos David canentes per manus suas (Vulg.), 
 taking TTT. ??n for the praising appointed by David, which by 
 the hands of the Levites, i.e. was performed by the hands of the 
 Levites (Berth.), but literally : when David sang praise by their 
 hand (i.e. their service). This clause seems to be added to the 
 relative clause, " which king David had made," for nearer defini- 
 tion, and to signify that the Levites used the same instruments 
 which David had introduced when he praised God by the play- 
 ing of the Levites. The form DnssnD as in 1 Chron. xv. 24.
 
 CHAP. viii. 333 
 
 Ver. 7 contains a supplementary remark, and the 1 relat. expresses 
 only the connection of the thought, and the verb is to be trans- 
 lated in English by the pluperfect. For the rest, compare on 
 vers. 4-10 the commentary on 1 Kings viii. 62-66. 
 
 Vers. 11-22. The Lord's answer to Solomon's dedicatory 
 prayer. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 1-9. The general contents, and the 
 order of the thoughts in the divine answer in the two texts, agree, 
 but in the Chronicle individual thoughts are further expounded 
 than in the book of Kings, and expressions are here and there 
 made clear. The second clause of ver. 11 is an instance of this, 
 where " and all the desire of Solomon, which he was pleased to 
 do," is represented by " and all that came into Solomon's heart, 
 to make in the house of the Lord and in his own house, he pros- 
 perously effected." Everything else is explained in the Com. on 
 1 Kings ix. 
 
 CHAP. viii. SOLOMON'S CITY-BUILDING, STATUTE LABOUR, 
 
 ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, AND NAUTICAL UN- 
 DERTAKINGS. (CF. 1 KINGS IX. 10-28.) 
 
 The building of the temple was the most important work of 
 Solomon's reign, as compared with which all the other under- 
 takings of the king fall into the background ; and these are con- 
 sequently only summarily enumerated both in the book of Kings 
 and in the Chronicle. In our chapter, in the first place, we have, 
 (a) the building or completion of various cities, which were of 
 importance partly as strongholds, partly as magazines, for the 
 maintenance of the army necessary for the defence of the king- 
 dom against hostile attacks (vers. 1-6) ; (6) the arrangement of 
 the statute labour for the execution of all his building works 
 (vers. 7-11) ; (c) the regulation of the sacrificial service and 
 the public worship (vers. 12-16) ; and (d) the voyage to Ophir 
 (vers. 17, 18). All these undertakings are recounted in the 
 same order and in the same aphoristic way in 1 Kings ix. 
 10-28, but with the addition of various notes, which are not 
 found in our narrative ; while the Chronicle, again, mentions 
 several not unimportant though subordinate circumstances, which 
 are not found in the book of Kino;s ; whence it is clear that 
 
 O * 
 
 in the two narratives we have merely short and mutually sup- 
 plementary extracts from a more elaborate description of these 
 matters.
 
 334 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Vers. 1-6. The city-building. Ver. L. The date, " at the end 
 of twenty years, when Solomon . . . had built," agrees with that 
 in 1 Kings ix. 10. The twenty years are to be reckoned from 
 the commencement of the building of the temple, for he had 
 spent seven years in the building of the temple, and thirteen 
 years in that of his palace (1 Kings vi. 38, vii. 1). Ver. 2 must 
 be regarded as the apodosis of ver. 1, notwithstanding that the 
 object, the cities which . . . precedes. The unusual position of 
 the words is the result of the aphoristic character of the notice. 
 As to its relation to the statement 1 Kings ix. 10-13, see the 
 discussion on that passage. H33, ver. 2, is not to be understood 
 of the fortification of these cities, but of their completion, for, 
 according to 1 Kings ix. 10, 13, they were in very bad condition. 
 3KH S 1, he caused to dwell there, i.e. transplanted Israelites thither, 
 cf. 2 Kings xvii. 6. The account of the cities which Solomon 
 built, i.e. fortified, is introduced (ver. 3) by the important state- 
 ment, omitted in 1 Kings ix. : " Solomon went to Hamath-zobah, 
 and prevailed against it." ?J? PtHj to be strong upon, that is, 
 prevail against, conquer ; cf. xxvii. 5. Hamath-zobah is not the 
 city Hamath in Zobah, but, as we learn from ver. 4, the land or 
 kingdom of Hamath. This did not lie, any more than the city 
 Hamath, in Zobah, but bordered on the kingdom of Zobah : cf. 
 1 Chron. xviii. 3 ; and as to the position of Zobah, see the Com- 
 mentary on 2 Sam. viii. 3. In David's time Hamath and Zobah 
 had their own kings ; and David conquered them, and made their 
 kingdoms tributary (1 Chron. xviii. 49). Because they bordered 
 on each other, Hamath and Zobah are here bound together as a 
 nomen compos. yV PII" 1 . signifies at least this, that these tribu- 
 tary kingdoms had either rebelled against Solomon, or at least 
 had made attempts to do so ; which Solomon suppressed, and in 
 order to establish his dominion over them fortified Tadmor, i.e. 
 Palmyra, and all the store cities in the land of Hamath (see on 
 1 Kings ix. 18 f.) ; for, according to 1 Kings xi. 23 if., he had 
 Rezon of Zobah as an enemy during his whole reign ; see on that 
 passage. Vers. 5 ff. Besides these, he made Upper and Nether 
 Beth-horon (see on 1 Chron. vii. 24) into fortified cities, with walls, 
 gates, and bars. "NttO ^Jf is the second object of J3*?, and nioin 
 'Ul is in apposition to that. Further, he fortified Baalah, in the 
 tribe of Dan, to defend the kingdom against the Philistines, and, 
 according to 1 Kings ix. 15-17, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer 
 also, which are omitted here, while in 1 Kings ix. 17 Upper
 
 CHAP. vjir. 7-11. 335 
 
 Betli-horon is omitted, and store cities, chariot cities, and 
 cavalry cities ; see on 1 Kings ix. 15-19. 
 
 Vers. 7-10. On the arrangement of the statute labour, see on 
 1 Kings ix. 20-23. This note is in Chron. abruptly intro- 
 duced immediately after the preceding. Ver. 7 is an absolute 
 clause : " as regards the whole people, those." Orn^no ( V er. 8) is 
 not partitive: some of their sons; but is only placed before the lEfc: 
 those of their sons (i.e. of the descendants of the whole Canaanite 
 people) who had remained in the land, whom the Israelites had 
 not exterminated ; Solomon made a levy of these for statute 
 labourers. The JO is wanting in 1 Kings, but is not to be struck 
 out here on that account. Much more surprising is the *^K after 
 ?NTiE^ '"ja'JOj ver. 9, which is likewise not found in 1 Kings, since 
 the following verb jr>3 N7 is not to be taken relatively, but contains 
 the predicate of the subject contained in the words '& V.^'tP. 
 This iB'N cannot be otherwise justified than by supposing that it 
 is placed after 'W ^3 JO, as in Ps. Ixix. 27 it is placed after the 
 subject of the relative clause, and so stands for '& ^"2 JO "iE>tf : 
 those who were of the sons of Israel (i.e. Israelites) Solomon did 
 not make . . . The preplacing of B^rm J9 in ver. 8 would natu- 
 rally suggest that '& rn JO should also precede, in order to bring 
 out sharply the contrast between the sons of the Canaanites and 
 the sons of Israel. Ver. 9. V&fy *$\ should be altered into rvy 
 Vjyiptjn as in 1 Kings ix. 22, for D^pty are not chariot combatants, 
 but royal adjutants ; see on Ex. xiv. 7 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. Over 
 the statute labourers 250 upper overseers were placed. &?W ^jf, 
 chief of the superiors, i.e. chief overseer. The Keth. B <l 3 <i y3,pra?/<?cft', 
 is the true reading; cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 13, 2 Chron. xvii. 2. The 
 Keri has arisen out of 1 Kings ix. 23. These overseers were 
 Israelites, while in the number 550 (1 Kings ix. 23) the Israelite 
 and Canaanite upper overseers are both included ; see on ii. 17. 
 cya refers to D Vn'73 ? ver. 7, and denotes the Canaanite people 
 who remained. 
 
 Ver. 11. The remark that Solomon caused Pharaoh's daughter, 
 whom he had married (1 Kings iii. 1), to remove from the city 
 of David into the house which he had built her, i.e. into that 
 part of his newly-built palace which was appointed for the 
 queen, is introduced here, as in 1 Kings ix. 24, because it 
 belongs to the history of Solomon's buildings, although in the 
 Chronicle it comes in very abruptly, the author not having men- 
 tioned Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings
 
 336 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 iii. 1). The reason given for this change of residence on the 
 part of the Egyptian princess is, that Solomon could not allow her, 
 an Egyptian, to dwell in the palace of King David, which had 
 been sanctified by the reception of the ark, and consequently 
 assigned to her a dwelling in the city of David until he should 
 have finished the building of his palace, in which she might 
 dwell along with him. nan is, as neuter, used instead of the 
 singular ; cf . Ew. 318, b. See also on 1 Kings iii. 1 and ix. 24. 
 Vers. 12-16. The sacrificial service in the new temple. Cf. 1 
 Kings ix. 25, where it is merely briefly recorded that Solomon 
 offered sacrifices three times a year on the altar built by him to 
 the Lord. In our verses we have a detailed account of it. TX, at 
 that time, scil. when the temple building had been finished and 
 the temple dedicated (cf. ver. 1), Solomon offered burnt-offerings 
 upon the altar which he had built before the porch of the temple. 
 He no longer now sacrifices upon the altar of the tabernacle at 
 Gibeon, as in the beginning of his reign (i. 3 ff.). Ver. 13. 
 li Even sacrificing at the daily rate, according to the direction of 
 Moses." These words give a supplementary and closer definition 
 of the sacrificing in the form of an explanatory subordinate 
 clause, which is interpolated in the principal sentence. For the 
 following words 'W rriniitj6 belong to the principal sentence (ver. 
 12) : he offered sacrifices ... on the sabbaths, the new moons, 
 etc. The 1 before "O1.3 is explicative, and that = viz. ; and the 
 infin. riipjjnpj according to the later usage, instead of infin. absol. ; 
 cf. Ew. 280, d. The preposition 1 (before ">?"!) is the so-called 
 3 essenticB : consisting in the daily (rate) to sacrifice (this) ; cf. 
 Ew. 299, b. The daily rate, i.e. that which was prescribed in 
 the law of Moses for each day, cf. Lev. xxiii. 37. niljnisp is 
 further explained by the succeeding clause : on the three chief 
 festivals of the year. Ver. 14 ff. He ordered the temple service, 
 also, entirely according to the arrangement introduced by David 
 as to the service of the priests and Levites. He appointed, ac- 
 cording to the ordinance of David his father, i.e. according to the 
 ordinance established by David, the classes of the priests (see on 
 1 Chron. xxiv.) to that service, and the Levites to their stations 
 (nhotro as in vii. 6), to praise (cf. 1 Chron. xxv.), and to serve 
 before the priests (1 Chron. xxiii. 28 ff.), according to that 
 which was appointed for every day, and the doorkeepers accord- 
 ing to their courses, etc. (see 1 Chron. xxvi. 1-19). With the 
 last words cf. Neh. xii. 24. Ver. 15. This arrangement was
 
 CHAP. IX. 1-12. 337 
 
 faithfully observed by the priests and Levites. The verb TiD is 
 here construed c. accus. in the signification to transgress a com- 
 mand (cf . E\v. 282, a), and it is therefore not necessary to alter 
 nttfl? into nraso. ronbsp? depends upon nratp : the king's com- 
 mand concerning the priests and the Levites, i.e. that which 
 David commanded them. 'U1 "iin"?}?, in regard to all things, 
 and especially also in regard to the treasures ; cf . 1 Chron. xxvi. 
 20-28. With ver. 16 the account of what Solomon did for the 
 public worship is concluded : " Now all the work of Solomon 
 was prepared until the (this) day, the foundation of the house of 
 Jahve until its completion; the house of Jahve was finished." 
 rDJon is explained by "1D1D. Di'H is the day on which, after the 
 consecration of the completed temple, the regular public worship 
 was commenced in it, which doubtless was done immediately 
 after the dedication of the temple. Only when the regular wor- 
 ship according to the law of Moses, and with the arrangements 
 as to the service of the priests and Levites established by David, 
 had been commenced, was Solomon's work in connection with the 
 temple completed, and the house of God B^, integer, perfect in 
 all its parts, as it should be. The last clause, '* TV2 D7*^, is con- 
 nected rhetorically with what precedes without the conjunction, 
 and is not to be regarded as a subscription, ll with which the his- 
 torian concludes the whole narrative commencing with chap. i. 
 18" (Berth.); for D?E> does not signify "ended," or to be at 
 an end, but to be set thoroughly (perfectly) in order. 
 
 Vers. 17 and 18. Voyage to Ophir. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 26-28, and 
 the commentary on that passage, where we have discussed the 
 divergences of our narrative, and have also come to the conclu- 
 sion that Ophir is not to be sought in India, but in Southern 
 Arabia. By TS1 the date of this voyage is made to fall in the 
 period after the building of the temple and the palace, i.e. in the 
 second half of Solomon's reign. 
 
 CHAP. IX. VISIT OF THE QUEEN OF SHEBA. SOLOMON'S RICHES, 
 AND ROYAL POWER AND GLORY ; HIS DEATH. CF. 1 KINGS 
 X. AND XI. 41-43. 
 
 Vers. 1-12. Tlie visit of the queen of Sheba. Cf. 1 Kings x. 
 1-13. This event is narrated as a practical proof of Solomon's 
 extraordinary wisdom. The narrative agrees so exactly in both 
 texts, with the exception of some few quite unimportant differ- 
 
 Y
 
 338 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ences, that we must regard them as literal extracts from an 
 original document which they have used in common. For the 
 commentary on this section, see on 1 Kings x. 1-13. 
 
 Vers. 13-21. Solomon's revenue in gold, and the use he 
 made of it. Cf. 1 Kings x. 14-22, and the commentary there on 
 this section, which is identical in both narratives, with the ex- 
 ception of some trifling differences. Before B^SB D'nnbrn the 
 relative pronoun is to be supplied : " and what the merchants 
 brought." As to the derivation of the word rrinSj which comes 
 from the Aramaic form nns ? governor (ver. 14), see on Hagg. i. 1. 
 E*Khn ninpn ni'Jtf, in ver. 21, ships going to Tarshish, is an 
 erroneous paraphrase of B^enn ntas^ Tarshish-ships, i.e. ships 
 built for long sea voyages ; for the fleet did not go to Tartessus 
 in Spain, but to Ophir in Southern Arabia (see on 1 Kings ix. 
 26 ff.). All the rest has been explained in the commentary on 
 1 Kings x. 
 
 In vers. 22-28, all that remained to be said of Solomon's 
 royal glory, his riches, his wisdom, and his revenues, is in con- 
 clusion briefly summed up, as in 1 Kings x. 23-29. From ver. 
 25 onwards, the account given in the Chronicle diverges from 
 that in 1 Kings x. 26 ff., in so far that what is narrated in 1 
 Kings x. 26-28 concerning Solomon's chariots and horses, and 
 his trade with Egypt in horses, is here partly replaced by state- 
 ments similar in import to those in 1 Kings v., because the 
 former matters had been already treated of in Chron. i. 1417. 
 Ver. 25 does not correspond to the passage 1 Kings x. 26, but 
 in contents and language agrees with 1 Kings v. 6, and ver. 26 
 with 1 Kings v. 1. Only the general estimate of Solomon's 
 riches in gold and silver, in ver. 27, repeated from chap. i. 15, 
 corresponds to 1 Kings x. 27. Finally, in ver. 28 the whole 
 description is rounded off; all that has already been said in 
 chap. i. 16 and 17 as to the trade in horses with Egypt (1 Kings 
 x. 28, 29) being drawn together into one general statement. 
 
 Vers. 29-31. Conclusion of Solomon's history. Ver. 29. 
 Sources ; see the introduction, p. 28 f . Ver. 30 f . The length of 
 his reign, his death and burial, and his successor, as in 1 Kings 
 xi. 42 f.
 
 CHAP. X -XXXVI. 339 
 
 IV. THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH UNTIL ITS 
 FALL. CHAP. X.-XXXVI. 
 
 After giving an account of the revolt of the ten tribes of 
 Israel from the divinely chosen royal house of David (chap, x.), 
 the author of the Chronicle narrates the history of the kingdom 
 of Juclah to which he confines himself, to the exclusion of the 
 history of the kingdom of the ten tribes at much greater length 
 than the author of the books of Kings has done. This latter 
 portrays the development of both kingdoms, but treats only very 
 briefly of the history of the kingdom of Judah, especially under 
 its first rulers, and characterizes the attitude of the kings and 
 people of Judah to the kingdom of Israel and to the Lord only 
 in the most general way. The author of the Chronicle, on the 
 other hand, depicts the development of Judah under Rehoboam, 
 Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat much more thoroughly, by com- 
 municating a considerable number of events which are omitted 
 in the book of Kings. As we have already proved (p. 19), the 
 purpose of the chronicler was to show, according to the varying 
 attitude of the kings of the house of David to the Lord and to 
 His law, how, on the one hand, God rewarded the fidelity of the 
 kings and of the people to His covenant with prosperity and 
 blessing, and furnished to the kingdom of Judah, in war with 
 its enemies, power which secured the victory; and how, on the 
 other, He took vengeance for every revolt of the kings and people, 
 and for every fall into idolatry and superstition, by humiliations 
 and awful judgments. And more especially from the times of 
 the godless kings Ahaz and Manasseh does our author do this, 
 pointing out how God suffered the people to fall ever deeper 
 into feebleness, and dependence upon the heathen world powers, 
 until finally, when the efforts of the pious kings Hezekiah and 
 Josiah to bring back the people, sunk as they were in idolatry 
 and moral corruption, to the God of their fathers and to His 
 service failed to bring about any permanent repentance and 
 reformation, He cast forth Judah also from His presence, and 
 gave over Jerusalem and the temple to destruction by the Chal- 
 deans, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah to be 
 led awav into exile to Babylon.
 
 340 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 CHAP. X. EEVOLT OF THE TEN TRIBES FROM REHOBOAM AND 
 THE HOUSE OF DAVID. CF. 1 KINGS XII. 1-19. 
 
 This event is narrated in our chapter, except in so far as a 
 few unessential differences in form are concerned, exactly as we 
 have it in 1 Kings xii. 1-19 ; so that we may refer for the exposi- 
 tion of it to the commentary on 1 Kings xii., where we have 
 both treated the contents of this chapter, and have also discussed 
 the deeper and more latent causes of this event, so important in 
 its consequences. 
 
 CHAP. xi. AND xii. REHOBOAM'S REIGN. 
 
 When the ten tribes had renounced their allegiance to Reho- 
 boam the son of Solomon, and had made Jeroboam their king 
 (1 Kings xii. 20), Rehoboam wished to compel them by force of 
 arms again to submit to him, and made for this purpose a levy 
 of all the men capable of bearing arms in Judah and Benjamin. 
 But the prophet Shemaiah commanded him, in the name of the 
 Lord, to desist from making war upon the Israelites, they being 
 brethren, and Rehoboam abandoned his purpose (vers. 1-4, cf. 
 1 Kings xii. 21-24), and began to establish his dominion over 
 Judah and Benjamin. His kingdom, moreover, was increased 
 in power by the immigration of the priests and Levites, whom 
 Jeroboam had expelled from the priesthood, and also of many 
 God-fearing Israelites out of the ten tribes, to Judah (vers. 
 13-17). Rehoboam also set his family affairs in order, by nomi- 
 nating from among his many sons, whom his wives had borne to 
 him, Abijah to be his successor on the throne, and making pro- 
 vision for the others in different parts of the country (vers. 
 18-23). But when he had established his royal authority, he 
 forsook the law of Jahve, and was punished for it by the inroad 
 of the Egyptian king Shishak, who marched through his land 
 with a numerous host, took Jerusalem, and plundered the palace 
 and the temple (chap. xii. 1-11), but without wholly ruining 
 Judah ; and Rehoboam was king until his death, and his son 
 succeeded him on the throne (vers. 12-16). 
 
 The order in which these events are narrated is not chrono- 
 logical; they are rather grouped together according to their 
 similarities. As Rehoboam began even in the third year of his 
 reign to forsake the law of God, and King Shishak made war
 
 CHAP. XI. 1-12. 341 
 
 upon Judah as early as in his fifth year, the building of the 
 fortresses may have been begun in the first three or four years, 
 but cannot have been ended then ; still less can the sons of 
 Rehoboam have been provided for in the time before Shishak's 
 inroad. 
 
 Chap. xi. 1-4. Rehoboanis attitude to the ten rebel tribes. 
 Cf. 1 Kings xii. 21-24. Rehoboam's purpose, to subdue these 
 tribes by force of arms, and bring them again under his dominipn, 
 and the abandonment of this purpose in consequence of the com- 
 mand of the prophet Shemaiah, belong in a certain measure to 
 the history of the revolt of the ten tribes from the house of 
 David ; for the revolt only became an accomplished fact when 
 the prophet Shemaiah proclaimed in the name of the Lord that 
 the matter was from the Lord. Ver. 3 f. Of Jahve was the 
 thing done ; He had ordained the revolt as a chastisement of the 
 seed of David for walking no more in His ways. Solomon had, 
 by allowing himself to be seduced by his many foreign wives 
 into departing from the Lord, exposed himself to the divine 
 displeasure, and his successor Rehoboam increased the guilt by 
 his impolitic treatment of the tribes dissatisfied with Solomon's 
 rule, and had, if not brought about the revolt, yet hastened it ; 
 but yet the conduct of these tribes was not thereby justified. 
 Their demand that the burdens laid upon them by Solomon 
 should be lightened, flowed from impure and godless motives, 
 and at bottom had its root in discontent with the theocratic rule 
 of the house of David (see on 1 Kings xii. 21 ff.). The expres- 
 sion, " to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin," is deeper than 
 " the whole house of Judah and Benjamin and the remnant of 
 the people," i.e. those belonging to the other tribes who were 
 dwelling in the tribal domains of Judah and Benjamin (1 Kings 
 xii. 23) ; for it characterizes all who had remained true to the 
 house of David as Israel, i.e. those who walked in the footsteps 
 of their progenitor Israel (Jacob). 
 
 Vers. 512. Relwboam's measures for the fortifying of his 
 kingdom. To defend his kingdom against hostile attacks, Reho- 
 boam built cities for defence in Judah. The sing. "ii^> is used, 
 because the building of cities served for the defence of the king- 
 dom. Judah is the name of the kingdom, for the fifteen fenced 
 cities enumerated in the following verses were situated in the tribal 
 domains of both Benjamin and Judah. Ver. 6. In Judah lay 
 Bethlehem, a small city mentioned as early as in Jacob's time
 
 342 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 (Gen. xxxv. 19), two hours south of Jerusalem, the birthplace 
 of David and of Christ (Mic. v. 1 ; Matt. ii. 5, 11), now Beit- 
 Lahm ; see on Josh. xv. 59. Etam is not the place bearing the 
 same name which is spoken of in 1 Chron. iv. 32 and Judg. xv. 8, 
 and mentioned in the Talmud as the place where, near Solo- 
 mon's Pools, the aqueduct which supplied Jerusalem with water 
 commenced (cf. Robins. Pal. sub voce ; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. 
 ii. S. 84 ff., 855 ff.) j 1 nor is it to be looked for, as Robins, loc. 
 cit.j and Neio Bibl. Researches, maintains, in the present village 
 Urtas (Artas), for it has been identified by Tobl., dritte Wand. 
 S. 89, with Ain Attan, a valley south-west from Artas. Not 
 only does the name Attan correspond more than Artas with 
 Etam, but from it the water is conducted to Jerusalem, while 
 according to Tobler's thorough conviction it could not have been 
 brought from Artas. Tekoa, now Tekua, on the summit of a 
 hill covered with ancient ruins, two hours south of Bethlehem ; 
 see on Josh. xv. 59. Ver. 7. Beth-zur was situated where the 
 ruin Beth-Sur now stands, midway between Urtas and Hebron ; 
 see on Josh. xv. 58. Shoko, the present Shuweike in Wady 
 Sumt, 3^ hours south-west from Jerusalem ; see on Josh. xv. 
 35. Adullam, in Josh. xv. 35 included among the cities of the 
 hill country, reckoned part of the lowland (Shephelah), i.e. the 
 slope of the hills, has not yet been discovered. Tobler, dritte 
 Wand. S. 151, conjectures that it is identical with the present 
 Dula, about eight miles to the east of Beit-Jibrin ; but this can 
 hardly be correct (see against it, Arnold in Herzog's Realenc. 
 xiv. S. 723). It is much more probable that its site was that 
 of the present Deir Dubban, two hours to the north of Beit- 
 Jibrin ; see on Josh. xii. 15. Ver. 8. Gath, a royal city of 
 the Philistines, which was first made subject to the Israelites by 
 David (1 Chron. xviii. 1), and was under Solomon the seat of its 
 own king, who was subject to the Israelite king (1 Kings ii. 39), 
 has not yet been certainly discovered ; see on Josh. xiii. 3." 
 Mareshah, the city Marissa, on the road from Hebron to the 
 
 1 For further information as to the commencement of this aqueduct, see 
 the masterly dissertation of Dr. Herrn. Zschokke, "Die versiegelte Quello 
 Salorno's," in the Tubinger Theol. Quarlalschr. 1867, H. 3, S. 426 ff. 
 
 8 C. Schick, Reise in das Pldllslerland (in " Ausland " 1867, Nr. 7, S. 162), 
 identifies Gath with the present Tel Safieh, " an isolated conical hill in the 
 plain, like a sentinel of a watchtower or fortress, and on that account there 
 was so much struggling for its possession." On the other hand, Konr. Furrer,
 
 CHAP. XI. 5-12. 343 
 
 land of the Philistines, was at a later time very important, and 
 is not represented by the ruin Marash, twenty-four minutes to 
 the south of Beit-Jibrin (Eleutheropolis) ; see on Josh. xv. 44, 
 and Tobl. dritte Wand. S. 129, 142 f. Ziph is probably the 
 Ziph mentioned in Josh. xv. 55, in the hill country of Judah, 
 of which ruins yet remain on the hill Ziph, about an hour and 
 a quarter south-east of Hebron; see on Josh. xv. 55. C. v. 
 Kaumer thinks, on the contrary, Pal. S. 222, Anm. 249, that 
 our Ziph, as it is mentioned along with Mareshah and other 
 cities of the lowland, cannot be identified with either of the 
 Ziphs mentioned in Josh. xv. 24 and 55, but is probably Achzib 
 in the lowland mentioned along with Mareshah, Josh. xv. 44 ; 
 but this is very improbable. Ver. 9. Adoraim (' ABcopai'in in 
 Joseph. Antt. viii. 10. 1), met with in 1 Mace. xiii. 20 as an 
 Idumean city, "ASapa, and so also frequently in Josephus, was 
 taken by Hyrcanus, and rebuilt by Gabinius (Jos. Antt. xiii. 15. 
 4, and xiv. 5. 3) under the name Aupa, and often spoken of 
 along with Marissa (s. Reland, Palcest. p. 547). Robinson (Pal. 
 sub voce) has identified it with the present Dura, a village about 
 7^ miles to the westward of Hebron. Lachish, situated in the 
 lowland of Judah, as we learn from Josh- xv. 39, is probably 
 the present Um Lakis, on the road from Gaza to Beit-Jibrin 
 and Hebron, to the left hand, seven hours to the west of Beit- 
 Jibrin, on a circular height covered with ancient walls and 
 marble fragments, and overgrown with thistles and bushes ; see 
 on Josh. x. 3, and Pressel in Herz.'s Realenc. viii. S. 157 f. 
 Azekah, situated in the neighbourhood of Shoco (ver. 7), and, 
 according to 1 Sam. xvii. 1, in an oblique direction near Ephes- 
 Dainmim, i.e. Damum, one hour east to the south of Beit-Nettif, 1 
 has not been re-discovered ; see on Josh. x. 10. Ver. 10. Zorah, 
 Samson's birthplace, is represented by the ruin Sura, at the 
 south-west end of the ridge, which encloses the Wady es Surar 
 on the north ; see on Josh. xv. 33. To the north of that again 
 lay Ajalon, now the village Jalo, on the verge of the plain 
 Merj ibn Omeir, four leagues to the west of Gibeon ; see on 
 
 Wanderungen durch Palastina, Zurich 1865, thinks, S. 133, that he has found 
 the true situation of Gath in the Wady el Gat, northward of the ruins of 
 Askalon. 
 
 1 Compare the interesting note of Breytenbach (ReyVb. des heil. Landes, 
 i. 134) iu Tobler, dritte Wand. S. 463 : " Thence (from Azekah) three miles 
 is the city Zochot- Jude, not far from Nobah, where David slew Goliath."
 
 344 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Josh. x. 12 and xix. 42. Finally, Hebron, the ancient city of the 
 patriarchs, now called el Khalil (The friend of God, i.e. Abra- 
 ham) ; see on Gen. xxiii. 2. All these fenced cities lay in the 
 tribal domain of Judah, with the exception of Zorah and Ajalon, 
 which were assigned to the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 41 f.). These 
 two were probably afterwards, in the time of the judges, when a 
 part of the Danites emigrated from Zorah and Eshtaol to the 
 north of Palestine (Judg. xviii. 1), taken possession of by Ben- 
 jamites, and were afterwards reckoned to the land of Benjamin, 
 and are here named as cities which Rehoboam fortified in Ben- 
 jamin. If we glance for a moment at the geographical position 
 of the whole fifteen cities, we see that they lay partly to the 
 south of Jerusalem, on the road which went by Hebron to Beer- 
 sheba and Egypt, partly on the western slopes of the hill country 
 of Judah, on the road by Beit-Jibrin to Gaza, while only a 
 few lay to the north of this road towards the Philistine plain, 
 and there were none to the north to defend the kingdom against 
 invasions from that side. " Rehoboam seems, therefore, to have 
 had much more apprehension of an attack from the south and 
 west, i.e. from the Egyptians, than of a war with the northern 
 kingdom" (Berth.). Hence we may conclude that Rehoboam 
 fortified these cities only after the inroad of the Egyptian king 
 Shishak. Ver. 11 f. "And he made strong the fortresses, and 
 put captains in them," etc. ; i.e. he increased their strength by 
 placing them in a thoroughly efficient condition to defend them- 
 selves against attacks, appointing commandants (D^TJ:), provision- 
 ing them, and (ver. 12) laying up stores of all kinds of arms. In 
 this way he made them exceedingly strong. The last clause, ver. 
 12, " And there were to him Judah and Benjamin," corresponds 
 to the statement, x. 19, that Israel revolted from the house of 
 David, and forms the conclusion of the account (vers. 1-1 Id) of 
 that which Rehoboam did to establish his power and consolidate 
 his kingdom. There follows hereupon, in 
 
 Vers. 1317, the account of the internal spiritual strength- 
 ening of the kingdom of Judah by the migration of the priests and 
 Levites, and many pious worshippers of Jahve out of all the tribes, 
 to the kingdom of Judah. Ver. 13. The priests and Levites in all 
 Israel went over to him out of their whole domain. PV ^nn, to 
 present oneself before any one, to await his commands, cf. Zech. 
 vi. 5, Job i. 6, ii. 1 ; here in the signification to place oneself at 
 another's disposal, i.e. to go over to one. The suffix in DTiaa refers
 
 CHAP. XI. 13-17. 345 
 
 to "all Israel." For this was the motive of their migration. 
 
 O 7 
 
 ver. 14 the Levites (in the wider signification of the word, 
 including the priests) forsook their territory and their possessions, 
 i.e. the cities assigned to them, with the pasture lands for their 
 cattle (Num. xxxv. 1-8), sell, in the domain of the ten tribes ; 
 " for Jeroboam and his sons had driven them out from the priest- 
 hood of Jahve." To prevent his subjects from visiting the temple 
 at Jerusalem, which he feared might ultimately cause the people 
 to return to the house of David, Jeroboam had erected his own 
 places of worship for his kingdom in Bethel and Dan, where 
 Jahve was worshipped in the ox images (the golden calves), and 
 had appointed, not the Levites, but men from the body of the 
 people, to be priests in these so-called sanctuaries (1 Kings xii. 
 26-31), consecrated by himself. By these innovations not only 
 the priests and Levites, who would not recognise this unlawful 
 image-worship, were compelled to migrate to Judah and Jeru- 
 salem, but also the pious worshippers of the Lord, who would not 
 renounce the temple worship which had been consecrated by God 
 Himself. All Jeroboam's successors held firmly by this calf- 
 worship introduced by him, and consequently the driving out of 
 the priests and Levites is here said to have been the act of Jero- 
 boam and his sons. By his sons are meant Jeroboam's succes- 
 sors on the throne, without respect to the fact that of Jeroboam's 
 own sons only Nadab reached the throne, and that his dynasty 
 terminated with him ; for in this matter all the kings of Israel 
 walked in the footsteps of Jeroboam. Ver. 15. And had ordained 
 him priests for the high places. ^"ipJW is a continuation of 
 DiTJtn ^ ver. 14. nico are the places of worship which were 
 erected by Jeroboam for the image- worship, called in 1 Kings xii. 
 31 ni3 rva ; see on that passage. The gods worshipped in these 
 houses in high places the author of the Chronicle calls D^W 
 from their nature, and DvJJ| from their form. The word 
 Qi-ivyty j s taken from Lev. xvii. 7, and signifies demons, so named 
 from the Egyptian idolatry, in which the worship of goats, of 
 Pan (Mendes), who was always represented in the form of a 
 goat, occupied a prominent place ; see on Lev. xvii. 7. For 
 further details as to the DvJV, see on 1 Kincs xii. 28. Ver. 16. 
 
 {*".' O 
 
 E'T"?.^, after them, i.e. following after the priests and Levites. 
 With DIQp-ns Dunlin, w ho turned their hearts thereto, cf . 1 Chron. 
 xxii. 19. They went to Jerusalem to sacrifice there ; i.e., as we 
 learn from the context, not merely to offer sacrifices, but also to
 
 346 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 remain in the kingdom of Judah. Ver. 17. These immigrants 
 priests, Levites, and pious worshippers of Jahve made the 
 kingdom of Judah strong, by strengthening the religious foun- 
 dation on which the kingdom was founded, and made Rehoboam 
 strong three years, so that they (king and people) walked in the 
 way of David and Solomon. The strengthening lasted only three 
 years only while the opposition to Jeroboam's action in the matter 
 of religion was kept alive by the emigration of the pious people 
 from the ten tribes. What occurred after these three years is 
 narrated only in chap. xii. Here there follows, in 
 
 Vers. 18-23, information as to JRehoboam's family relation- 
 ships. Ver. 18. Instead of }5 we must read, with the Keri, many 
 MSS., LXX., and Vulg., J"I3: Mahalath the daughter of Jeri- 
 moth, the son of David. Among the sons of David (1 Chron. iii. 
 1-8) no Jerimoth is found. If this name be not another form 
 of Djnrv 1 Chron. iii. 3. Jerimoth must have been a son of one 
 
 T . . / ' . 
 
 of David's concubines. Before the name ^.D^K, 1 must have been 
 dropped out, and is to be supplied ; so that Mahalath's father and 
 mother are both named: the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David, 
 and Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse, i.e. David's eldest 
 brother (1 Chron. ii. 13 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 13). For Abihail cannot 
 be held to be a second wife of Rehoboam, because ver. 19, u and 
 she bore/' and ver. 20, " and after her," show that in ver. 18 only 
 one wife is named. She bare him three sons, whose names occur 
 only here (ver. 19). Ver. 20. Maachah the daughter, i.e. the 
 granddaughter, of Absalom ; for she cannot have been Absalom's 
 daughter, because Absalom, according to 2 Sam. xiv. 27, had only 
 one daughter, Tamar by name, who must have been fifty years 
 old at Solomon's death. According to 2 Sam. xviii. 18, Absalom 
 left no son ; Maachah therefore can only be a daughter of Tamar, 
 who, according to 2 Chron. xiii. 2, was married to Uriel of 
 Gibeah: see on 1 Kings xv. 2. Abijah, the oldest son of 
 Maachah, whom his father nominated his successor (ver. 22 and 
 xii. 16), is called in the book of Kings constantly Abijam, the 
 original form of the name, which was afterwards weakened into 
 Abijah. Ver. 21 f. Only these wives with their children are 
 mentioned by name, though besides these Rehoboam had a 
 number of wives, 18 wives and 60 (according to Josephus, 30) 
 concubines, who bore him twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters. 
 Rehoboam trod in his father's footsteps in this not quite praise- 
 worthy point. The eldest son of Maachah he made head (^"y),
 
 CHAP. xii. 347 
 
 i.e. prince, among his brethren ; WDfO *3, for to make him king, 
 sell, was his intention. The infin. with p is here used in the swift- 
 ness of speecli in loose connection to state with what further pur- 
 pose he had appointed him TM ; cf. Ew. 351, c, at the end. 
 Ver. 23. And he did wisely, and dispersed of all his sons in all 
 the countries of Judali and Benjamin, i.e. dispersed all his sons so, 
 that they were placed in all parts of Judah and Benjamin in the 
 fenced cities, and he gave them victual in abundance, and he 
 sought (for them) a multitude of wives. ?N5J> ? to ask for, for the 
 father brought about the marriage of his sons. He therefore 
 took care that his sons, by being thus scattered in the fenced 
 cities of the country as their governors, were separated from each 
 other, but also that they received the necessary means for living 
 in a way befitting their princely rank, in the shape of an abun- 
 dant maintenance and a considerable number of wives. They 
 were thus kept in a state of contentment, so that they might not 
 make any attempt to gain the crown, which he had reserved for 
 Abijah ; and in this lay the wisdom of his conduct. 
 
 Chap. xii. Reholoams defection from the Lord, and his 
 humiliation by the Egyptian king Shishak. Ver. 1. The infini- 
 tive r^s, " at the time of the establishing," with an indefinite 
 subject, may be expressed in English by the passive : when Eeho- 
 boam's royal power was established. The words refer back to 
 xi. 17. i n i?!D?> "when he had become strong" (i"iTn is a nomen 
 verbale : the becoming strong ; cf. xxvi. 16, Dan. xi. 2), he forsook 
 the Lord, and all Israel with him. The inhabitants of the 
 kingdom of Judah are here called Israel, to hint at the contrast 
 between the actual conduct of the people in their defection from 
 the Lord, and the destiny of Israel, the people of God. The 
 forsaking of the law of Jahve is in substance the fall into 
 idolatry, as we find it stated more definitely in 1 Kings xiv. 22 f. 
 Ver. 2. In punishment of this defection (^ ^J|O *3, because 
 they had acted faithlessly to Jahve), Shishak, the king of Egypt, 
 marched with a great host against Jerusalem. This hostile in- 
 vasion is also briefly narrated in 1 Kings xiv. 25-28. Shishak 
 (Sisak) is, as we have remarked on 1 Kings xiv., Sesonchis or 
 Sechonchosis, the first king of the 22d dynasty, who has cele- 
 brated his victory in a relief at Karnak. In this sculpture the 
 names of the cities captured are recorded on shields, and a con- 
 siderable number have been deciphered with some certainty, and 
 by them our account is completely confirmed. According to
 
 348 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ver. 3, Shishak's host consisted of 1200 chariots, 60,000 horsemen 
 numbers which, of course, are founded only upon a rough esti- 
 mate and an innumerable multitude of footmen, among whom 
 were B^?, Libyans, probably the Libysegyptii of the ancients 
 (see on Gen. x. 13) ; 0^??, according to the LXX. and Vulg. 
 Troglodytes, probably the Ethiopian Troglodytes, who dwelt in 
 the mountains on the west coast of the Arabian Gulf ; and 
 Cushites, i.e. Ethiopians. The Libyans and Cushites are men- 
 tioned in Nahum iii. 9 also as auxiliaries of the Egyptians. 
 Ver. 4. After the capture of the fenced cities of Judah, he 
 marched against Jerusalem. Ver. 5. Then the prophet She- 
 maiah announced to the king and the princes, who had retired to 
 Jerusalem before Shishak, that the Lord had given them into 
 the power of Shishak because they had forsaken Him. "V3 2W, 
 forsaken and given over into the hand of Shishak. When the 
 king and the priests immediately humbled themselves before 
 God, acknowledging the righteousness of the Lord, the prophet 
 announced to them further that the Lord would not destroy 
 them since they had humbled themselves, but would give them 
 deliverance in a little space. &V*?3, according to a little, i.e. in a 
 short time. '"'D'vS is accusative after ''finjl. My anger shall not 
 pour itself out upon Jerusalem. The pouring out of anger is 
 the designation of an exterminating judgment; cf. xxxiv. 25. 
 Ver. 8. But (^ after a negative clause) they shall be his ser- 
 vants, sc. for a short time (see ver. 7), " that they may know 
 my service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries" 
 (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 30) ; i.e. that they may learn to know by 
 experience the difference between the rule of God and that of 
 the heathen kings, and that God's rule was not so oppressive as 
 that of the rulers of the world. 
 
 With ver. 9 the account of the war is taken up again and 
 continued by the repetition of the words, " Then marched Shishak 
 . . . against Jerusalem" (ver. 4). Shishak plundered the trea- 
 sures of the temple and the palace ; he had consequently cap- 
 tured Jerusalem. The golden shields also which had been 
 placed in the house of the forest of Lebanon, i.e. the palace 
 built by Solomon in Jerusalem, which Solomon had caused to 
 be made (cf. ix. 16), Shishak took away, and in their place Re'ho- 
 boam caused brazen shields to be prepared ; see on 1 Kings xiv. 
 26-28. In ver. 12 the author of the Chronicle concludes the 
 account of this event with the didactic remark, " Because he
 
 CHAP. XIII. 1, 2. 349 
 
 (Eelioboam) humbled himself, the anger of Jahve was turned 
 away from him." rvriBTP SOI and it was not to extermination 
 
 L L : : 9 
 
 utterly ( n ^?, properly to destruction, i.e. completely ; cf. Ezek. 
 xiii. 13). And also in Judah were good things. This is the other 
 motive which caused the Lord to turn away His wrath. Good 
 things are proofs of piety and fear of God, cf. xix. 3. Ver. 13 f. 
 The length of Rehoboam's reign, his mother, and the judgment 
 about him. Cf. 1 Kings xiv. 21 and 22a. Pjfni?!! here, as in xiii. 
 21, can, in its connection with what precedes, be only understood 
 to mean that Rehoboam, after his humiliation at the hands of 
 Shishak, by which his kingdom was utterly weakened and almost 
 destroyed, again gained strength and power. Cf. also i. 1, where 
 ptnjV is used of Solomon in the beginning of his reign, after he 
 overcame Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and his party. 
 As to the age of Rehoboam, etc., see on 1 Kings xiv. 21. inn 5^5, 
 ver. 14, is denned by the addition, "for he prepared not his heart 
 to seek the Lord." For the expression cf. xix. 3, xxx. 19, Ezra 
 vii. 10. Vers. 15 and 16. Close of his reign. On the authori- 
 ties, see the Introduction, p. 34; and in reference to the-other 
 statements, the commentary on 1 Kings xiv. 29-31. niDnpD, 
 wars, i.e. a state of hostility, was between Rehoboam and Jero- 
 boam all days, can only be understood of the hostile attitude of 
 the two rulers to each other, like nonpp in Kings ; for we have 
 no narrative of wars between them after Rehoboam had aban- 
 doned, at the instance of the prophet, his proposed war with the 
 Israelites at the commencement of his reign. 
 
 CHAP. XIII. THE REIGN OF ABIJAH. CF. 1 KINGS XV. 1-8. 
 
 In the book of Kings it is merely remarked in general, that 
 the hostile relationship between Jeroboam and Rehoboam con- 
 tinued during his whole life, and that between Abijah and Jero- 
 boam there was war (vers. 6 and 7) ; but not one of his enter- 
 prises is recounted, and only his attitude towards the Lord is 
 exactly characterized. In our chapter, on the contrary, we have 
 a vivid and circumstantial narrative of the commencement, 
 course, and results of a great war against Jeroboam, in which 
 Abijah, with the help of the Lord, inflicted a crushing defeat on 
 the great army of the Israelites, and conquered several cities. 
 
 Vers. 1 and 2. The commencement and duration of the 
 reign, as in 1 Kings xv. 1, 2. Abijah's mother is here (ver. 2)
 
 350 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 called Michaiah instead of Maachah, as in xi. 20 and 1 Kings 
 xv. 2, but it can hardly be a second name which Maachah had 
 received for some unknown reason ; probably irra'D is a mere 
 orthographical error for rujflo. She is here called, not the 
 daughter = granddaughter of Abishalom, but after her father, 
 the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah ; see on xi. 20. 1 
 
 Vers. 26-21. The War between Abijah and Jeroboam. 
 nrpn nonppj war arose, broke out. Ver. 3. Abijah began the 
 war with an army of 400,000 valiant warriors, "firm t^K, chosen 
 men. ' DN IpNj to bind on war, i.e. to open the war. Jeroboam 
 
 1 Against this Bertheau remarks, after the example of Thenius : " YFhen 
 We consider that the -wife of Abijah and mother of Asa was also called 
 Maachah, 1 Kings xv. 13, 2 Chron. xv. 16, and that in 1 Kings xv. 2 this 
 Maachah is again called the daughter of Abishalom, and that this latter 
 statement is not met with in the Chronicle, we are led to conjecture that 
 Maachah, the mother of Abijah, the daughter of Abishalom, has been con- 
 founded with Maachah the mother of Asa, the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah, 
 and that in our passage Asa's mother is erroneously named instead of the 
 mother of Abijah." This conjecture is a strange fabric of perverted facts and 
 inconsequential reasoning. In 1 Kings xv. 2 Abijam's mother is called 
 Maachah the daughter of Abishalom, exactly as in 2 Chron. xi. 20 and 21 ; 
 and in 1 Kings xv. 13, in perfect agreement with 2 Chron. xv. 16, it is stated 
 that Asa removed Maachah from the dignity of Gebira because she had made 
 herself a statue of Asherah. This Maachah, deposed by Asa, is called in 
 1 Kings xv. 10 the daughter of Abishalom, and only this latter remark is 
 omitted from the Chronicle. How from these statements we must conclude 
 that the mother of Abijah, Maachah the daughter of Abishalom, has been 
 confounded with Maachah the mother of Asa, the daughter of Uriel, we 
 cannot see. The author of the book of Kings knows only one Maachah, the 
 daughter of Abishalom, whom in xv. 2 he calls mother, i.e. !TV23, i.e. Sul- 
 tana Walide of Abijah, and in xv. 10 makes to stand in the same relationship 
 of mother to Asa. From this, however, the only natural and logically sound 
 conclusion which can be drawn is that Abijam's mother, Rehoboam's wife, 
 occupied the position of queen-mother, not merely during the three years' 
 reign of Abijam, but also during the first years of the reign of his son Asa, 
 as his grandmother, until Asa had deprived her of this dignity because of her 
 idolatry. It is nowhere said in Scripture that this woman was Abijam's 
 wife, but that is a conclusion drawn by Thenius and Bertheau only from 
 her being called fetf, his (Asa's) mother, as if QN could denote merely the 
 actual mother, and not the grandmother. Finally, the omission in the 
 Chronicle of the statement in 1 Kings xv. 10, " The name of his mother was 
 Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom," does not favour in the very least the 
 conjecture that Asa's mother has been confounded with the mother of Abijah ; 
 for it is easily explained by the fact that at the accession of Asa no change 
 was made in reference to the dignity of queen-mother, Abijah's mother still 
 holding that position even under Asa.
 
 CHAP. XIII. 2-12. 351 
 
 prepared for the war with 800,000 warriors. The number of 
 Jeroboam's warriors is exactly that which Joab returned as the 
 result, as to Israel, of the numbering of the people commanded 
 by David, while that of Abijah's army is less by 100,000 men 
 than Joab numbered in Judah (2 Sam. xxiv. 9). Ver. 4 ff. 
 When the two armies lay over against each other, ready for the 
 combat, Abijah addressed the enemy, King Jeroboam and all 
 Israel, in a speech from Mount Zemaraim. The mountain B^"i_O 
 is met with only here ; but a city of this name is mentioned in 
 Josh, xviii. 22, whence we would incline to the conclusion that the 
 mountain near or upon which this city lay was intended. But if 
 this city was situated to the east, not only of Bethel, but also of 
 Jerusalem, on the road to Jericho (see on Josh, xviii. 22), as we 
 may conclude from its enumeration between Beth-Arabah and 
 Bethel in Josh. loc. cit., it will not suit our passage, at least if 
 Zemaraim be really represented by the ruin el Sumra to the east 
 of Khan Hadur on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho. Robin- 
 son (Phys. Geog. S. 38) conjectures Mount Zemaraim to the east 
 of Bethel, near the border of the two kingdoms, to which Mount 
 Ephraim also extends. Abijah represented first of all (vers. 
 5-7) to Jeroboam and the Israelites that their kingdom was the 
 result of a revolt against Jahve, who had given the kingship over 
 Israel to David and his sons for ever. Ver. 5. " Is it not to you 
 to know ? " i.e. can it be unknown to you ? npn 1V"O, accus. of 
 nearer definition : after the fashion of a covenant of salt, i.e. of 
 an irrevocable covenant ; cf. on Lev. ii. 13 and Num. xviii. 19. 
 " And Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon the son of David (cf. 
 1 Kings xi. 11), rebelled against his lord," with the help of 
 frivolous, worthless men (&\D. as in Judg. ix. 4, xi. 3 ; ^'?^ *?.3 
 as in 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13, not recurring elsewhere in the Chro- 
 nicle), who gathered around him, and rose against Rehoboam with 
 power. PV P?^ 1 ?? to show oneself powerful, to show power 
 against any one. Against this rising Rehoboam showed himself 
 not strong enough, because he was an inexperienced man and 
 soft of heart. ~IJ>? denotes not " a boy," for Rehoboam was forty- 
 one years old when he entered upon his reign, but " an inex- 
 perienced young man," as in 1 Chron. xxix. 1. 33? T!, soft of 
 heart, i.e. faint-hearted, inclined to give way, without energy to 
 make a stand against those rising insolently against him. N7l 
 's? PiJnnn^ and showed himself not strong before them, proved to 
 be too weak in opposition to them. This representation does not
 
 352 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 conform to the state of the case as narrated in chap. x. Reho- 
 boam did not appear soft-hearted and compliant in the negotia- 
 tion with the rebellious tribes at Sichem ; on the contrary, he 
 was hard and defiant, and showed himself youthfully inconsiderate 
 only in throwing to the winds the wise advice of the older men, 
 and in pursuance of the rash counsel of the young men who had 
 grown up with him, brought about the rupture by his domineering 
 manner. But Abijah wishes to justify his father as much as 
 possible in his speech, and shifts all the guilt of the rebellion of 
 the ten tribes from the house of David on to Jeroboam and his 
 worthless following. Vers. 8 and 9. Abijah then points out to 
 his opponents the vanity of their trust in the great multitude of 
 their warriors and their gods, while yet they had driven out the 
 priests of Jahve. " And now ye say," soil, in your heart, i.e. you 
 think to show yourself strong before the kingdom of Jahve in 
 the hands of the sons of David, i.e. against the kingdom of Jahve 
 ruled over by the sons of David, by raising a great army in 
 order to make war upon and to destroy this kingdom. 2"i Jion Enxi, 
 and truly ye are a great multitude, and with you are the golden 
 calves, which Jeroboam hath made to you for gods ; but trust 
 not unto them, for Jahve, the true God, have ye not for you 
 as a helper. Ver. 9. " Yea, ye have cast out the priests of 
 Jahve, the sons of Aaron, and made you priests after the manner 
 of the nations of the lands. Every one who has come, to fill 
 
 his hand with a young bullock and he has become .a 
 
 priest to the no-god." i"P &6p, to fill his hand, denotes, in the 
 language of the law, to invest one with the priesthood, and con- 
 nected with niiT 1 ^ it signifies to provide oneself with that which 
 is to be offered to Jahve. To fill his hand with a young bullock, 
 etc., therefore denotes to come with sacrificial beasts, to cause 
 oneself to be consecrated priest. The animals mentioned also, 
 a young bullock and seven rams, point to the consecration to the 
 priesthood. In Ex. xxix. a young bullock as a sin-offering, a 
 ram as a burnt-offering, and a ram as a consecratory-offering, are 
 prescribed for this purpose. These sacrifices were to be repeated 
 during seven days, so that in all seven rams were required for 
 consecratory-sacrifices. Abijah mentions only one young bullock 
 along with these, because it was not of any importance for him 
 to enumerate perfectly the sacrifices which were necessary. But 
 by offering these sacrifices no one becomes a priest of Jahve, and 
 consequently the priests of Jeroboam also are only priests for
 
 CHAP. XIII. 13-17. 353 
 
 Not-Elohim, i.e. only for the golden calves made Elohim by 
 Jeroboam, to whom the attributes of the Godhead did not belong. 
 Vers. 10 and 11. While, therefore, the Israelites have no-gods 
 in their golden calves, Judah has Jahve for its God, whom it 
 worships in His temple in the manner prescribed by Moses. 
 11 But in Jahve is our God, and we have not forsaken Him," in 
 so far, viz., as they observed the legal Jahve-worship. So Abijah 
 himself explains his words, " as priests serve Him the sons of 
 Aaron (who were chosen by Jahve), and the Levites are rntO3, 
 in service," i.e. performing the service prescribed to them. As 
 essential parts of that service of God, the offering of the daily 
 burnt-offering and the daily incense-offering (Ex. xxix. 38 ff., 
 xxx. 7), the laying out of the shew-bread (Ex. xxv. 30; Lev. 
 xxiv. 5 ff.), the lighting of the lamps of the golden candlesticks 
 (Ex. xxv. 37, xxvii. 20 f.), are mentioned. In this respect they 
 keep the nirT 1 rnOB'p (cf. Lev. viii. 35). Ver. 12. Abijah draws 
 from all this the conclusion : " Behold, with us at our head are 
 (not the two calves of gold, but) God (DWNH with the article, 
 the true God) and His priests, and the alarm-trumpets to sound 
 against you." He mentions the trumpets as being the divinely 
 appointed pledges that God would remember them in war, and 
 would deliver them from their enemies, Num. x. 9. Then he 
 closes with a warning to the Israelites not to strive with Jahve, 
 the God of their fathers. 
 
 Vers. 13-17. The Avar; Judah's victory, and the defeat of 
 Jeroboam and the Israelites. Ver. 13. Jeroboam caused the 
 ambush (the troops appointed to be an ambush) to go round 
 about, so as to come upon their rear (i.e. of the men of Judah) ; 
 and so they (the main division of Jeroboam's troops) were before 
 Judah, and the ambush in their rear (i.e. of the men of Judah) ; 
 and the men of Judah, when they turned themselves (scil. to 
 attack), saw war before and behind them, i.e. perceived that they 
 were attacked in front and rear. In this dangerous position the 
 men of Judah cried to the Lord, and the priests blew the trum- 
 pets (ver. 15) ; and as they raised this war-cry, God smote their 
 enemies so that they took to flight. In W"W and JH?3 the loud 
 shout of the warriors and the clangour of the trumpets in the 
 hands of the priests are comprehended ; and JJ^n is neither to be 
 taken to refer only to the war-cry raised by the warriors in 
 making the attack, nor, with Bertheau, to be referred only to the 
 blowing of the trumpets. Ver. 16 f. So Abijah and his people
 
 354 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 inflicted a great blow (defeat) on the Israelites, so that 500,000 of 
 them, i.e. more than the half of Jeroboam's whole army, fell. 
 
 Ver. 18 f. The results of this victory. The Israelites were 
 bowed down, their power weakened ; the men of Judah became 
 strong, mighty, because they relied upon Jahve their God. Fol- 
 lowing up his victory, Abijah took from Jeroboam several cities 
 with their surrounding domains : Bethel, the present Beitin, see 
 on Josh. vii. 2 ; Jeshanah, occurring only here, and the position 
 of which has not yet been ascertained ; and Ephron (iilSJ?, Keth. ; 
 the Keri, on the contrary, JTJSy). This city cannot well be iden- 
 tified with Mount Ephron, Josh. xv. 9 ; for that mountain was 
 situated on the southern frontier of Benjamin, not far from 
 Jerusalem, while the city Ephron is to be sought much farther 
 north, in the neighbourhood of Bethel. C. v. Raumer and others 
 identify Ephron or Ephrain both with Ophrah of Benjamin, 
 which, it is conjectured, was situated near or in Tayibeh, to the 
 east of Bethel, and with the 'E^pal'/j,, John xi. 54, whither Jesus 
 withdrew into the wilderness, which, according to Josephus, Bell. 
 Jud. iv. 9. 9, lay in the neighbourhood of Bethel. See on Josh, 
 xviii. 23. 1 Ver. 20. Jeroboam could not afterwards gain power 
 
 1 The account of this war, which is peculiar to the Chronicle, and which 
 de "Wette declared, on utterly insufficient grounds, to be an invention of the 
 chronicler (cf. against him my apol. Vers. uber die Chron. S. 444 ff.), is thus 
 regarded by Ewald (Gesch. Isr. iii. S. 466, der 2 Aufl.) : " The chronicler 
 must certainly have found among his ancient authorities an account of this 
 conclusion of the war, and we cannot but believe that we have here, in so far, 
 authentic tradition ;" and only the details of the description are the results of 
 free expansion by the chronicler, but in the speech vers. 4-13 every word and 
 every thought is marked by the peculiar colouring of the Chronicle. But this 
 last assertion is contradicted by Ewald's own remark, L S. 203, that "in 
 2 Chron. xiii. 4-7, 19-21, an antiquated manner of speech and representation 
 appears, while in the other verses, on the contrary, those usual with the 
 chronicler are found," in support of which he adduces the words ^JJ'fa ""33, 
 ver. 7, and nta JYH2, ver. 5. According to this view, Abijah's speech cannot 
 have been freely draughted by the chronicler, but must have been derived, at 
 least so far as the fundamental thoughts are concerned, from an ancient 
 authority, doubtless the Midrash of the prophet Iddo, cited in ver. 22. But 
 Ewald's further remark (iii. S. 466), that the author of the Chronicle, 
 because he regarded the heathenized Samaria of his time as the true repre- 
 sentative of the old kingdom of the ten tribes, seized this opportunity to put 
 into King Abijah's mouth a long denunciatory and didactic speech, addressed 
 at the commencement of the battle to the enemy as rebels not merely against 
 the house of David, but also against the true religion, is founded upon the 
 uuscriptural idea that the calf -worship of the Israelites was merely a some-
 
 CHAP. XIII. 21-23. 355 
 
 (Hi2) ivy, as in 1 Chron. xxix. 14) : " And Jalive smote him, and 
 he died." The meaning of this remark is not clear, since we 
 know nothing further of the end of Jeroboam's life than that he 
 died two years after Abijah. ^"IS3M can hardly refer to the unfor- 
 tunate result of the war (ver. 15 ff.), for Jeroboam outlived the 
 war by several years. We would be more inclined to understand 
 it of the blow mentioned in 1 Kings xiv. 18, when God an- 
 nounced to him by Ahijah the extermination of his house, and 
 took away his son Abijah, who was mourned by all Israel. 
 
 Vers. 21-23. Wives and children of Abijali. His death. Ver. 
 21. While Jeroboam was not able to recover from the defeat he 
 had suffered, Abijah established himself in his kingdom (p?v, 
 cf. xii. 13), and took to himself fourteen wives. The taking of 
 these wives is not to be regarded as later in time than his estab- 
 lishment of his rule after the victory over Jeroboam. Since 
 Abijah reigned only three years, he must have already had the 
 greater number of his wives and children when he ascended the 
 throne, as we may gather also from chap. xi. 21-23. The 1 consec. 
 with $&\ serves only to connect logically the information as to his 
 
 what sensuous form of the true Jahve-worship, and was fundamentally 
 distinct from the heathen idolatry, and also from the idolatry of the later 
 Samaritans. In the judgment of all the prophets, not only of Hosea and Amos, 
 but also of the prophetic author of the book of Kings, the calf-worship was a 
 defection from Jahve, the God of the fathers, a forsaking of the commands 
 of Jahve, and a serving of the Baals ; cf. e.g. 1 Kings xiii., 2 Kings xvii. 
 7-23. What Abijah says of the calf-worship of the Israelites, and of 
 Judah's attitude to Jahve and His worship in the temple, is founded on the 
 truth, and is also reconcilable with the statement in 1 Kings xv. 3, that 
 Abijah's heart was not wholly devoted to the Lord, like David's heart. 
 Abijah had promoted the legal temple-worship even by consecratory gifts 
 (1 Kings xv. 15), and could consequently quite well bring forward the wor- 
 ship of God in Judah as the true worship, in contrast to the Israelitic calf- 
 worship, for the discouragement of his enemies, and for the encouragement of 
 his own army ; and we may consequently regard the kernel, or the essential 
 contents of the speech, as being historically well-founded. The account of 
 the war, moreover, is also shown to be historical by the exact statement as to 
 the conquered cities in ver. 19, which evidently has been derived from ancient 
 authorities. Only in the statements about the number of warriors, and of 
 the slain Israelites, the numbers are not to be estimated according to the 
 literal value of the figures ; for they are, as has been already hinted in the 
 commentary, only an expression in figures of the opinion of contemporaries 
 of the war, that both kings had made a levy of all the men in their respective 
 kingdoms capable of bearing arms, and that Jeroboam was defeated with such 
 slaughter that he lost more than the half of his warriors.
 
 356 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 wives and children with the preceding, as the great increase of 
 his family was a sign of Abijah's increase in strength, while 
 Jeroboam's dynasty was soon extirpated. Ver. 22. As to the 
 Bn*!0 of the prophet Iddo, see the Introduction, p. 34. Ver. 23. 
 Under his son and successor Asa the land had a ten-years' rest. 
 This is remarked here, because this rest was also a result of 
 Abijah's great victory over Jeroboam. 
 
 CHAP. XIV .-XVI. ASA'S REIGN. 
 
 In 1 Kings xv. 9-24 it is merely recorded of Asa, that he 
 reigned forty-one years, did that which was right as David did, 
 removed from the land all the idols which his fathers had made, 
 and, although the high places were not removed, was devoted to 
 the Lord during his whole life, and laid up in the temple trea- 
 sury all that had been consecrated by his father and himself. 
 Then it is related that when Baasha marched against him, and 
 began to fortify Eamah, he induced the Syrian king Benhadad, 
 by sending to him the treasures of the temple and of his palace, 
 to break faith with Baasha, and to make an inroad upon and 
 smite the northern portion of the land ; that Baasha was thereby 
 compelled to abandon the building of Eamah, and to fall back 
 to Tirzah, and that thereupon Asa caused the fortifications of 
 Eamah to be pulled down, and the cities Geba in Benjamin 
 and Mizpah to be fortified with the materials; and, finally, it is 
 recorded that Asa in his old age became diseased in his feet, and 
 died. The Chronicle also characterizes Asa as a pious king, who 
 did that which was right, and removed the high places and sun- 
 pillars in the land ; but gives, as to other matters, a much more 
 detailed account of his reign of forty-one years. It states that 
 in the first years, as the land had rest, he built fortified cities in 
 Judah, and had an army fit for war (xiv. 1-7) ; that thereupon 
 lie marched against the Cushite Zerah, who was then advancing 
 upon Judah with an innumerable host, prayed for help to the 
 Lord, who then smote the Cushites, so that they fled ; and that 
 Asa pursued them to Gerar, and returned with great booty (vers. 
 8-14). Then we learn that the prophet Azariah, the son of 
 Oded, came to meet him, who, pointing to the victory which the 
 Lord had granted them, called upon the king and the people 
 to remain stedfast in their fidelity to the Lord; that Asa 
 thereupon took courage, extirpated all the still remaining idola-
 
 CHAP. XIV. 1-7. 357 
 
 trous abominations from the land, and in the fifteenth year of 
 his reign held with the people a great sacrificial feast in Jerusa- 
 lem, renewed the covenant with the Lord, crushed out all the 
 remains of former idolatry, although the high places were not 
 destroyed, and also deposited in the temple treasury all that had 
 been consecrated by his father and himself (chap. xv.). There- 
 after Baasha's inroad upon Judah and the alliance with Ben- 
 hadad of Syria are narrated (xvi. 1-6), as in the book of Kings ; 
 but it is also added that the prophet Hanani censured his seeking 
 help from the king of Syria, and was thereupon put into the 
 prison-house by Asa (vers. 7-10) ; and then we have an account 
 of the end of his reign, in which several additions to the account 
 in 1 Kings are communicated (vers. 11-14). 
 
 Chap. xiv. 1-7. Ascfs efforts for the abolition of idolatry 
 and the establishment of the kingdom. Vers. 1-4. The good and 
 right in God's eyes which Asa did is further defined in vers. 2-4. 
 He abolished all the objects of the idolatrous worship. The 
 " altars of the strangers" are altars consecrated to foreign gods ; 
 from them the niD3, high places, are distinguished, these latter 
 being illegal places of sacrifice connected with the worship of 
 Jahve (see on 1 Kings xv. 14). The ni25f are the statues or 
 monumental columns consecrated to Baal, and B^K the wooden 
 idols, tree-trunks, or trees, which were consecrated to Astarte 
 (see on 1 Kings xiv. 23 and Deut. xvi. 21). Asa at the same 
 time commanded the people to worship Jahve, the God of the 
 fathers, and to follow the law. Ver. 4. He removed from all 
 the cities of Judah the altars of the high places, and the Q^SH, 
 sun-pillars, pillars or statues consecrated to Baal as sun-god, 
 which were erected near or upon the altars of Baal (2 Chron. 
 xxxiv. 4; see on Lev. xxvi. 30). In consequence of this the 
 kingdom had rest V:ap, before him, i.e. under his oversight (cf. 
 Num. viii. 22). This ten-years' quiet (xiii. 23) which God 
 granted him, Asa employed in building fortresses in Judah (ver. 
 5). " We will build these cities, and surround them with walls 
 and towers, gates and bolts." It is not said what the cities were, 
 but they were at any rate others than Geba and Mizpah, which 
 he caused to be built after the war with Baasha (xvi. 6). " The 
 land is still before us," i.e. open, free from enemies, so that we 
 may freely move about, and build therein according to our 
 pleasure. For the phraseology, cf. Gen. xiii. 9. The repetition 
 of ^"Vn, ver. 6, is impassioned speech. " They built and had
 
 358 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 success ;" they built -with effect, -without meeting with any hin- 
 drances. Ver. 7. Asa had also a well-equipped, well-armed army. 
 The men of Judah were armed with a large shield and lance 
 (cf. 1 Chron. xii. 24), the Benjamites with a small shield and 
 bow (cf. 1 Chron. viii. 40). The numbers are great ; of Judah 
 300,000, of Benjamin 280,000 men. Since in these numbers 
 the whole population capable of bearing arms is included, 300,000 
 men does not appear too large for Judah, but 280,000 is a very 
 large number for Benjamin, and is founded probably on an 
 overestimate. 
 
 Vers. 8-14. The victory over the Cushite Zerah. Ver. 8. 
 " And there went forth against them Zerah." on s ?s for 2Hvj; 
 refers to Asa's warriors mentioned in ver. 7. The number of 
 the men in Judah capable, of bearing arms is mentioned only 
 to show that Asa set his hope of victory over the innumerable 
 host of the Cushites not on the strength of his army, but on 
 the all-powerful help of the Lord (ver. 10). The Cushite rnT is 
 usually identified with the second king of the 22d (Bubastitic) 
 dynasty, Osorchon I.; while Brugsch, hist, de VEg. i. p. 298, 
 on the contrary, has raised objections, and holds Zerah to be an 
 Ethiopian and not an Egyptian prince, who in the reign of 
 Takeloth I., about 944 B.C., probably marched through Egypt as 
 a conqueror (cf. G. Rosch in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. S. 460). 
 The statement as to Zerah's army, that it numbered 1,000,000 
 warriors and 300 war-chariots, rests upon a rough estimate, in 
 which 1000 times 1000 expresses the idea of the greatest pos- 
 sible number. The Cushites pressed forward to Mareshah, i.e. 
 Marissa, between Hebron and Ashdod (see on xi. 8). Ver. 9. 
 Thither Asa marched to meet them, and drew up his army in 
 battle array in the valley Zephathah, near Mareshah. The 
 valley Zephathah is not, as Robins., Pal. sub voce, thinks, to be 
 identified with Tel es Safich, but must lie nearer Mareshah, to 
 the west or north-west of Marasch. Ver. 10. Then he called 
 upon the Lord his God for help. '131 I^V P*? we translate, with 
 Berth., "None is with Thee (on ^, cf. xx. 6, Ps. Ixxiii. 25) to 
 help between a mighty one and a weak," i.e. no other than Thou 
 can help in an unequal battle, i.e. help the weaker side ; while 
 the Vulg., on the contrary, after the analogy of 1 Sam. xiv. 6, 
 translates, " non est apud te ulla distantia, utrum in paitcis auxili- 
 eris an in plurilus ;" and the older commentators (Schmidt, Ramb.) 
 give the meaning thus : " perinde est tibi potentiori vel imlecilliori
 
 CHAP. XV. 1-7. 359 
 
 opem ferre" But in 1 Sam. xiv. 16 the wording is different, so 
 that that passage cannot be a standard for us here. '' In Thy 
 name (i.e. trusting in Thy help) are we come against this multi- 
 tude" (not " have we fallen upon this multitude"), 'w "vsyi i, 
 "Let not a mortal retain strength with Thee" ("nB> = nb "% xiii. 
 20, 1 Chron. xxix. 14), i.e. let not weak men accomplish any- 
 thing with Thee, show Thy power or omnipotence over weak men. 
 Ver. 11. God heard this prayer. Jahve drove the Cushites 
 into flight before Asa, soil, by His mighty help. Ver. 12. Asa, 
 with his people, pursued to Gerar, the old ancient Philistine 
 city, whose ruins Rowlands has discovered in the Khirbet el 
 Gerar, in the Wady Jorf el Gerar (the torrent of Gerar), three 
 leagues south-south-east of Gaza (see on Gen. xx. 1). " And 
 there fell of the Cushites, so that to them was not revival," i.e. 
 so many that they could not make a stand and again collect 
 themselves, ut eis viviftcatio i. e. copias restaurandi ratio non esset, 
 as older commentators, in Annott. uberior. ad h. Z., have already 
 rightly interpreted it. The words are expressions for complete 
 defeat. Berth, translates incorrectly: "until to them was nothing 
 living ;" for PK? does not stand for psp TJ?, but ? serves to subor- 
 dinate the clause, " so that no one," where in the older language 
 pK alone would have been sufficient, as in xx. 25, 1 Chron. xxii. 
 4, cf. Ew. 315, c ; and HTIE denotes, not "a living thing," but 
 only " preservation of life, vivification, revival, maintenance." 
 For they were broken before Jahve and before His host. , ^HD, 
 i.e. Asa's army is called Jahve's, because Jahve fought in and 
 with it against the enemy. There is no reason to suppose, with 
 some older commentators, that there is any reference to an angelic 
 host or heavenly camp (Gen. xxxii. 2 f.). And they (Asa and 
 his people) brought back very much booty. Ver. 13. "They 
 smote all the cities round about Gerar," which, as we must con- 
 clude from this, had made common cause with the Cushites, 
 being inhabited by Philistines ; for the fear of Jahve had fallen 
 upon them, mrp nris here, and in xvii. 10, xx. 29, as in 1 Sam. 
 xf. 7, the fear of the omnipotence displayed .by Jahve in the 
 annihilation of the innumerable hostile army. In these cities 
 Judah found much booty. Ver. 14. They also smote the tents 
 of the herds of the wandering tribes of that district, and carried 
 away many sheep and camels as booty. 
 
 Chap. xv. The prophet AzariaKs exhortation to faithful 
 cleaving to the Lord, and the solemn renewal of Hie covenant.
 
 360 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Vers. 1-7. The prophet's speech. The prophet Azariab, the son 
 of Odedj is mentioned only here. The conjecture of some of the 
 older theologians, that "nty was the same person as Viy (xii. 15, 
 is. 29), has no tenable foundation. Azariah went to meet the 
 king and people returning from the war (V.?? K, he went forth 
 in the presence of Asa, i.e. coming before him; cf. xxviii. 9, 
 1 Chron. xii. 17, xiv. 8). " Jahve was with you (has given you 
 the victory), because ye were with Him (held to Him)." Hence 
 the general lesson is drawn : If ye seek Him, He will be found 
 of you (cf. Jer. xxix. 13) ; and if ye forsake Him, He will for- 
 sake you (cf. xxiv. 20, xii. 5). To impress the people deeply 
 with this truth, Azariah draws a powerful picture of the times 
 when a people is forsaken by God, when peace and security in 
 social intercourse disappear, and the terrors of civil war prevail. 
 Opinions as to the reference intended in this portrayal of the 
 dreadful results of defection from God have been from antiquity 
 very much divided. Tremell. and Grot., following the Targ., 
 take the words to refer to the condition of the kingdom of the 
 ten tribes at that time ; others think they refer to the past, 
 either to the immediately preceding period of the kingdom of 
 Judah, to the times of the defection under Rehoboam and 
 Abijah, before Asa had suppressed idolatry (Syr., Arab., Raschi), 
 or to the more distant past, the anarchic period of the judges, 
 from Joshua's death, and that of the high priest Phinehas, until 
 Eli and Samuel's reformation (so especially Vitringa, de synag. 
 vet. p. 335 sqq.). Finally, still others (Luther, Clericus, Budd., 
 etc.) interpret the words as prophetic, as descriptive of the future, 
 and make them refer either to the unquiet times under the later 
 idolatrous kings, to the times of the Assyrian or Chaldean exile 
 (Kimchi), or to the condition of the Jews since the destruction 
 of Jerusalem by the Romans up till the present day. Of these 
 three views, the first, that which takes the reference to be to the 
 present, i.e. the state of the kingdom of the ten tribes at that 
 time, is decidedly erroneous ; for during the first thirty years of 
 the existence of that kingdom no such anarchic state- of things 
 existed as is portrayed in vers. 5 and 6, and still less could a 
 return of the ten tribes to the Lord at that time be spoken of 
 (ver. 4). It is more difficult to decide between the two other 
 main views. The grounds which Vitr., Ramb., Berth, adduce 
 in support of the reference to the times of the judges are not 
 convincing; for the contents and form (ver. 4) do not prove
 
 CHAP. XV. 1-7. 361 
 
 that here something is asserted which has been confirmed by 
 history, and still less is it manifest (ver. 5) that past times are 
 pointed to. Whether the statement about the return to Jahve 
 in the times of trouble (ver. 4) refers to the past or to the future, 
 depends upon whether the past or future is spoken of in ver. 3. 
 But the unquiet condition of things portrayed in ver. 5 corre- 
 sponds partly to various times in the period of the judges ; and 
 if, with Vitr., we compare the general characteristics of the 
 religious condition of the times of the judges (Judg. ii. 10 ff.), we 
 might certainly say that Israel in those times was without ""rpK 
 JIOK, as it again and again forsook Jahve and served the Baals. 
 And moreover, several examples of the oppression of Israel por- 
 trayed in vers. 5 and 6 may be adduced from, the time of the 
 judges. Yet the words in ver. 6, even when their rhetorical 
 character is taken into account, are too strong for the anarchic 
 state of things during the period of the judges, and the internal 
 struggles of that time (Judg. xii. 1-6 and chap. xx. f.). And 
 consequently, although Vitr. and Ramb. think that a reference 
 to experiences already past, and oppressions already lived through, 
 would have made a much deeper impression than pointing for- 
 ward to future periods of oppression, yet Ramb. himself remarks, 
 nihilominus tamen in sceculis Asce imperium antegressis mx ullum 
 tempus post ingressum in terrain Canaan et constitutam rempubl. 
 Israel, posse ostendi, cui omnia criteria hujus orationis propheticce 
 omni ex parte et secundum omnia pondera verbis insita conveniant. 
 But, without doubt, the omission of any definite statement of the 
 time in ver. 3 is decisive against the exclusive reference of this 
 speech to the past, and to the period of the judges. The verse 
 contains no verb, so that the words may just as well refer to the 
 past as to the future. The prophet has not stated the time de- 
 finitely, because he was giving utterance to truths which have 
 force at all times, 1 and which Israel had had experience of 
 already in the time of the judges, but would have much deeper 
 experience of in the future. 
 
 We must take the words in this general sense, and supply 
 neither a preterite nor a future in ver. 3, neither f iterant nor 
 eruntj but must express the first clause by the present in English: 
 
 1 As Ramb. therefore rightly remarks, " Vatem videri consulto dbstinuisse 
 a determinatione temporis, ut vela sensui quam amplissime panderentur^ verbaque 
 omnibus temporum periodis adplicari possent, in quibus criteria hie recensita 
 adpareant."
 
 362 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 " Many days are for Israel (i.e. Israel lives many days) without 
 the true God, and without teaching priests, and without law." 
 D<:n D'OJ is not accus. of time (Berth.), but the subject of the 
 sentence ; and 'fvK N7p is not subject "during many days there 
 was to the people Israel no true God" (Berth.) but predicate, 
 while ? expresses the condition into which anything comes, and 
 &6 forms part of the following noun : Days for Israel for bavins 
 
 -LL -L L 
 
 not a true God. fcw differs from N73, " without," just as ? differs 
 from 3 ; the latter expressing the being in a condition, the former 
 the coming into it. On rios ""rps, cf. Jer. x. 10. nnio pb is not 
 to be limited to the high priest, for it refers to the priests in 
 general, whose office it was to teach the people law and justice 
 (Lev. x. 10 ; Deut. xxxiii. 10). The accent is upon the predicates 
 r>K and i"niD. Israel had indeed Elohim, but not the true God, 
 and also priests, but not priests who attended to their office, who 
 watched over the fulfilment of the law ; and so they had no n "l^> 
 notwithstanding the book of the law composed by Moses. Ver. 
 5. " And in these times is no peace to those going out or to those 
 coming in." Free peaceful intercommunication is interfered with 
 (cf. Judg. v. 6, vi. 2), but great terrors upon all inhabitants of 
 the lands (ni^NH are, according to the usage of the chronicler, 
 the various districts of the land of Israel). Ver. 6. " And one 
 people is dashed in pieces by the other, and one city by the other ; 
 for God confounds them by all manner of adversity." Don de- 
 notes confusion, which God brings about in order to destroy His 
 enemies (Ex. xiv. 24; Josh. x. 10; Judg. iv. 15). Days when 
 they were without the true God, without teaching prophets, and 
 without law, Israel had already experienced in the times of de- 
 fection after Joshua (cf. Judg. ii. 11 ff.), but will experience 
 them in the future still oftener and more enduringly under the 
 idolatrous kings in the Assyrian and Babylonian exile, and still 
 even now in its dispersion among all nations. That this saying 
 refers to the future is also suggested by the fact that Hosea 
 (chap. iii. and iv.) utters, with a manifest reference to ver. 3 of 
 our speech, a threat that the ten tribes will be brought into a 
 similar condition (cf. Hos. ix. 3, 4) ; and even Moses proclaimed 
 to the people that the punishment of defection from the Lord 
 would be dispersion among the heathen, where Israel would be 
 compelled to serve idols of wood and stone (Deut. iv. 27 ff., 
 xxviii. 36, 64), i.e. would be without the true God. That Israel 
 would, in such oppression, turn to its God, would seek Him, and
 
 CHAP. XV. 8-18. 363 
 
 that the Lord would be found of them, is a thought also ex- 
 
 7 O 
 
 pressed by Moses, the truth of which Israel had not only had 
 repeated experience of during the time of the judges, but also 
 would again often experience in the future (cf. Hos. iii. 5 ; Jer. 
 xxxi. 1 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 24 ff. ; Eom. xi. 25 ff.). ifr-ilQ re f er s back 
 to Deut. iv. 30 ; the expression in ver. 46 is founded upon Deut. 
 iv. 29 (cf. Isa. Iv. 6). Of the oppression in the times of defec- 
 tion portrayed in ver. 5 f., Israel had also had in the time of the 
 judges repeated experience (cf. Judg. v. 6), most of all under 
 the Midianite yoke (Judg. vi. 2) ; but such times often returned, 
 as the employment of the very words of the first hemistich of 
 ver. 5 in Zech. viii. 10, in reference to the events of the post- 
 exilic time, shows ; and not only the prophet Amos (iii. 9) sees 
 niai niOinOj great confusions, where all is in an indistinguishable 
 whirl in the Samaria of his time, but they repeated themselves at 
 all times when the defection prevailed, and godlessness degene- 
 rated into revolution and civil war. Azariah portrays the terrors 
 of such times in strong colours (ver. 6) : ll Dashed to pieces is 
 people by people, and city by city." The war of the tribes of 
 Israel against Benjamin (Judg. xx. f.), and the struggle of the 
 Gileadites under Jephthah with Ephraim (Judg. xii. 4 ff.), were 
 civil wars ; but they were only mild preludes of the bellum omnium 
 contra omnes depicted by Azariah, which only commenced with 
 the dissolution of both kingdoms, and was announced by the 
 later prophets as the beginning of the judgment upon rebellious 
 Israel (e.g. Isa. ix. 17-20), and upon all peoples and kingdoms 
 hostile to God (Zech. xiv. 13 ; Matt. xxiv. 7). With ttn*>x '3 
 noon cf. nan ' noino, Zech. xiv. 13. To this portrayal of the 
 dread results of defection from the Lord, Azariah adds (ver. 7) 
 the exhortation, u Be ye strong (vigorous), and show yourselves 
 not slack, languid" (cf. Zeph. iii. 16 ; Neh. vi. 9) ; i.e., in this con- 
 nection, proceed courageously and vigorously to keep yourselves 
 true to the Lord, to exterminate all idolatry ; then you shall 
 obtain a great reward : cf. on these words, Jer. xxxi. 16. 
 
 Vers. 8-18. Completion of the reform in worship, and the renewal 
 of the covenant. Ver. 8. The speech and prophecy of the prophet 
 strengthened the king to carry out the work he had begun, viz. 
 the extirpation of idolatry from the whole land. In ver. 8 the 
 words N'oan -n'y are surprising, not only because the prophet is 
 called in ver. 1, not Oded, but Azariah the son of Oded, but also 
 on account of the preceding nsiaan in the absolute state, which
 
 364 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 cannot stand, without more ado, for the stat. constr. nxi33 (cf. ix. 
 29). The view of Cler. and Ew., that by an orthographical error 
 i? WyN. has been dropped out, does not remove the difficulty, for 
 it leaves the stat. absol. nsiaan unexplained. This is also the case 
 with the attempt to explain the name Oded in ver. 8 by transpos- 
 ing the words Azariah ben Oded, ver. 1, so as to obtain Oded ben 
 Azariah (Movers) ; and there seems to be no other solution of the 
 difficulty than to strike out the words Oded the prophet from the 
 text as a gloss which has crept into it (Berth.), or to suppose that 
 there is a considerable hiatus in the text caused by the drop- 
 ping out of the words J? ^"ILV ">3*! ">^. 1 P?nnn corresponds to 
 'ipTn. Asa complied with the exhortation, and removed ("i?SW, 
 as in 1 Kings xv. 12) all abominations (idols) from the whole 
 land, and from the cities which he had taken from Mount 
 Ephraim : these are the cities which Asa's father Abijah had 
 conquered, xiii. 19. "And he renewed the altar before the 
 porch," i.e. the altar of burnt-offering, which might stand in need 
 of repairs sixty years after the building of the temple. The 
 Vulg. is incorrect in translating dedicavit, and Berth, in suppos- 
 ing that the renovation refers only to a purification of it. from 
 defilement by idolatry. Bnn is everywhere to renew, repair, 
 restaurare; cf. xxiv. 4. But in order to give internal stability to 
 the reform he had begun, Asa prepared a great sacrificial fes- 
 tival, to which he invited the people out of all the kingdom, and 
 induced them to renew the covenant with the Lord. Ver. 9. He 
 gathered together the whole of Judah and Benjamin, and the 
 strangers out of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon, who dwelt 
 among them. Strangers, i.e. Israelites from the ten tribes, had 
 come over as early as Rehoboam's reign to the kingdom of Judah 
 (xi. 16) ; these immigrations increased under Asa when it was 
 seen that Jahve was with him, and had given him a great victory 
 over the Cushites. It is surprising that Simeon should be men- 
 tioned among the tribes from which Israelites went over to the 
 kingdom of Judah, since Simeon had received his heritage in the 
 southern district of the tribal domain of Judah, so that at the 
 division of the kingdom it could not well separate itself from 
 
 1 C. P. Caspari, der Syrisch-epliraimilische Kricy, Christian. 1849, S. 51, 
 explains the absol. ntfQSn by an ellipse, as in Isa. iii. 14, viii. 11, " the pro- 
 phecy (that) of Oded," but answers the question why Oded is used in ver. 8 
 instead of Azarjahu ben Oded by various conjectures, none of which can be 
 looked upon as probable.
 
 365 
 
 Judah, and join with the tribes who had revolted from the house 
 of David. The grouping together of Simeon, Ephraim, and 
 Manasseh, both in our verse and in xxxiv. 6, can consequently 
 scarcely be otherwise explained than by the supposition, either 
 that a part of the Simeonites had in course of time emigrated 
 from the cities assigned to them under Joshua into districts in 
 the northern kingdom (Berth.), or that the Simeonites, though 
 politically united with Judah, yet in religious matters were not 
 so, but abstained from taking part in the Jahve-worship in Jeru- 
 salem, and had set up in Beersheba a worship of their own similar 
 to that in Bethel and Dan. In such a case, the more earnest and 
 thoughtful people from Simeon, as well as from Ephraim and 
 Manasseh, may have gone to Jerusalem to the sacrificial festival 
 prepared by Asa. In favour of this last supposition we may 
 adduce the fact that the prophet Amos, chap. v. 5, iv. 4, viii. 14, 
 mentions Beersheba, along with Bethel and Gilgal, as a place to 
 which pilgrimages were made by the idolatrous Israelites. Ver. 
 10 f. At this festival, which was held on the third month of the 
 fifteenth year of Asa's reign, they offered of the booty, i.e. of the 
 cattle captured in the war against the Cushites (xiv. 14), 700 
 oxen and 7000 sheep. ^sn Y$L r i*? defines the in?W more closely : 
 they sacrificed, viz. from the booty they offered. From this it 
 seems to follow that the sacrificial festival was held soon after 
 the return from the war against the Cushites. The attack of the 
 Cushite Zerah upon Judah can only have occurred in the eleventh 
 year of Asa, according to xiii. 23 ; but it is not stated how long 
 the war lasted, nor when Asa returned to Jerusalem (xiv. 14) 
 after conquering the enemy and plundering the towns of the 
 south land. But Asa may quite well have remained longer in 
 the south after the Cushites had been driven back, in order again 
 firmly to establish his rule there ; and on his return to Jerusalem, 
 in consequence of the exhortation of the propliet Azariah, may 
 have straightway determined to hold a sacrificial festival at which 
 the whole people should renew the covenant with the Lord, and 
 have set apart and reserved a portion of the captured cattle for 
 this purpose. Ver. 12. And they entered into the covenant, i.e. 
 they renewed the covenant, bound themselves by a promise on 
 oath (njFQB'j ver. 14) to hold the covenant, viz. to worship Jahve 
 the God of the fathers with their whole heart and soul ; cf. Deut. 
 iv. 29. With nnan Kin, c f. Jer. xxxiv. 10. Ver. 13 f. To attest 
 the sincerity of their return to the Lord, they determined at the
 
 366 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHROXICLES. 
 
 same time to punish defection from Jahve on the part of any one, 
 without respect to age or sex, with death, according to the command 
 in Deut. xvii. 2-6. ni(T9 tin 1 ! &6 ? not to worship Jahve, is substan- 
 tially the same as to serve other gods, Deut. xvii. 3. This they swore 
 aloud and solemnly, nynrOj with joyful shouting and the sound of 
 trumpets and horns. Ver. 15. This return to the Lord brought joy 
 to all Judah, i.e. to the whole kingdom, because they had sworn 
 with all their heart, and sought the Lord D3i"T733, with perfect 
 willingness and alacrity. Therefore Jahve was found, of them, 
 and gave them rest round about. In vers. 16-18, in conclusion, 
 everything which still remained to be said of Asa's efforts to pro- 
 mote the Jahve-worship is gathered up. Even the queen-mother 
 Maachah was deposed by him from the dignity of ruler because 
 she had made herself an image of Asherah ; yet he did not suc- 
 ceed in wholly removing the altars on the high places from the 
 land, etc. These statements are also to be found in 1 Kings xv. 
 13-16, and are commented upon at that place. Only in the 
 Chronicle we have ND5* BK instead of iSK (Kings),- because there 
 Maachah had just been named (ver. 10) ; and to the statement 
 as to the abolition of idolatry, P^, crushed, is added, and in ver. 
 17 V$* ; while, on the other hand, after D^, mrP By is omitted, 
 as not being necessary to the expression of the meaning. 
 
 Ver. 19 is different from 1 Kings xv. 16. In the latter pas- 
 sage it is said : war was between Asa and Baasha the king of 
 Israel DiTO'f 73, i.e. so long as both reigned contemporaneously ; 
 while in the Chronicle it is said : war was not until the thirty-fifth 
 year of Asa's reign. This discrepancy is partly got rid of by 
 taking nonpp in the book of Kings to denote the latent hostility 
 or inimical attitude of the two kingdoms towards each other, and 
 in the Chronicle to denote a war openly declared. The date, 
 until the thirty-fifth year, causes a greater difficulty ; but this has 
 been explained in chap. xvi. 1 by the supposition that in the 
 thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign war broke out between Asa and 
 Baasha, when the meaning of our 16th verse would be : It did not 
 come to war with Baasha until the thirty-sixth year of Asa's rule. 
 For further remarks on this, see on xvi. 1. 
 
 Chap. xvi. War with Baasha, and the weakness of Asds faith. 
 Tlie end of his reign. Vers. 1-6. Baasha's invasion of Judah, and 
 Asa's prayer for help to the king of Syria. The statement, " In 
 the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha the king of Israel 
 came up against Judah," is inaccurate, or rather cannot possibly
 
 CHAP. XVI. 1-G. 367 
 
 be correct ; for, according to 1 Kings xvi. 8, 10, Baasha died 
 in the twenty-sixth year of Asa's reign, and his successor Elah 
 was murdered by Zimri in the second year of his reign, i.e. in the 
 twenty-seventh year of Asa. The older commentators, for the 
 most part, accepted the conjecture that the thirty-fifth year (in 
 xv. 19) is to be reckoned from the commencement of the king- 
 dom of Judah ; and consequently, since Asa became king in the 
 twentieth year of the kingdom of Judah, that Baasha's invasion 
 occurred in the sixteenth year of his reign, and that the land had 
 enjoyed peace till his fifteenth year ; cf . Ramb. ad h. I. ; des 
 Vignoles, Chronol. i. p. 299. This is in substance correct ; but 
 the statement, " in the thirty-sixth year of Asa's kingship," can- 
 not be reconciled with it. For even if we suppose that the 
 author of the Chronicle derived his information from an autho- 
 rity which reckoned from the rise of the kingdom of Judah, yet 
 it could not have been said on that authority, NDS ruappp. This 
 only the author of the Chronicle, can have written ; but then he 
 cannot also have taken over the statement, " in the thirty-sixth 
 year," unaltered from his authority into his book. There re- 
 mains therefore no alternative but to regard the text as erroneous, 
 the letters f> (30) and * (10), which are somewhat similar in 
 the ancient Hebrew characters, having been interchanged by a 
 copyist ; and hence the numbers 35 and 36 have arisen out of 
 the original 15 and 16. By this alteration all difficulties are re- 
 moved, and all the statements of the Chronicle as to Asa's rei<m 
 
 O 
 
 are harmonized. During the first ten years there was peace 
 (xiii. 23) ; thereafter, in the eleventh year, the inroad of the 
 Cushites ; and after the victory over them there was the con- 
 tinuation of the Cultus reform, and rest until the fifteenth year, 
 in which the renewal of the covenant took place (xv. 19, cf. with 
 ver. 10); and in the sixteenth year the war with Baasha arose. 1 
 The account of this war in vers. 1-6 agrees with that in 1 Kings 
 xv. 17-22 almost literally, and has been commented upon in the 
 remarks on 1 Kings xv. In ver. 2 the author of the Chronicle 
 has mentioned only the main things. Abel-Maim, i.e. Abel 
 in the Water (ver. 4), is only another name for Abel-Beth- 
 Maachah (Kings) ; see on 2 Sam. xx. 14. In the same verse 
 
 1 Movers, S. 255 ff., and Then, on 1 Kings xv., launch out into arbitrary 
 hypotheses, founded in both cases upon the erroneous presumption that the 
 author of the Chronicle copied our canonical books of Kings they being his 
 authority partly misunderstanding and partly altering them.
 
 368 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 9riD3 "ny niJ3D~;>3 nso is surprising, " and all magazines (or 
 stores) of the cities of Naphtali," instead of PJT^ ^ nn33-b nx 
 briBJ, "all Ktnneroth, together with all the land of Naphtali" 
 (Kings). Then.' and Berth, think -ny JYIJ3DO has arisen out of 
 pS and nrU3 by a misconception of the reading ; while Gesen., 
 Dietr. in Lex. sub voce fli" 1 ??, conjecture that in 1 Kings xv. 20 
 ni33D should be read instead of rihas. Should the difference 
 actually be the result only of a misconception, then the latter 
 conjecture would have much more in its favour than the first. 
 But it is a more probable solution of the difficulty that the text 
 of the Chronicle is a translation of the unusual and, especially 
 on account of the '3 H.K'3 ?V, scarcely intelligible rri"i33'73. 
 ni">33 is the designation of the very fertile district on the west 
 side of the Sea of Kinnereth, i.e. Gennesaret, after which a city 
 also was called rn.33 (see on Josh. xix. 35), and which, on ac- 
 count of its fertility, might be called the granary of the tribal 
 domain of Naphtali. But the smiting of a district can only be a 
 devastation of it, a plundering and destruction of its produce, 
 both in stores and elsewhere. With this idea the author of the 
 Chronicle, instead of the district Kinnereth, the name of which 
 had perhaps become obsolete in his time, speaks of the niJSDDj 
 the magazines or stores, of the cities of Naphtali. In ver. 5, too, 
 we cannot hold the addition irDNppTii* ria^, he caused his 
 work to rest," as Berth, does, for an interpretation of the original 
 reading, nsina 32^ (Kings), it having become illegible : it is 
 rather a free rendering of the thought that Baasha abandoned 
 his attempt upon Judah. Ver. 6. In regard to the building of 
 Mizpah, it is casually remarked in Jer. xli. 9 that Asa had there 
 built a cistern. 
 
 Vers. 7-10. TJie rebuke of the prophet Hanani, and Asa's crime. 
 Ver. 7. The prophet Hanani is met with only here. Jehu, the 
 son of Hanani, who announced to Baasha the ruin of his house 
 (1 Kings xvi. 1), and who reappears under Jehoshaphat (2 
 Chron. xix. 2), was without doubt his son. Hanani said to King 
 Asa, " Because thou hast relied on the king of Aram, and not 
 upon Jahve thy God, therefore is the host of the king of Aram 
 escaped out of thy hand." Berth, has correctly given the mean- 
 ing thus: "that Asa, if he had relied upon God, would have 
 conquered not only the host of Baasha, but also the host of the 
 king of Damascus, if he had, as was to be feared, in accordance 
 with his league with Baasha (ver. 3), in common with Israel,
 
 CHAP. XVI. 7-10. 369 
 
 made an attack upon the kingdom of Judah." To confirm this 
 statement, the prophet points to the victory over the great army 
 of the Cushites, which Asa had won by his trust in God the Lord. 
 With the Cushites Hanani names also D^i?, Libyans (cf. xii. 3), 
 and besides 23"), the war-chariots, also 0^3, horsemen, in order 
 to portray the enemy rhetorically, while in the historical narra- 
 tive only the immense number of warriors and the multitude of 
 the chariots is spoken of. Ver. 9. " For Jahve, His eyes run to 
 and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong 
 with those whose heart is devoted to Him ;" i.e., for Jahve, who 
 looks forth over all the earth, uses every opportunity wonderfully 
 to succour those who are piously devoted to Him. Dy Pjnnn, to 
 help mightily, as in 1 Chron. xi. 10. V^S tbuf D^DJ? is a relative 
 sentence without the relative "i^X with BJJ ; cf. 1 Chron. xv. 12. 
 " Thou hast done foolishly, therefore," sell, because thou hast 
 set thy trust upon men instead of upon Jahve, " for from hence- 
 forth there shall be wars to thee" (thou shalt have war). In 
 these words the prophet does not announce to Asa definite wars, 
 but only expresses the general idea that Asa by his godless 
 policy would bring only wars (nionpO in indefinite universality), 
 not peace, to the kingdom. History confirms the truth of this 
 announcement, although we have no record of any other wars 
 which broke out under Asa. Ver. 10. This sharp speech so 
 angered the king, that he caused the seer to be set in the stock- 
 house. nasriEn iva, properly, house of stocks, nasno, twisting, 
 is an instrument of torture, a stock, by which the body was 
 forced into an unnatural twisted position, the victim perhaps 
 being bent double, with the hands and feet fastened together : 
 cf. Jer. xx. 2, xxix. 26 ; and Acts xvi. 24, e/3a\ei/ et? rrjv <f>v\a- 
 Krjv teal Tov? 7ro8a9 }cnaXi<raTO av-rwv et? TO %v\ov. " For in 
 wrath against him (sell. k he did it) because of this thing, and 
 Asa crushed some of the people at this time." Clearly Hanani's 
 speech, and still more Asa's harsh treatment of the seer, caused 
 great discontent among the people, at least in the upper classes, 
 so that the king felt himself compelled to use force against them. 
 r*}, to break or crush, is frequently used along with P^V (Deut. 
 xxviii. 33 ; 1 Sam. xii. 3, etc.), and signifies to suppress with 
 violence. Asa had indeed well deserved the censure, Thou hast 
 dealt foolishly. His folly consisted in this, that in order to get 
 help against Baasha's attack, he had had recourse to a means 
 which must become dangerous to him and to his kingdom ; for 
 
 2A
 
 370 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 it was not difficult to foresee that the Syrian king Benhadad 
 would turn the superiority to Israel which he had gained against 
 Judah itself. But in order to estimate rightly Asa's conduct, 
 we must consider that it was perhaps an easier thing, in human 
 estimation, to conquer the innumerable multitudes of the Ethio- 
 pian hordes than the united forces of the kings of Israel and 
 Syria ; and that, notwithstanding the victory over the Ethiopians, 
 yet Asa's army may have been very considerably weakened by 
 that war. But these circumstances are not sufficient to justify 
 Asa. Since he had so manifestly had the help of the Lord in 
 the war against the Cushites, it was at bottom mainly weakness 
 of faith, or want of full trust in the omnipotence of the Lord, 
 which caused him to seek the help of the enemy of God's people, 
 the king of Syria, instead of that of the Almighty God, and to 
 make flesh his arm ; and for this he was justly censured by the 
 prophet. 
 
 Vers. 11-14. The end of Asa's reign; cf. 1 Kings xv. 23, 24. 
 On ver. 11, cf. the Introduction. Ver. 12. In the thirty-ninth 
 vear of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet, and that in a 
 
 L L L 
 
 high degree. The words V?n npyop-iy are a circumstantial clause : 
 to a high degree was his sickness. " And also in his sickness (as 
 in the war against Baasha) he sought not Jahve, but turned to 
 the physicians." &?[ is primarily construed with the accus., as 
 usually in connection with nin* or DTibs, to seek God, to come 
 before Him with prayer and supplication ; then with 3, as usually 
 of an oracle, or seeking help of idols (cf. 1 Sam. xxviii. 7 ; 2 
 Kings i. 2 ff. ; 1 Chron. x. 14), and so here of superstitious trust 
 in the physicians. Consequently it is not the mere inquiring 
 of the physicians which is here censured, but only the godless 
 manner in which Asa trusted in the physicians. Ver. 14. The 
 Chronicle gives a more exact account of Asa's burial than 
 1 Kings xv. 24. He was buried in the city of David ; not in the 
 general tomb of the kings, however, but in a tomb which he had 
 caused to be prepared for himself in that place. And they laid 
 him upon the bed, which had been filled with spices (D^CE^a, see 
 Ex. xxx. 23), and those of various kinds, mixed for an anointing 
 mixture, prepared. D^T from ft, kind, species; Q^n, et varia 
 quidem. njanp in Piel only here, properly spiced, from nj3"j, to 
 spice, usually to compound an unguent of various spices. nDi?" 1 .*?, 
 the compounding of ointment ; so also 1 Chron. ix. 30, where it 
 is usually translated by unguent. n^H?, work, manufacture, is a
 
 CHAP, xvir.-xx. 371 
 
 shortened terminus teclmicus for npn nrj? } manufacture of the 
 ointmcnt-compounder (cf. Ex. xxx. 25, 35), and the conjecture 
 that Dipn has been dropped out of the text by mistake is unneces- 
 sary. " And they kindled for him a great, very great burning," 
 cf. xxi. 19 and Jer. xxxiv. 5, whence we gather that the kindling 
 of a burning, i.e. the burning of odorous spices, was customary 
 at the burials of kings. Here it is only remarked that at Asa's 
 funeral an extraordinary quantity of spices was burnt. A burn- 
 ing of the corpse, or of the bed or clothes of the dead, is not to 
 be thought of here : the Israelites were in the habit of burying 
 their dead, not of burning them. That occurred only in extra- 
 ordinary circumstances, as, for example, in the case of the bodies 
 of Saul and his sons ; see on 1 Sam. xxxi. 12. The kindling and 
 burning of spices at the solemn funerals of persons of princely 
 rank, on the other hand, occurred also among other nations, e.g. 
 among the Romans ; cf. Plinii last. nat. xii. 18, and M. Geier, 
 de luctu Heir. c. 6. 
 
 CHAP, xvu.-xx. JEHOSHAPHAT'S KEIGN. 
 
 Jehoshaphat laboured to strengthen the kingdom both within 
 and without. Not only did he place soldiers in the fenced cities, 
 and removed the high places and the Astartes, but sought also to 
 diffuse the knowledge of the law among the people, and by 
 building castles and the possession of a well-equipped army, 
 firmly to establish his power (chap. xvii.). In the course of 
 years he married into the family of Ahab king of Israel, and, 
 while on a visit in Samaria, allowed himself to be persuaded by 
 Ahab to enter upon a joint war against the Syrians at Eamoth 
 in Gilead, in which he all but lost his life, while King Ahab was 
 mortally wounded in the battle (chap, xviii.). Censured on his 
 return to Jerusalem by the prophet Jehu for this alliance with 
 the godless Ahab, he sought still more earnestly to lead back his 
 people to Jahve, the God of their fathers, bestirring himself to 
 bring the administration of justice into a form in accordance 
 with the law of God, and establishing a supreme tribunal in 
 Jerusalem (chap. xix.). Thereafter, when the Moabites and 
 Ammonites, with the Edomites and other desert tribes, made an 
 inroad into Judah, the Lord gave him a wonderful victory over 
 these enemies. At a later time he yet again allied himself with 
 the Israelitish king Ahaziah for the restoration of the commerce
 
 372 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 with Ophir ; but the ships built for this purpose were broken in 
 the harbour, so that the voyage was abandoned (chap. xx.). Of 
 all these enterprises of Jehoshaphat, none are mentioned in the 
 book of Kings except the campaign entered upon with Ahab 
 against Ramoth in Gilead, which is found in the history of Ahab, 
 1 Kings xxii. 2-35. Jehoshaphat's reign itself is only charac- 
 terized generally, but in such a way as to agree with the account 
 in the Chronicle ; and, in conclusion, the alliance with Ahaz for 
 the purpose of making the voyage to Ophir is shortly narrated 
 in 1 Kings xxii. 41-57, but in a form which differs considerably 
 from that in which it is communicated in the Chronicle. 
 
 Chap. xvii. Jehoshaphat's efforts to strengthen the kingdom, 
 internally and externally. Ver. 1, or rather the first half of this 
 verse, belongs properly to the preceding chapter, since, when the 
 son immediately follows the father on the throne, the successor 
 is mentioned immediately : cf. ix. 31, xii. 16, xxiv. 27, xxvii. 9, 
 etc. Here, however, the account of the accession to the throne is 
 combined with a general remark on the reign of the successor, and 
 therefore it is placed at the commencement of the account of the 
 reign ; while in the case of Asa (chap. xiii. 23) both come in imme- 
 diately at the conclusion of the reign of his predecessor. Asa had 
 shown himself weak against Israel, as he had sought help against 
 Baasha's attack from the Syrians (xvi. 1 ff.), but it was otherwise 
 with Jehoshaphat. He indeed put the fenced cities of his kingdom 
 in a thoroughly good condition for defence, to protect his king- 
 dom against hostile attacks from without (ver. 2) ; but he walked 
 at the same time in the ways of the Lord, so that the Lord made 
 his kingdom strong and mighty (vers. 3-5). This general cha- 
 racterization of his reign is in ver. 6 illustrated by facts : first 
 by the communication of what Jehoshaphat did for the inner 
 spiritual strengthening of the kingdom, by raising the standard of 
 religion and morals among the people (vers. 611), and then by 
 what he did for the external increase of his power (vers. 12-19). 
 
 Vers. 2-5. He placed forces (??n) in all the fenced cities of 
 Judah, and garrisons (^V?, military posts; cf. 1 Chron. xi. 16) 
 in the land of Judah, and in the cities of Ephraim, which his 
 father Asa had taken ; cf..xv. 8. God blessed these undertakings. 
 Jahve was with him, because he walked in the ways of David 
 his ancestor, the former ways, and sought not the Baals. The 
 former ways of David are his ways in the earlier years of his 
 reign, in .contrast to the later years, in which his adultery with
 
 CHAP. XVII. C-9. 373 
 
 Batlisheba (2 Sam. xi. ff.) and the sin of numbering the 
 people (1 Chron. xxi.) fall. DyV?'? are a ^ ^ se gds, in contrast 
 to Jahve, the one God of Israel ; and here the word designates 
 not only the Baal- worship properly so called, but also the worship 
 of Jahve by means of images, by which Jahve is brought 
 down to the level of the Baals ; cf. Judg. ii. 11. The ? before 
 DyJJ3 stands, according to the later usage, as a sign of the accu- 
 sative. In the last clause of ver. 4, " and not after the doings 
 
 ' 
 
 of Israel" (of the ten tribes), 1|9n, "he walked," is to be repeated. 
 The doing of Israel is the worship of Jahve through the images 
 of the golden calves, which the author of the Chronicle includes 
 in the Oyl?3p W~n. Ver. 5. Therefore Jahve established the 
 kingdom in his hand, i.e. under his rule ; cf. 2 Kings xiv. 5. 
 All Judah brought him presents. nn?*?, often used of tribute of 
 subject peoples, e.g. in ver. 11 of the Philistines, cannot here 
 have that signification ; nor can it denote the regular imposts of 
 subjects, for these are not called nmp ; but must denote volun- 
 tary gifts which his subjects brought him as a token of their 
 reverence and love. The last clause, "and there was to him (he 
 attained) riches and honour in abundance," which is repeated 
 xviii. 1, recalls 1 Chron. xxix. 28, 2 Chron. i. 12, and signifies 
 that Jehoshaphat, like his ancestors David and Solomon, was 
 blessed for walking in the pious ways of these his forefathers. 
 
 Vers. 6-9. This blessing encouraged Jehoshaphat to extirpate 
 from the land all idolatrous worship, and to teach the people the 
 law of the Lord. 3? ^33, usually sensu malo, to be haughty, 
 proud, cf. e.g. xxvi. 16, xxxii. 25 ; here sensu bono } of rising 
 courage to advance in ways pleasing to God : and he removed the 
 high places also, etc. Ity points back to ver. 3 : not only did he him- 
 self keep far from the Baals, but he removed, besides, all memorials 
 of the Baal-worship from Judah. On riioa and D^K, see on 
 xiv. 2. Ver. 7 ff. In the third year of his reign he sent five 
 princes, i.e. laymen of high position, with nine Levites and two 
 priests, into the cities of Judah, with the book of the law, to teach 
 the law everywhere to the people. ^n~)3 is nom. prop., like 
 TDn~|3, 1 Kings iv. 10, ">^"!?., 1 Kings iv. 9, and is not to be 
 translated as an adjective, as in LXX. and Syr., partly on 
 account of the f> praf., and still more on account of the singular, 
 for the plural ^n 133 must be used when it is in apposition to 
 TJiff' Nothing further is known of the men named ; the designa- 
 tion of them as D" 1 "!^ suggests the idea that they were heads of
 
 374- THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 families or fathers'-houses. n>:i"JK 31 B, too (ver. 8), is one name. 
 The u book of the law of Jahve " is the Pentateuch, not merely 
 a collection of Mosaic laws, since in Jehoshaphat's time the 
 Mosaic book of the law (the Pentateuch) had been long in exist- 
 ence, rnin* "nya 33D signifies to go through the cities of Judah 
 in different directions ; DJ^ "IS?, to teach among the people (not 
 the people). The mission of these men is called by the older 
 theologians a solemn ecclesiarum visitatio, quam JosapJiat lauda- 
 bili exemplo per universum regnum suum institute, and they differ in 
 opinion only as to the part played by the princes in it. Vitringa, 
 de synagoga vet. p. 389, in agreement with Rashi, thinks that 
 only the Levites an'd priests were deputed ut docerent ; the 
 princes, ut auctoritate imperioque suo populum erudiendum in 
 officio continerent eumque de seria regis voluntate certiorem face- 
 rent ; while others, e.g. Buddseus, refer to ver. 9, ubi principes 
 pariter ac Levitce populum docuisse dicuntur, or believe with 
 Grotius, docere et explicare legem non tantum sacerdotum erat et 
 Levitarunij sed omnium eruditorum. Both views contain elements 
 of truth, and do not mutually exclude each other, but may be 
 harmonized. We can hardly confine 1>? to religious teaching. 
 The Mosaic law contains a number of merely civil precepts, as 
 to which laymen learned in the law might impart instruction ; 
 and consequently the teaching probably consisted not merely in 
 making the people acquainted with the contents of the law, but 
 at the same time of direction and guidance in keeping the law, 
 and generally in restoring and confirming the authority of the 
 law among the people. In connection with this there were many 
 abuses and illegalities which had to be broken down and removed ; 
 so that in this respect the task of the commission sent round the 
 country by Jehoshaphat may be compared to a church inspection, 
 if only we understand thereby not an inspection of churches in 
 the Christian sense of the words, but an inspection of the reli- 
 gious and moral life of the communities of Israel under the old 
 covenant. 
 
 Vers. 10 and 11. This attempt of Jehoshaphat brought him this 
 blessing, that the terror of Jahve fell upon all the surrounding 
 kingdoms ; and not only did none of the neighbouring peoples 
 venture to make war upon him, but also various tribes did 
 homage to him by presents. Ramb. has already so understood 
 the connection of these verses (erat hoc prcvmium pictatis Josa- 
 quod vicini satisque potentes Jiostes non anderent adcersus
 
 CHAP. XVII. 12-19. 375 
 
 ipsum Jiiscere) ; while Berth, fails to apprehend it, saying that 
 Jehoshaphat had time to care for the instruction of his people, 
 because at that time the neighbouring peoples did not venture to 
 undertake war against Judah. The words " terror of Jahve," 
 cf. xiv. 13, xx. 29, and " all the kingdoms of the lands," cf. xii. 
 8, 1 Chron. xxix. 30, are expressions peculiar to the author of the 
 Chronicle, which show that by these remarks he is preparing the 
 way for a transition to a more detailed portrayal of Jehoshaphat's 
 political power. DWPETjO is subject, JO partitive : some of the 
 Philistines brought him presents (for nnJD see on ver. 5), " and 
 silver a burden," i.e. in great quantity. Kfro does not signify tri- 
 bute, vectigal argento (Vulg.), for the word has not that significa- 
 tion, but denotes burden, that which can be carried, as in N&O PN?, 
 xx. 25. DWrjJJ or Q^ny, xxvi. 7, and more usually D'?1?, xxi. 
 16, xxii. 1, are Arabian nomadic tribes (Bedawin), perhaps those 
 whom Asa, after his victory over the Cushite Zerah, had brought 
 under the kingdom of Judah, xiv. 14. These paid their tribute 
 in small cattle, rams, and he-goats. (E^ 1 ! 1 , Gen. xxx. 35, xxxii. 
 15, Prov. xxx. 31.) 
 
 Vers. 12-19. Description of JehoshapJiai's power. Ver. 12. 
 And Jehoshaphat became ever greater, sc. in power. The partic. 
 :]bin expresses the continuous advance in greatness, cf. Ew. 280, 
 by as the in/in, absol. does elsewhere, e.g. Gen. viii. 3. ""WE? "W 
 as in xvi. 12. He built castles in Judah. n}y % Y l 3 ) - only here and 
 in xxvii. 4, from JV3T3, derivative formed from HT3 by the Syriac 
 termination ^~ ,fem. of J : castle, fortress. On ni:3D ny cf. viii. 
 4. Ver. 13. 'W nfi FDIOOI is rightly translated by Luther, " und 
 hatte viel Vorraths" (and had much store). n3&6 denotes here, 
 as in Ex. xxii. 710, property, that which has been gained by 
 work or business. The signification, much work, opera magna 
 (Vulg., Cler., etc.), as also Bertheau's translation, " the works for 
 equipping and provisioning the fortresses," correspond neither to 
 the context nor to the parallel (synonymous) second member of 
 the verse. The work and trouble necessary to equip the cities of 
 Judah does not correspond to " the valiant warriors in Jerusalem ;" 
 the only parallel is the goods and property which were in these 
 cities, the provision of victuals and war material there stored up. 
 Vers. 14-19. The men fit for war passed in review according 
 to their fathers'-houses. The male population of Judah fell into 
 three divisions, that of Benjamin into two. The prince Adnah 
 held the first place among the generals, with 300,000 men of
 
 376 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Judah. VV ?y, at his hand, i.e. with and under him, Jehohanan 
 had the command of 280,000 men, and Amasiah over 200,000. 
 "ifrn is a contraction for D'wS 1B>. For what special reason it is 
 so honourably recorded of Amasiah that he had willingly offered 
 himself to the Lord (cf. for ^^n, Judg. v. 9) has not been com- 
 municated. Ver. 17 f. The Benjamites fell into two detach- 
 ments: archers with shields (cf. 1 Chron. viii. 40) 200,000 men, 
 under the chief command of Eliada, and " equipped of the 
 army," i.e. not heavy armed (Berth.), but provided with the 
 usual weapons, sword, spear, and shield (cf. 1 Chron. xii. 24), 
 180,000 under the command of Jehozabad. According to this 
 statement, Judah had 780,000 warriors capable of bearing arms. 
 These numbers are clearly too large, and bear no proportion to 
 the result of the numbering of the people capable of bearing arms 
 under David, when there were in Judah only 500,000 or 470,000 
 men (cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 5 with 2 Sam. xxiv. 5) ; yet the sums of 
 the single divisions appear duly proportioned, a fact which renders 
 it more difficult to believe that these exaggerated numbers are 
 the result of orthographical errors. Ver. 19. These were serving 
 the king. n?N refers not to the above-mentioned men capable of 
 bearing arms, for rnt? is not used of service in war, but to the 
 commanders whom he had placed in the fortified cities of all 
 Judah, " in which probably bodies of the above-mentioned troops 
 lay as garrisons" (Berth.). 
 
 Chap, xviii. Jehoshaphat's marriage alliance with Ahab, and 
 Ms campaign with Ahab against the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead. 
 Ver. 1. Jehoshaphat came into connection by marriage with 
 Ahab through his son Joram taking Athaliah, a daughter of 
 Ahab, to wife (xxi. 6) ; an event which did not take place on 
 the visit made by Jehoshaphat to Ahab in his palace at Samaria, 
 and recorded in ver. 2, but which had preceded that by about 
 nine years. That visit falls in the beginning of the year in 
 which Ahab was mortally wounded at Ramoth, and died, i.e. the 
 seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign. But at that time 
 Ahaziah, the son of Joram and Athaliah, was already from eight 
 to nine years old, since thirteen years later he became king at 
 the age of twenty-two ; 2 Kings viii. 26, cf. with the chronol. 
 table to 1 Kings xii. The marriage connection is mentioned in 
 order to account for Jehoshaphat's visit to Samaria (ver. 2), and 
 his alliance with Ahab in the war against the Syrians ; but it is 
 also introduced by a reference to Jehoshaphat's riches and his
 
 CHAP. XVIIL 2-34 377 
 
 royal splendour, repeated from chap. xvii. 5. In the opinion of 
 many commentators, this is stated to account for Ahab's willing- 
 ness to connect his family by marriage with that of Jehoshaphat. 
 This opinion might be tenable were it Ahab's entering upon a 
 marriage connection with Jehoshaphat which is spoken of ; but for 
 Jehoshaphat, of whom it is related that he entered into a mar- 
 riage connection with Ahab, his own great wealth could not be a 
 motive for his action in that matter. If we consider, first, that 
 this marriage connection was very hurtful to the kingdom of 
 Judah and the royal house of David, since Athaliah not only 
 introduced the Phoenician idolatry into the kingdom, but also at 
 the death of Ahaziah extirpated all the royal seed of the house 
 of David, only the infant Joash of all the royal children being 
 saved by the princess, a sister of Ahaziah, who was married to the 
 high priest Jehoiada (xxii. 10-12) ; and, second, that Jehosha- 
 phat was sharply censured by the prophet for his alliance with 
 the criminal Ahab (xix. 2 ff.), and had, moreover, all but for- 
 feited his life in the war (xviii. 34 f.), we see that the author of 
 the Chronicle can only have regarded the marriage connection 
 between Jehoshaphat and Ahab as a mistake. By introducing 
 this account of it by a second reference to Jehoshaphat's riches 
 and power, he must therefore have intended to hint that Jehosha- 
 phat had no need to enter into this relationship with the idolatrous 
 house of Ahab, but had acted very inconsiderately in doing so. 
 Schmidt has correctly stated the contents of the verse thus : 
 Josaphatus cetera dives et gloriosus infelicem adfinitatem cum 
 Achabo, rege Israelis, contrahit. With which side the proposals 
 for thus connecting the two royal houses originated we are not 
 anywhere informed. Even if the conjecture of Ramb., that Ahab 
 proposed it to Jehoshaphat, be not well founded, yet so much 
 is beyond doubt, namely, that Ahab not only desired the alliance, 
 but also promoted it by every means in his power, since it must 
 have been of great importance to him to gain in Jehoshaphat a 
 strong ally against the hostile pressure of the Syrians. Jehosha- 
 phat' probably entered upon the alliance bono animo et spefirmandce 
 inter duo regna pacts (Ramb.), without much thought of the 
 dangers which a connection of this sort with the idolatrous 
 Ahab and with Jezebel might bring upon his kingdom. 
 
 Vers. 2-34. The campaign undertaken along with Ahab against 
 the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead, with its origin, course, and 
 results for Ahab, is narrated in 1 Kings xxii. (in the history of
 
 378 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Ahab) in agreement with our narrative, only the introduction to 
 the war being different here. In 1 Kings xxii. 1-3 it is re- 
 marked, in connection with the preceding wars of Ahab with the 
 Syrians, that after there had been no war for three years between 
 Aram and Israel, in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah 
 came up to the king of Israel ; and the latter, when he and his 
 servants had determined to snatch away from the Syrians the 
 city Ramoth in Gilead, which belonged to Israel, called upon 
 Jehoshaphat to march with him to the war against Ramoth. In 
 the Chronicle the more exact statement, "in the third year," 
 which is intelligible only in connection with the earlier history of 
 Ahab, is exchanged for the indefinite D" 1 ^ \?2) *' at the end of 
 years ;" and mention is made of the festal entertainment which 
 Ahab bestowed upon his guest and his train (iBJJ "ifc'K D V?)> * 
 show the pains which Ahab took to induce King Jehoshaphat to 
 take part in the proposed campaign. He killed sheep and oxen 
 for him in abundance, ^n^D^, and enticed, seduced him to go up 
 with him to Ramoth. rVDn ? to incite, entice to anything (Judg. 
 i. 14), frequently to evil ; cf . Deut. xiii. 7, etc. n?^ to advance 
 upon a land or a city in a warlike sense. The account which 
 follows of the preparations for the campaign by inquiring of 
 prophets, and of the war itself, vers. 434, is in almost verbal 
 agreement with 1 Kings xxii. 5-35. Referring to 1 Kings xxii. 
 for the commentary on the substance of the narrative, we will 
 here only group together briefly the divergences. Instead of 
 400 men who were prophets, ver. 5, in 1 Kings xxii. 6 we have 
 about 400 men. It is a statement in round numbers, founded 
 not upon exact enumeration, but upon an approximate estimate. 
 Instead of t^nx as ... Tpjn, ver. 5, in Kings, ver. 6, we have 
 TiriK DK . . . ^]?Nn, both verbs being in the same number ; and 
 so too in ver. 14, where in Kings, ver. 15, both verbs stand in the 
 plural, notwithstanding that the answer which follows, rpxrn rpy, 
 is addressed to Ahab alone, not to both the kings, while in the 
 Chronicle the answer is given in the plural to both the kings, 
 ' n r^ ? ^ n ver< ^ a i " ^ e prophesies me nothing good, but all 
 his days (i.e. so long as he has been a prophet) evil," the meaning 
 is intensified by the ^~?3, which is not found in 1 Kings ver. 8. 
 In ver. 9, the D^BI^ which is introduced before the pi?, " and 
 sitting upon the threshing-floor," is due to difference of style, 
 for it is quite superfluous for the signification. In ver. 14, the 
 ambiguous words of Micah, " and Jahve will give into the hand of
 
 CHAP. XIX. 1-3. 379 
 
 the king" (Kings, ver. 15), are given in a more definite form: "and 
 they (the enemy) shall be given into your hand." In ver. 19, in 
 the first n33 nofc nr, the iK after the preceding lOtfM is not only 
 superfluous, but improper, and has probably come into the text 
 by a copyist's error. We should therefore read only nb3 nt, 
 corresponding to the H33 iiT of Kings, ver. 20 : " Then spake one 
 after this manner, and the other spake after another manner." 
 In ver. 23, the indefinite npN of Kings, ver. 24, is elucidated by 
 TH? n ! '$, "is that the manner" (cf. 1 Kings xiii. 12 ; 2 Kings 
 iii. 8), and the verb. ~i?y follows without the relative pronoun, as 
 in the passages cited. In ver. 30, only 33~in "n^ of the king are 
 mentioned, without any statement of the number, which is given 
 in Kings, ver. 31, with a backward reference to the former war 
 (1 Kings xx. 24). In ver. 31, after the words, " and Jehoshaphat 
 cried out," the higher cause of Jehoshaphat's rescue is pointed 
 out in the words, " and Jahve helped him, and God drove them 
 from him," which are not found in Kings, ver. 32 ; but by this 
 religious reflection the actual course of the event is in no way 
 altered. Bertheau's remark, therefore, that " the words disturb 
 the clear connection of the events," is quite unwarrantable. 
 Finally, in ver. 34, TOJPD n^n, he was holding his position, i.e. he 
 held himself standing upright, the Hiph. is more expressive than 
 the Hoph. 1BJJO (Kings, ver. 35), since it expresses more definitely 
 the fact that he held himself upright by his own strength. With 
 Ahab's death, which took place in the evening at the time of the 
 going down of the sun, the author of the Chronicle concludes his 
 account of this war, and proceeds in chap. xix. to narrate the 
 further course of Jehoshaphat's reign. In 1 Kings xxii. 36-39, 
 the return of the defeated army, and the details as to Ahab's 
 death and burial, are recorded ; but these did not fit into the plan 
 of the Chronicle. 
 
 Chap. xix. The prophet Jehu's declaration as to Jehoshaphafs 
 alliance with Ahab, and Jehoshaphat's further efforts to promote 
 the fear of God and the administration of justice in Judah. 
 Vers. 1-3. Jehu's declaration. Jehoshaphat returned from the 
 war in which Ahab had lost his life, OW3, i.e. safe, unin- 
 jured, to his house in Jerusalem ; so that the promise of Micah 
 in xviii. IQb was fulfilled also as regards him. But on his 
 return, the seer Jehu, the son of Hanani, who had been thrown 
 into the stocks by Asa (xvi. 7 ff.), met him with the reproving 
 word, " Should one help the wicked, and lovest thou the haters
 
 380 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of Jahve !" (the inf. with ?, as in 1 Chron. v. 1, ix. 25, etc.). 
 Of these sins Jehoshaphat had been guilty. " And therefore is 
 anger from Jahve upon thee" (?V *$\> as in 1 Chron. xxvii. 24). 
 Jehoshaphat had already had experience of this wrath, when in 
 the battle of Ramoth the enemy pressed upon him (xviii. 31), 
 and was at a later time to have still further experience of it, 
 partly during his own life, when the enemy invaded his land 
 (chap, xx.), and when he attempted to re-establish the sea trade 
 with Ophir (xx. 35 ff.), partly after his death in his family (chap, 
 xxi. and xxii.). le But," continues Jehu, to console him, l{ yet 
 there are good things found in thee (cf. xii. 12), for thou hast 
 destroyed the Asheroth . . ." rtnPK = DnBte :J xvii. 6. On these 
 last words, comp. xii. 14 and xvii. 4. 
 
 Vers. 4-11. Jehoshaphat 's further arrangements for the re- 
 vival of the Jahve-worship, and the establishment of a proper 
 administration of justice. The first two clauses in ver. 4 are 
 logically connected thus : When Jehoshaphat (after his return 
 from the war) sat (dwelt) in Jerusalem, he again went forth 
 (N s l a^j are to be taken together) among the people, from 
 Beersheba, the southern frontier (see 1 Chron. xxi. 2), to Mount 
 Ephraim, the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah, and 
 brought them back to Jahve, the God of the fathers. The 
 "again" (^) can refer only to the former provision for the in- 
 struction of the people, recorded in chap. xvii. 7 ff. ; all that was 
 effected by the commission which Jehoshaphat had sent through- 
 out the land being regarded as his work. The instruction of 
 the people in the law was intended to lead them back to the 
 Lord. Jehoshaphat now again took up his work of reformation, 
 in order to complete the work he had begun, by ordering and 
 improving the administration of justice. Ver. 5 ff. He set 
 judges in the land, in all the fenced cities of Judah ; they, as 
 larger cities, being centres of communication for their respective 
 neighbourhoods, and so best suited to be the seats of judges. 
 Vjn TP, in reference to every city, as the law (Deut. xvi. 18) 
 prescribed. He laid it upon the consciences of these judges to 
 administer justice conscientiously. "Not for men are ye to 
 judge, but for Jahve;" i.e. not on the appointment and according 
 to the will of men, but in the name and according to the will of 
 the Lord (cf. Prov. xvi. 11). In the last clause of ver. 6, Jahve 
 is to be supplied from the preceding context : " and Jahve is with 
 you in judgment," i.e. in giving your decisions (cf. the conclusion
 
 CHAP. XIX. 4-11. 381 
 
 of ver. 11); whence this clause, of course, only serves to strengthen 
 the foregoing, only contains the thoughts already expressed in 
 the law, that judgment belongs to God (cf. Deut. i. 17 with 
 Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 7 f.). Therefore the fear of the Lord should 
 keep the judges from unrighteousness, so that they should 
 neither allow themselves to be influenced by respect of persons, 
 nor to be bribed by gifts, against which Deut. xvi. 19 and i. 17 
 also warns, ^in Fiot?* is rightly paraphrased by the Vulgate, 
 cum diligentia cuncta facite. The clause, " With God there is 
 no respect of persons," etc., recalls Deut. x. 17. Vers. 8-11. 
 Besides this, Jehoshaphat established at Jerusalem a supreme 
 tribunal for the decision of difficult cases, which the judges of 
 the individual cities could not decide. Ver. 8. "Moreover, in 
 Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set certain of the Levites, and of the 
 priests, and of the chiefs of the fathers'-houses of Israel, for the 
 judgment of the Lord, and for controversies (I 11 ")?)." From this 
 clause Berth, correctly draws the conclusion, that as in Jerusalem, 
 so also in the fenced cities (ver. 5), it was Levites, priests, and 
 heads of the fathers'-houses who were made judges. This con- 
 clusion is not inconsistent with the fact that David appointed 
 6000 of the Levites to be shoterim and judges ; for it does not 
 follow from that that none but Levites were appointed judges, 
 but only that the Levites were to perform an essential part in 
 the administration of the law. The foundation of the judicial 
 body in Israel was the appointment of judges chosen from the 
 elders of the people (Ex. xviii. 21 ff. ; Deut. i. 15 ff.) by 
 Moses, at Jethro's instigation, and under the divine sanction. 
 David had no intention, by his appointment of some thousands 
 of Levites to be officials (writers) and judges, to set aside the 
 Mosaic arrangement; on the contrary, he thereby gave it the 
 expansion which the advanced development of the kingdom re- 
 quired. For the simple relationships of the Mosaic time, the 
 appointment of elders to be judges might have been sufficient ; 
 but when in the course of time, especially after the introduction 
 of the kingship, the social and political relations became more 
 complicated, it is probable that the need of appointing men with 
 special skill in law, to co-operate with the judges chosen from 
 among the elders, in order that justice might be administered in 
 a right way, and in a manner corresponding to the law, made 
 itself increasingly felt ; that consequently David had felt himself 
 called upon to appoint a greater number of Levites to this office,
 
 382 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 and that from that time forward the courts in the larger cities 
 were composed of Levites and elders. The supreme court which 
 Jehoshaphat set up in Jerusalem was established on a similar 
 basis. For niiT BBEW we have in ver. 11 mrvnyi ?bb, i.e. for all 
 
 matters connected with religion and the worship ; and instead of 
 
 , t.t . 
 
 y*~O we have *=])?>? ^^\ 'bp, for every matter of the king, i.e. for 
 
 all civil causes. The last clause, ver. 8, B^T ^Kl, cannot 
 signify that the men called to this supreme tribunal went to 
 Jerusalem to dwell there thenceforth (Ramb., etc.), or that the 
 suitors went thither ; for 2xw does not denote to betake oneself 
 to a place, but to return, which cannot be said of the persons 
 above named, since it is not said that they had left Jerusalem. 
 With Kimchi and others, we must refer the words to the previous 
 statement in ver. 4, '131 DJD N^l, and understand them as a sup- 
 plementary statement, that Jehoshaphat and those who had gone 
 forth with him among the people returned to Jerusalem, which 
 would have come in more fittingly at the close of ver. 7, and is 
 to be rendered : " when they had returned to Jerusalem." The 
 bringing in of this remark at so late a stage of the narrative, 
 only after the establishment of the supreme tribunal has been 
 mentioned, is explained by supposing that the historian was in- 
 duced by the essential connection between the institution of the 
 supreme court and the arrangement of the judicatories in the 
 provincial cities, to leave out of consideration the order of time 
 in describing the arrangements made by Jehoshaphat. Ver. 9 f. 
 To the members of the superior tribunal also, Jehoshaphat gave 
 orders to exercise their office in the fear of the Lord, with 
 fidelity and with upright heart (o?& ^l??, corde s. animo integro t 
 cf. xv. 17, xvi. 9). r^JJO fiSj thus shall ye do ; what they are to 
 do being stated only in ver. 10. The 1 before ^y?3 is explica- 
 tive, namely, and is omitted by the LXX. and Vulg. as super- 
 fluous. " Every cause which comes to you from your brethren 
 who dwell in their cities" (and bring causes before the superior 
 court in the following cases) : between blood and blood (P5 with 
 ? following, as in Gen. i. 6, etc.), i.e. in criminal cases of mur- 
 der and manslaughter, and between law and between command, 
 statutes, and judgments, i.e. in cases where the matter concerns 
 the interpretation and application of the law, and its individual 
 commands, statutes, and judgments, to particular crimes ; wher- 
 ever, in short, there is any doubt by what particular provision of 
 the law the case in hand should be decided. With ErnnTrn the
 
 CHAP. XIX. 4-11. 383 
 
 apodosis commences, but it is an anacoloutlion. Instead of 
 "ye shall give them instruction therein," we have, "ye shall 
 teach them (those who bring the cause before you), that they 
 incur not guilt, and an anger (i.e. God's anger and punishment) 
 come upon you and your brethren" (cf. ver. 2). "^fn, properly 
 to illuminate, metaphorically to teach, with the additional idea 
 of exhortation or warning. The word is taken from Ex. xviii. 
 20, and there is construed c. accus. pers. et rei. This construc- 
 tion is here also the underlying one, since the object which pre- 
 cedes in the absolute is to be taken as accus. : thus, and as regards 
 every cause, ye shall teach them concerning it. After the 
 enumeration of the matters falling within the jurisdiction of 
 this court, p^H nb is repeated, and this precept is then pressed 
 home upon the judges by the words, " that ye incur not guilt." 
 Thereafter (in ver. 11) Jehoshaphat nominates the spiritual and 
 civil presidents of this tribunal: for spiritual causes the high 
 priest Amariah, who is not the same as the Amariah mentioned 
 after Zadok as the fifth high priest (1 Chron. v. 37) (see p. 
 116 and 120) ; in civil causes Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the 
 prince of the house of Judah, i.e. tribal prince of Judah. These 
 shall be &?"?*! over you, i.e. presidents of the judges ; and D v il3fe>, 
 writers, shall the Levites be O?""?.??, before you, i.e. as your assist- 
 ants and servants. Jehoshaphat concludes the nomination of the 
 judicial staff with the encouraging words, " Be strong (cou- 
 rageous) and do," i.e. go to work with good heart, " and the Lord 
 be with the good," i.e. with him who discharges the duties of 
 his office well. 
 
 The establishment of this superior court was in form, indeed, 
 the commencement of a new institution ; but in reality it was 
 only the expansion or firmer organization of a court of final 
 appeal already provided by Moses, the duties of which had been 
 until then performed partly by the high priest, partly by the 
 existing civil heads of the people (the judges and kings). When 
 Moses, at Horeb, set judges over the people, he commanded 
 them to bring to him the matters which were too difficult for 
 them to decide, that he might settle them according to decisions 
 obtained of God (Ex. xviii. 26 and 19). At a later time he 
 ordained (Deut. xvii. 8 ff.) that for the future the judges in the 
 various districts and cities should bring the more difficult cases 
 to the Levitic priests and the judge at the place where the 
 central sanctuary was, and let them be decided by them. In
 
 384 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 thus arranging, lie presupposes that Israel would have at all 
 times not only a high priest who might ascertain the will of God 
 by means of the Urim and Thummim, but also a supreme 
 director of its civil affairs at the place of the central sanctuary, 
 who, in common with the priests, i.e. the high priest, would give 
 decisions in cases of final appeal (see the commentary on Deut. 
 xvii. 8-13). On the basis of these Mosaic arrangements, 
 Jehoshaphat set up a supreme court in Jerusalem, with the high 
 priest and a lay president at its head, for the decision of causes 
 which up till that time the king, either alone or with the co- 
 operation of the high priest, had decided. For further informa- 
 tion as to this supreme court, see in my bibl. Archdol. ii. S. 
 250 f. 
 
 Chap. xx. Jehoshaphat' s victory over the Moabites, Ammonites, 
 and other nations ; and the remaining items of information as to 
 his reign. Vers. 1-30. The victory over the hostile peoples who 
 invaded Judah. In the succeeding time, the Moabites and 
 Ammonites, in alliance with other tribes of Mount Seir, invaded 
 Judah with the purpose of driving the people of God out of their 
 country, and extirpating them (ver. 1). On being informed of 
 this invasion, Jehoshaphat sought help of the Lord, while he pro- 
 claimed a fast in the land, and in the temple before the assembled 
 people prayed God for His help (vers. 212) ; and received by the 
 mouth of the prophet Jahaziel the promise that God would fight 
 for Judah, and that king and people would next day behold the 
 help the Lord would give (vers. 13-18). And so it happened. 
 On the following day, when the Judasan army, with the Levitic 
 singers and players at their head, came into the wilderness Jeruel, 
 their enemies had by the dispensation of God mutually destroyed 
 each other (vers. 19-24), so that Jehoshaphat and his people found 
 the proposed battle-field full of corpses, and gathered spoil for 
 three days, and then on the fourth day, in the Valley of Blessing, 
 they praised the Lord for the wonderful deliverance ; thereafter 
 returning to Jerusalem with joy, again to thank the Lord in the 
 house of God for His help (vers. 25-30). 
 
 Ver. 1 f. By I?"" 1 ?.!"!*?, postea, the war which follows is made to 
 fall in the latter part of Jehoshaphat's reign, but certainly not in 
 the last year in which he reigned alone, two years before his death, 
 but only somewhat later than the events in chap, xviii. and xix., 
 which occurred six or seven years before his death. Along with 
 the Moabites and Ammonites there marched against Jehoshaphat
 
 CHAP. XX. 1, 2. 385 
 
 also ttttagftD. This statement is obscure. Since i has unques- 
 tionably a partitive or local signification, we might take the word 
 to signify, enemies who dwelt aside from the Ammonites (JO as in 
 1 Sam. xx. 22, 37), which might possibly be the designation of 
 tribes in the Syro-Arabic desert bordering upon the country of the 
 Ammonites on the north and east ; and b~WQ in ver. 2 would seem 
 to favour this idea. But vers. 10 and 22 f. are scarcely reconcil- 
 able with this interpretation, since there, besides or along with 
 the sons of Ammon and Moab, inhabitants of Mount Seir are 
 named as enemies who had invaded Judah. Now the Edomites 
 dwelt on Mount Seir ; but had the Edomites only been allies of 
 the Ammonites and Moabites, we should expect simply D'lX \J3 or 
 D'BftN, or I'JK? \m (cf. xxv. 11, 14). Nor can it be denied that 
 the interpretation which makes D^iBJJno to denote peoples dwell- 
 ing beyond the Ammonites is somewhat artificial and far-fetched. 
 Under these circumstances, the alteration proposed by Hiller in 
 Onomast. p. 285 commends itself, viz. the change of D^lJ?nD into 
 D^jnsnOj Maunites or Maonites, a tribe whose headquarters were 
 the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of the 
 Wady Musa ; see on 1 Chron. it. 41. Maan lay upon Mount 
 Seir, i.e. in the mountainous district to the west of the Arabah, 
 which stretches upwards from the head of the Dead Sea to 
 the Elanitic Gulf, now called Jebal (Gebalene) in its northern 
 part, and es-Sherah in the south. The Maunites were conse- 
 quently inhabitants of Mount Seir, and are here mentioned instead 
 of the Edomites, as being a people dwelling on the southern side 
 of the mountain, and probably of non-Edomitic origin, in order 
 to express the idea that not merely the Edomites took part in the 
 campaign of the Ammonites and Moabites, but also tribes from 
 all parts of Mount Seir. In chap. xxvi. 7 the D'OiJflQ are mentioned 
 along with Arabs and Philistines as enemies of Israel, who had 
 been conquered by Uzziah. These circumstances favour the pro- 
 posed alteration ; while, on the contrary, the fact that the LXX. 
 have here eV TWI> Mivalcov for D^itsynp proves little, since these 
 translators have rendered D^iisyn in xxvi. 8 also by ol Mivaioi, 
 there erroneously making the Ammonites Minaiites. Ver. 2. 
 Then they came and announced to Jehoshaphat, sc. messengers 
 or fugitives ; the subject is indefinite, and is to be supplied from 
 the context. " Against thee there cometh a great multitude from 
 beyond the (Dead) sea." &7-9 also has no suitable sense here, 
 since in the whole narrative nothing is said of enemies coming 
 
 2B
 
 386 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 out of Syria ; we should read th$ with Calmet and others. As 
 the enemy made their attack from the south end of the Dead 
 Sea, the messengers announce that they were come from. Edom. 
 " Behold, they are in Hazazon-Tamar," i.e. Engedi, the present 
 Ain Jidy, midway along the west coast of the Dead Sea (see 
 on Josh. xv. 62 and Gen. xiv. 7), about fifteen hours from 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Vers. 3-13. This report filled Jehoshaphat with fear, and he 
 resolved to seek help of the Lord. VJS \ty = '2 &^, cf. 2 Kings 
 xii. 18, Jer. xlii. 15, to direct the face to anything, i.e. to purpose 
 something, come to a determination. He proclaimed a fast in all 
 Judah, that the people might bow themselves before God, and 
 supplicate His help, as was wont to be done in great misfortunes ; 
 cf. Judg. xx. 26, 1 Sam. vii. 6, Isa. ii. 15. In consequence of the 
 royal appeal, Judah came together to seek of the Lord, i.e. to 
 pray for help, by fasting and prayer in the temple ; and it was not 
 only the inhabitants of Jerusalem who thus assembled, for they 
 came out of all the cities of the kingdom. rnrVD efea, to seek of 
 the Lord, sc. help, is expressed in the last clause by niiTmK ; j53, 
 to seek the Lord. Ver. 5. When the inhabitants of Judah and 
 Jerusalem had assembled themselves in the house of God, Jeho- 
 shaphat came forth before the new court and made supplication 
 in fervent prayer to the Lord. The new court is the outer or 
 great court of the temple, which Solomon had built (iv. 9). It 
 is here called the new court, probably because it had been restored 
 or extended under Jehoshaphat or Asa. This court was the 
 place where the congregation assembled before God in the sanc- 
 tuary. Jehoshaphat placed himself before it, i.e. at the entrance 
 into the court of the priests, so that the congregation stood oppo- 
 site to him. Ver. 6 ff. The prayer which Jehoshaphat directed 
 to Jahve the God of the fathers, as the almighty Ruler over all 
 kingdoms, consists of a short representation of the circumstances 
 of the case. Jahve had given the land to His people Israel for an 
 everlasting possession, and Israel had built a sanctuary to His 
 name therein (vers. 7 and 8) ; but they had in no way provoked 
 the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites to fall upon them, and 
 to drive them out of their land (vers. 10 and 11). On these two 
 facts Jehoshaphat founds his prayer for help, in a twofold 
 manner : in respect to the first, calling to mind the divine pro- 
 mise to hear the prayers offered up to God in the temple (ver. 9) ; 
 and in reference to the second, laying emphasis upon the inability
 
 CHAP. XX. 3-13. 387 
 
 of Israel to fight against so numerous an enemy (ver. 12). In 
 his manner of addressing Jahve, " God of our fathers," there is 
 contained a reason why God should protect His people in their 
 present distress. Upon Him, who had given the land to the 
 fathers for a possession, it was incumbent to maintain the children 
 in the enjoyment of it, if they had not forfeited it by their sins. 
 Now Jahve as a covenant God was bound to do this, and also 
 as God and ruler of heaven and earth He had the requisite power 
 and might ; cf. Ps. cxv. 3. 25^nnp "qay px, there is none with 
 Thee who could set himself, i.e. could withstand Thee : cf. the 
 similar phrase, xiv. 10 ; and for the thought, see 1 Chron. xxix. 
 12. On ver. 7a, cf. Josh, xxiii. 9, xxiv. 12, Ex. xxiii. 20 ff., etc. ; 
 on 7b, cf. Gen. xiii. 15 f ., xv. 18, etc. ; on ^nk, Isa. xli. 8. 
 Ver. 8. In this land they dwelt, and built Thee therein a sanc- 
 tuary for Thy name ; cf . vi. 5, 8. "Hbfc6, saying, i.e. at the consecra- 
 tion of this house, having expressed the confident hope contained 
 in the following words (ver. 9). In this verse, the cases enume- 
 rated in Solomon's dedicatory prayer, in which supplication is 
 made that God would hear in the temple, are briefly summed up. 
 By referring to that prayer, Jehoshaphat presupposes that Jahve 
 had promised that He would answer prayer offered there, since He 
 had filled the temple with His glory ; see vii. 1-3. The name t3iSK>, 
 which occurs only here, between ">?? and Tn ? denotes in this connec- 
 tion a punitive judgment. Ver. 10. >"!W, and now, the contrary of 
 this has occurred. Peoples into whose midst (Dni Ni> . . . -IB>K) 
 Thou didst not allow Israel to come, i.e. into whose land Thou 
 didst not allow Israel to enter when they came out of the land 
 of Egypt, for they (the Israelites under Moses) turned from them 
 and destroyed them not (cf . as to the fact, Num. xx. 14 ff. ; Deut. 
 ii. 4, ix. 19) ; behold, these peoples recompense us by coming to 
 cast us out of our possession which Thou hast given us (^"P n , 
 to give as a possession, as in Judg. xi. 24). There follows here- 
 upon in ver. 12 the prayer: " Our God, wilt Thou not judge," i.e. 
 do right upon them, for we have not strength before (to with- 
 stand) this multitude ? We know not what to do, sc. against so 
 many enemies ; but our eyes are turned to Thee, i.e. to Thee we 
 look for help ; cf. Ps. cxxiii. 2, cxli. 8. Ver. 13. Thus all Judah, 
 with their king, stood praying before the Lord. They had, more- 
 over, brought with them their little ones, their wives, and their 
 sons, to pray for deliverance for them from the enemy ; cf. 
 Judith iv. 9.
 
 388 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHROKICLES. 
 
 Vers. 14-19. The Lord's answer by the prophet Jahaziel. 
 Ver. 14. In the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord 
 came upon Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph, and promised 
 miraculous assistance to king and people. Jahaziel's descent is 
 traced back for five generations to the Levite Mattaniah of the 
 sons of Asaph. This Mattaniah is not the same person as the 
 Mattaniah in 1 Chron. xxv. 4, 16, who lived in David's time, for 
 he belonged to the sons of Heman ; but perhaps (as Movers con- 
 jectures, S. 112) he is identical with the Asaphite Nethaniah, 
 1 Chron. xxv. 2, 12, since O and 3 might easily be confounded. 
 Ver. 15. Jahaziel announced to the king and people that they 
 need not fear before the great multitude of their foes ; " for the 
 war is not yours, but Jahve's," i.e. you have not to make war 
 upon them, for the Lord will do it ; cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 47. Ver. 16. 
 " To-morrow go ye down against them : behold, they come up by 
 the height Hazziz ; and ye will find them at the end of the valley, 
 before the desert Jeruel." The wilderness Jeruel was, without 
 doubt, the name of a part of the great stretch of flat country, 
 bounded on the south by the Wady el Ghar, and extending from 
 the Dead Sea to the neighbourhood of Tekoa, which is now 
 called el Hasasah, after a wady on its northern side. The whole 
 country along the west side of the Dead Sea, " where it does not 
 consist of mountain ridges or deep valleys, is a high table-land, 
 sloping gradually towards the east, wholly waste, merely covered 
 here and there with a few bushes, and without the slightest trace 
 of having ever been cultivated" (Robinson's Pal. sub voce). The 
 name P 2 ?? n <?^j ascent or height of Hazziz, has perhaps remained 
 attached to the Wady el Hasasah. LXX. have rendered TV? 
 by Mcrcrefc; Josephus (Antt. ix. 1. 2) has am/Sao-eco? Xe70/zez^9 
 ef 0^775, in accordance with which Robinson (loc. cit.) takes the way 
 " upwards from Ziz " to be the pass which at present leads from 
 Ain Jidy to the table-land. Yet it is described by him as a 
 " fearful pass," * and it can hardly be thought of here, even if 
 the enemy, like the Bedouins now when on their forays, may be 
 
 1 He remarks : " The path winds up in zig-zags, often at the steepest 
 gradient which horses could ascend, and runs partly along projecting walls 
 of rock on the perpendicular face of the cliff, and then down the heaps of 
 debris, which are almost as steep. When one looks back at this part from 
 below, it seems quite impossible that there could be any pathway ; but by 
 skilful windings the path has been carried down without any unconquerable 
 difficulties, so that even loaded camels often go up and down."
 
 CHAP. XX. 20-CO. 389 
 
 supposed to have marched along the shore of the sea, and 
 ascended to the table-land only at Engedi ; for the Israelites did 
 not meet the enemy in this ascent, but above upon the table-land. 
 Josephus' translation of P 2 ?? by e^o^ is also very questionable, 
 for it is not necessary that the n should be the article (Ew. Gesch. 
 iii. S. 475, der 2 Aufl.). Ver. 17. Ye have not to fight therein 
 (TlN'T3) ; only come hither, stand and see the help of the Lord 
 (who is) with you. You need do nothing more, and therefore 
 need not fear. Ver. 18. For this comforting assurance the king 
 and people thanked the Lord, falling down in worship before Him, 
 whereupon the Levites stood up to praise God with a loud voice. 
 Levites " of the sons of Kohath, yea, of the Korahites," for they 
 were descended from Kohath (1 Chron. vi. 22). 
 
 Vers. 20-30. The fulfilment of the divine promise. Ver. 20. 
 On the next morning the assembled men of Judah marched, in 
 accordance with the words of the prophet, to the wilderness of 
 Tekoa. As they marched forth, Jehoshaphat stood, probably in 
 the gate of Jerusalem, where those about to march forth were 
 assembled, and called upon them to trust firmly in the Lord and 
 His prophets (^osn and ^SPi, as in Isa. vii. 9). After he had 
 thus counselled the people (7N PJJV, shown himself a counsellor ; 
 cf. 2 Kings vi. 8), he ordered them to march, not for battle, but 
 to assure themselves of the wonderful help of the Lord. He 
 placed singers of the Lord (*? before mrp as a periphrasis for 
 the genitive), singing praise in holy ornaments, in the marching 
 forth before the army, and saying; i.e. he commanded the 
 Levitic singers to march out before the army, singing and play- 
 ing in holy ornaments ('p~rrnnp ? clad in holy ornaments, = ^Tina 
 in 1 Chron. xvi. 29 ; cf. Ew. 217, a), to praise the Lord for the 
 help He had vouchsafed. Ver. 22. And at the time when they 
 (having come into the neighbourhood of the hostile camp) began 
 with singing and praising, Jahve directed liers in wait against 
 the sons of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who were come 
 against Judah, and they were smitten. 0^"}O denotes liers in 
 wait, men hidden in ambush and lying in wait (Judg. ix. 25). 
 Who are here meant cannot be ascertained with certainty. Some 
 of the older commentators, Ew. and Berth., think it refers to 
 powers, angels sent by God, who are called insidiatores, because 
 of the work they had to do in the army of the hostile peoples. 
 But the passages where the interposition of heavenly powers is 
 spoken of are different (cf. 2 Kings vi. 17, xix. 35), and it is not
 
 390 . THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 probable that heavenly powers would be called & <I 2"!XD. Most 
 probably earthly liers in wait are meant, who unexpectedly rushed 
 forth from their ambush upon the hostile army, and raised a 
 panic terror among them ; so that, as is narrated in ver. 23 f. 3 
 the Ammonites and Moabites first turned their weapons against 
 the inhabitants of Mount Seir, and after they had exterminated 
 them, began to exterminate each other. But the ambush cannot 
 have been composed of men of Judah, because they were, ac- 
 cording to vers. 15 and 17, not to fight, but only to behold the 
 deliverance wrought by the Lord. Probably it was liers in wait 
 of the Seirites, greedy of spoil, who from an ambush made an 
 attack upon the Ammonites and Moabites, and by the divine 
 leading put the attacked in such fear and confusion, that they 
 turned furiously upon the inhabitants of Mount Seir, who 
 marched with them, and then fell to fighting with each other ; 
 just as, in Judg. vii. 22 f., the Midianites were, under divine in- 
 fluence, so terrified by the unexpected attack of the small band 
 led by Gideon, that they turned their swords against and mutu- 
 ally destroyed each other, 't? V??^? Dni?32^ and when they had 
 come to an end (were finished) among the inhabitants of Seir, 
 when they had massacred these, they helped the one against the 
 other to destruction (JT'n^D is a substantive, as xxii. 4, Ezek. 
 v. 16, etc.). Ver. 24. Now, when Judah came to the height 
 in the wilderness (nsyo, specula, watch-tower, here a height in 
 the wilderness of Tekoa, whence one might look out over the 
 wilderness Jeruel, ver. 16), and turned, or was about to turn, 
 against the multitude of the enemy (jtonn referring back to ver. 
 12), behold, they saw "corpses lying upon the earth, and none 
 had escaped," i.e. they saw corpses in such multitude lying there, 
 that to all appearance none had escaped. Ver. 25. So Jehosha- 
 phat, with his people, came (as Jahaziel had announced, not to 
 fight, but only to make booty) and found among them ( D ^j 
 among or by the fallen) in abundance both wealth and corpses 
 and precious vessels. The mention of D* 1 "!^ as part of the booty, 
 between t^3"i and the precious vessels, is somewhat surprising. 
 Some Codd. (4 Kennic. and 3 de Rossi) and various ancient 
 editions (Complut., the Brixenian used by Luther, the Bomberg. 
 of date 1518 and 21, and the Miinster) have, instead of it, D' 1 '!?? ; 
 but it is very questionable if the LXX. and Vulg. have it (cf. 
 de Rossi varies lectt. ad h. L). E'HJ?, garments, along with ^13"), 
 moveable property (cattle, tents, etc.), seems to suit better, and is
 
 CHAP. XX. 20-30. 391 
 
 therefore held by Dathe and Berth, to be the correct and original 
 reading. Yet the proofs of this are not decisive, for D'njD is 
 much better attested, and we need not necessarily take Eton to 
 mean living and dead cattle ; but just as &b"\ denotes property 
 of any kind, which, among nomadic tribes, consists principally 
 in cattle, we may also take D'HJB in the signification of slain men 
 and beasts the clothes of the men and the accoutrements and 
 ornaments of the beasts (cf. Judg. viii. 26) being a by no means 
 worthless booty. Garments as such are not elsewhere met with 
 in enumerations of things taken as booty, in Judg. viii. 26 only 
 the purple robes of the Midianite princes being spoken of ; and 
 to the remark that the before-mentioned E" 1 "!^ has given rise 
 to the changing of CH5? into B^S, we may oppose the equally 
 well-supported conjecture, that the apparently unsuitable mean- 
 ing of the word D'HJD may have given rise to the alteration of it 
 into E^ua. fliT?n Y? are probably in the main gold and silver 
 ornaments, such as are enumerated in Judg. viii. 25 f. And they 
 spoiled for themselves Kin? PK?, " there was not carrying," i.e. 
 in such abundance that it could not be carried away, removed, 
 and plundered in three days, because the booty was so great. 
 The unusually large quantity of booty is accounted for by the 
 fact that these peoples had gone forth with all their property to 
 drive the Israelites out of their inheritance, and to take posses- 
 sion of their land for themselves ; so that this invasion of Judah 
 was a kind of migration of the peoples, such as those which, at 
 a later time, have been repeated on a gigantic scale, and have 
 poured forth from Central Asia over the whole of Europe. In 
 this, the purpose of the hostile hordes, we must seek the reason 
 for their destruction by a miracle wrought of God. Because 
 they intended to drive the people of Israel out of the land given 
 them by God, and to destroy them, the Lord was compelled to 
 come to the help of His people, and to destroy their enemies. 
 Ver. 26. On the fourth day the men of Judah gathered them- 
 selves together, to give thanks to God the Lord for this blessing, 
 in a valley which thence received the name nrna Py (valley of 
 blessing), and which cannot have been far from the battle-field. 
 Thence they joyfully returned, with Jehoshaphat at their head, 
 to Jerusalem, and went up, the Levites and priests performing 
 solemn music, to the house of God, to render further thanks to 
 the Lord for His wondrous help (ver. 27 f.). The ancient name 
 i"i3"}3 still exists in the Wady Bereikut, to the west of Tekoa, near
 
 392 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem. < A wide, 
 open valley, and upon its west side, on a small rising ground, 
 are the ruins of Bereikut, which cover from three to four acres " 
 (Robinson's Neio Biblical Researches, and Phys. Geogr. S. 106 ; 
 cf. v. de Velde, Memoir, p. 292). Jerome makes mention of 
 the place in Vita Paulce, where he narrates that Paula, standing 
 in supercilio Caphar baruca, looked out thence upon the wide 
 desert, and the former land of Sodom and Gomorrah (cf . Reland, 
 PaL illustr. pp. 356 and 685). There is no ground, on the other 
 hand, for the identification of the valley of blessing with the 
 upper part of the valley of Kidron, which, according to Joel iv. 
 2, 12, received the name of Valley of Jehoshaphat (see on Joel 
 iv. 2). On ver. 276, cf. Ezra vi. 22, Neh. xii. 43. Ver. 29. 
 The fame of this victory of the Lord over the enemies of Israel 
 caused the terror of God to be spread abroad over all the king- 
 doms of the surrounding lands, in consequence of which the 
 kingdom of Judah had rest (cf. xvii. 10). On the last clause of 
 ver. 30, cf. xv. 15. This wonderful act of the Lord is made 
 the subject of praise to God in the Korahite Psalms, xlvi., 
 xlvii., and xlviii., and perhaps also in Ps. Ixxxiii., composed by 
 an Asaphite, perhaps Jahaziel (see Del. Introduction to these 
 Psalms). 
 
 Vers. 31-37. Concluding notes on Jehoshaphat's reign, which 
 are found also in 1 Kings xxii. 41-51, where they, supplemented 
 by some notes (vers. 45, 48, and 49) which are wanting in the 
 Chronicle, form the whole account of his reign. In the statements 
 as to Jehoshaphat's age at his accession, and the length and 
 character of his reign, both accounts agree, except that the author 
 of the Chronicle has, instead of the stereotyped formula, " and 
 the people still sacrificed and offered incense upon the high 
 places," a remark more significant of the state of affairs : " and 
 the people had not yet determinedly turned their heart to the 
 God of their fathers" (ver. 33). The notice that Jehoshaphat 
 made peace with the king of Israel (Kings, ver. 45) is not found 
 in the Chronicle, because that would, as a matter of course, fol- 
 low from Jehoshaphat's having joined affinity with the royal 
 house of Ahab, and had been already sufficiently attested by the 
 narrative in chap, xviii., and is so still further by the undertaking 
 spoken of in ver. 35 ff. For the same reason, the clause intro- 
 duced in 1 Kings xxii. 46 about the valiant acts and the wars of 
 Jehoshaphat is omitted in the Chronicle, as these acts have been
 
 CHAP. XX. 31-37. 393 
 
 specially narrated here. As to Jehu's speeches, which were put 
 into the book of Kings, see the Introduction, p. 34. Further, the 
 remark on the driving out of the remaining Sodomites (^7.i?) from 
 the land, 1 Kings xxii. 47, which refers back to 1 Kings xv. 12, 
 is wanting here, because this speciality is not mentioned in the 
 case of Asa. Finally, the remark that Edom had no king, but 
 only a viceroy or deputy, serves in 1 Kings xxii. 48 only as an 
 introduction to the succeeding account of Jehoshaphat's attempt 
 to open up anew the sea traffic with Ophir. But on that subject 
 the author of the Chronicle only recounts in vers. 35-37 that 
 Jehoshaphat allied himself with the godless Ahaziah the king 
 of Israel to build in Ezion-gaber ships to go to Tarshish, was cen- 
 sured for it by the prophet Eliezer, who announced to him that 
 Jahve would destroy his work, and that thereupon the ships were 
 broken, doubtless by a storm, and so could not go upon the 
 voyage, hP?.!^ does not definitely fix the time (cf. xx. 1), but 
 only states that the alliance with Ahaziah took place after the 
 victory over the Ammonites and Moabites. Ahaziah ascended 
 the throne in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, and reigned 
 scarcely two years, and the enterprise under discussion falls in 
 that period, "^nnx is an Aramaic form for "^snnn. The last 
 clause of ver. 38, " he did wickedly," Bertheau refers to Jeho- 
 shaphat : he did wrong ; because the context shows that these 
 words are intended to contain a censure on Jehoshaphat for his 
 connection with the king of the northern kingdom. But this 
 remark, though substantially correct, by no means proves that 
 Nin refers to Jehoshaphat. The words contain a censure on 
 Jehoshaphat on account of his alliance with Ahaziah, even if 
 they describe Ahaziah's conduct. We must, with the older 
 commentators, take the words to refer to Ahaziah, for JTKn.n i s 
 much too strong a word for Jehoshaphat's fault in the matter. 
 The author of the Chronicle does indeed use the word yvnr\ of 
 Jehoshaphat's grandson Ahaziah, xxii. 3, in the clause, " his 
 mother, a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, was for jr^n? his 
 counsellor," but only that he may characterize the acts of the 
 Ahabic house. Jehoshaphat allied himself with the wicked 
 Ahaziah to build ships E^Ehn ro^, to go to Tarshish ; and they 
 built ships at Ezion-gaber, i.e. on the Red Sea. Instead of this, 
 we have in 1 Kings xxii. 49 : Jehoshaphat built Tarshish ships 
 to go to Ophir for gold. Hence it is manifest that in both pas- 
 sages the same undertaking is spoken of, and the expression
 
 394 THE SECOXD BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 " Tarshish ships " is paraphrased in the Chronicle by " ships to 
 go to Tarshish." This periphrasis is, however, a mistake ; for 
 Tarshish ships are merely ships which, like those going to Tar- 
 shish, were built for long sea voyages, for Jehoshaphat merely 
 desired to renew the voyages to Ophir. With the exception of 
 this erroneous interpretation of the words, Tarshish ships, the two 
 narratives agree, if we only keep in mind the fact that both are 
 incomplete extracts from a more detailed account of this enter- 
 prise. The Chronicle supplies us with an explanatory commen- 
 tary on the short account in 1 Kings xxii. 49, both in the 
 statement that Jehoshaphat allied himself with Ahaziah of Israel 
 for the preparation of the ships, and also in communicating the 
 word of the prophet Eliezer as to the enterprise, which makes 
 clear to us the reason for the destruction of the ships ; while in 
 1 Kings xxii. 49 merely the fact of their destruction is recorded. 
 Of the prophet Eliezer nothing further is known than the saying 
 here communicated. His father's name, Dodavahu, is analogous 
 in form to Hodavya, Joshavya (see on 1 Chron. iii. 24), so that 
 there is no good ground to alter it into *n^]n, friend of Jahve, 
 after the AnSia of the LXX. As to Mareshah, see on xi. 8. 
 The perfect P">B is prophetic : Jahve will rend thy work asunder. 
 The words which follow record the fulfilment. "NBf as in xiii. 20, 
 xiv. 10. With this the chronicler's account of this enterprise 
 concludes; while in 1 Kings xxii. 50 it is further stated that, after 
 the destruction of the ships first built, Ahaziah called upon 
 Jehoshaphat still to undertake the Ophir voyage in common with 
 him, and to build new ships for the purpose, but Jehoshaphat 
 would not. The ground of his refusal may easily be gathered 
 from ver. 37 of the Chronicle. 
 
 CHAP. XXI. JEHOSHAPHAT S DEATH, AND THE REIGN OF HIS 
 
 SON JORAM. 
 
 The account of the death and burial of Jehoshaphat is carried 
 over to chap, xxi., because Joram's first act after Jehoshaphat's 
 death, ver. 2 ff., stands in essential connection with that event, 
 since Joram began his reign with the murder of all his brothers, 
 the sons of Jehoshaphat (vers. 2-4). The further account of 
 Joram (vers. 5-10) agrees almost verbally with the account in 
 2 Kings viii. 17-22 ; then in vers. 1219 there follows further 
 information as to the divine chastisements inflicted upon Joram
 
 CHAP. xxi. 1-10. 395 
 
 for his crime, which is not found in 2 Kings ; and in ver. 20 we 
 have remarks on his end, which correspond to the statements in 
 2 Kings viii. 24. 
 
 Vers. 1-4. Jehoshaphafs death, and the slaughter of his sons 
 by Joram. Vers. 2, 3. Joram had six brothers, whom their 
 father had plentifully supplied with means of subsistence 
 presents in silver, gold, and precious things "in the fenced 
 cities of Judah ; " i.e. he had made them, as Rehoboam also 
 had made his sons, commandants of fortresses, with ample 
 revenues ; but the kingdom he gave to Joram as the first-born. 
 Among the six names two Azariahs occur, the one written 
 Azarjah, the other Azarjahu. Jehoshaphat is called king of 
 Israel instead of kinsj of Judah, because he as kincj walked in 
 
 O * O 
 
 the footsteps of Israel, Jacob the wrestler with God, and was a 
 true king of God's people. Ver. 4. Now when Joram ascended 
 (raised himself to) the throne of his father, and attained to power 
 (Pirnjv as in i. 1), he slew all his brethren with the sword, and 
 also some of the princes of Israel, i.e. the tribal princes of his 
 kingdom. It could hardly be from avarice that he slew his 
 brothers, merely to get possession of their property ; probably it 
 was because they did not sympathize with the political course 
 which he was entering upon, and disapproved of the idolatrous 
 conduct of Joram and his wife Athaliah. This may be gathered 
 from the fact that in ver. 13 they are called better than Joram. 
 The princes probably drew down upon themselves the wrath of 
 Joram, or of his heathen consort, by disapproving of the slaughter 
 of the royal princes, or by giving other signs of discontent with 
 the spirit of their reign. 
 
 Vers. 510. Duration and spirit of Jorarris reign. These 
 verses agree with 2 Kings viii. 1722, with the exception of some 
 immaterial divergences, and have been commented upon in the 
 remarks on that passage. In ver. 7 the thought is somewhat 
 otherwise expressed than in ver. 19 (Kings) : " Jahve would not 
 destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that He had 
 made with David;" instead of, "He w r ould not destroy Judah 
 because of David His servant, as He had said." Instead of HPip 
 V3l6 TO i? we have in the Chronicle v:i:fa To i!> nn^ to give him a 
 lamp, and that in respect of his sons, i being inserted before VJa!> 
 to bring the idea more prominently forward. In regard to V& Dtf, 
 ver. 9 ; instead of HTjnf, Kings ver. 21, see on 2 Kings loc. cit. 
 At the end of ver. 9 tl;e words, " and the people fled to their
 
 396 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 tents" (ver. 21, Kings), whereby the notice of Joram's attempt 
 to bring Edom again under his sway, which is in itself obscure 
 enough, becomes yet more obscure. Ver. 10 f. The chronicler 
 concludes the account of the revolt of Edom and of the city of 
 Libnah against Judah's dominion with the reflection : " For he 
 (Joram) had forsaken Jahve the God of the fathers," and conse- 
 quently had brought this revolt upon himself, the Lord punish- 
 ing him thereby for his sin. "Yea, even high places did he 
 make." The Da placed at the beginning may be connected 
 with ni2 (cf. Isa. xxx. 33), while the subject is emphasized by 
 Kin : The same who had forsaken the God of the fathers, made 
 also high places, which Asa and Jehoshaphat had removed, 
 xiv. 2, 4, xvii. 6. " And he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 to commit fornication," i.e. seduced them into the idolatrous wor- 
 ship of Baal. That the Hiph. i.H is to be understood of the 
 spiritual whoredom of Baal-worship we learn from ver. 13 : " as 
 the house of Ahab caused to commit fornication." rpH, " and 
 misled Judah," i.e. drew them away by violence from the right 
 way. TT\1 is to be interpreted in accordance with Deut. xiii. 6, 11. 
 Vers. 12-19. The prophet Elijah's letter against Joram, and 
 the infliction of the punishments as announced. Ver. 12. There 
 came to him a writing from the prophet Elijah to this effect : 
 " Thus saith Jahve, the God of thy father David, Because thou 
 hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat, . . . but hast 
 walked in the way of the kings of Israel, . . . and also hast 
 slain thy brethren, the house of thy father, who were better than 
 thyself ; behold, Jahve will send a great plague upon thy people, 
 and upon thy sons, and thy wives, and upon all thy goods ; and 
 thou shalt have great sickness, by disease of thy bowels, until 
 thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day." 3^?^ 
 writing, is a written prophetic threatening, in which his sins are 
 pointed out to Joram, and the divine punishment for them an- 
 nounced. In regard to this statement, we need not be surprised 
 that nothing is elsewhere told us of any written prophecies of 
 Elijah ; for we have no circumstantial accounts of his prophetic 
 activity, by which we might estimate the circumstances which 
 may have induced him in this particular instance to commit his 
 prophecy to writing. But, on the other hand, it is very question- 
 able if Elijah was still alive in the reign of Joram of Judah. 
 His translation to heaven is narrated in 2 Kings ii., between the 
 reign of Ahaziah and Joram of Israel, l?ut the year of the event
 
 CHAP. XXI. 12-19. 397 
 
 is nowhere stated in Scripture. In the Jewish Chronicle Seder 
 olam, chap. xvii. 45, it is indeed placed in the second year of 
 Ahaziah of Israel ; but this statement is not founded upon his- 
 torical tradition, but is a mere deduction from the fact that his 
 translation is narrated in 2 Kings ii. immediately after Ahaziah's 
 death ; and the last act of Elijah of which we have any record 
 (2 Kings i.) fulls in the second year of that king. Lightfoot, in- 
 deed (Opp. i. p. 85), Ramb., and Dereser have concluded from 
 2 Kings iii. 11 that Elijah was taken away from the earth in the 
 reign of Jehoshaphat, because according to that passage, in the 
 campaign against the Moabites, undertaken in company with 
 Joram of Israel, Jehoshaphat inquired for a prophet, and re- 
 ceived the answer that Elisha was there, who had poured water 
 upon the hands of Elijah. But the only conclusion to be drawn 
 from that is, that in the camp, or near it, was Elisha, Elijah's 
 servant, not that Elijah was no longer upon earth. The perfect 
 p:P nC'N seems indeed to imply this ; but it is questionable if we 
 may so press the perfect, i.e. whether the speaker made use of it, 
 or whether it was employed only by the later historian. The words 
 are merely a periphrasis to express the relationship of master 
 and servant in which Elijah stood to Elisha, and tell us only 
 that the latter was Elijah's attendant. But Elisha had entered 
 upon this relationship to Elijah long before Elijah's departure 
 from the earth (1 Kings xix. 19 ff.). Elijah may therefore have 
 still been alive under Joram of Judah ; and Berth, accordingly 
 thinks it " antecedently probable that he spoke of Joram's sins, 
 and threatened him with punishment. But the letter," so he 
 further says, "is couched in quite general terms, and gives, 
 moreover, merely a prophetic explanation of the misfortunes 
 with which Joram was visited;" whence we may conclude that 
 in its present form it is the work of a historian living at a later 
 time, who describes the relation of Elijah to Joram in few words, 
 and according to his conception of it as a whole. This judgment 
 rests on dogmatic grounds, and flows from a principle which 
 refuses to recognise any supernatural prediction in the prophetic 
 utterances. The contents of the letter can be regarded as a pro- 
 phetic exposition of the misfortunes which broke in, as it were, 
 upon Joram, only by those who deny a priori that there is any 
 special prediction in the speeches of the prophets, and hold all 
 prophecies which contain such to be valicinia post eventum. 
 Somewhat more weighty is the objection raised against the
 
 398 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 view that Elijah was still upon earth, to the effect that the 
 divine threatenings would make a much deeper impression upon 
 Joram by the very fact that the letter came from a prophet who 
 was no longer in life, and would thus more easily bring him to 
 the knowledge that the Lord is the living God, who had in His 
 hand his breath and all his ways, and who knew all his acts. 
 Thus the writing would smite the conscience of Joram like a 
 voice from the other world (Dachsel). But this whole remark is 
 founded only upon subjective conjectures and presumptions, for 
 which actual analogies are wanting. For the same reason we 
 cannot regard the remark of Menken as very much to the point, 
 when he says : " If a man like Elias were to speak again upon 
 earth, after he had been taken from it, he must do it from the 
 clouds: this would harmonize with the whole splendour of his 
 course in life ; and, in my opinion, that is what actually occurred." 
 For although we do not venture " to mark the limits to which the 
 power and sphere of activity of the perfected saints is extended," 
 yet we are not only justified, but also bound in duty, to judge 
 of those facts of revelation which are susceptible of different in- 
 terpretations, according to the analogy of the whole Scripture. 
 But the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments know 
 nothing of any communications by writing between the per- 
 fected saints in heaven and men ; indeed, they rather teach the 
 contrary in the parable of the rich man 1 (Luke xvi. 31). There 
 are consequently no sufficient grounds for believing that the 
 glorified Elijah either sent a letter to Joram from heaven by an 
 angel, or commissioned any living person to write the letter. 
 The statement of the narrative, " there came to him a writing 
 from Elijah the prophet," cannot well be understood to mean 
 anything else than that Elijah wrote the threatening prophecy 
 which follows; but we have no certain proof that Elijah was 
 then no longer alive, but had been already received into heaven. 
 The time of his translation cannot be exactly fixed. He was 
 still alive in the second year of Ahaziah of Israel ; for lie an- 
 
 1 " Neque em'm," says Kamb., "ulla ralione credibile est, Dcum in gratiam 
 impii regis ejusmodi quidfecisse, cujus nullum alias exemplum exstat; immo quod 
 nee necessarium erat, quum plures alias essent rationes, quibus Deus voluntatem 
 suam ei manifestare poterat; coll. Luc. xvi. 27, 29." And, still more con- 
 clusively, Calov. declares : " Non enim triumphantium in ccelis est erudire out 
 ad pcenitentiam revocare mortaks in terra. Habent Mbsen et propJietas, si illos 
 non audiant, neque si quis ex mortuis resurrexerit, nedum si quis ex ccelis lileras 
 perscripserit, credent Luc. xvi. 31."
 
 CHAP. XXI. 12-19. 399 
 
 nounced to this king upon his sick-bed that he would die of his 
 fall (2 Kings i.). Most probably he was still alive also at the 
 commencement of the reign of Joram of Israel, who ascended the 
 throne twenty-three years after Ahab. Jehoshaphat died six or 
 seven years later ; and after his death, his successor Joram slew his 
 brothers, the other sons of Jehoshaphat. Elijah may have lived 
 to see the perpetration of this crime, and may consequently also 
 have sent the threatening prophecy which is under discussion to 
 Joram. As he first appeared under Ahab, on the above supposi- 
 tion, he would have filled the office of prophet for about thirty 
 years ; while his servant Elisha, whom he chose to be his suc- 
 cessor as early as in the reign of Ahab (1 Kings xix. 16), died 
 only under Joash of Israel (2 Kings xiii. 14 f.), who became 
 king fifty-seven years after Ahab's death, and must consequently 
 have discharged the prophetic functions for at least sixty years. 
 But even if we suppose that Elijah had been taken away from 
 the earth before Jehoshaphat's death, we may, with Buddaeus, 
 Ramb., and other commentators, accept this explanation : that 
 the Lord had revealed to him Joram's wickedness before his 
 translation, and had commissioned him to announce to Joram 
 in writing the divine punishment which would follow, and to send 
 this writing to him at the proper time. This would entirely har- 
 monize with the mode of action of this great man of God. To 
 him God had revealed the elevation of Jehu to the throne of 
 Israel, and the extirpation of the hous of Ahab by him, together 
 with the accession of Hazael, and the great oppressions which he 
 would inflict upon Israel, all events which took place only after 
 the death of Joram of Judah. Him, too, God had commissioned 
 even under Ahab to anoint Jehu to be king over Israel (1 Kings 
 xix. 16), which Elisha caused to be accomplished by a prophetic 
 scholar fourteen years later (2 Kings ix. 1 ff.) ; and to him the 
 Lord may also have revealed the iniquity of Joram, Jehoshaphat's 
 successor, even as early as the second year of Ahaziah of Israel, 
 when he announced to this king his death seven years before 
 Jehoshaphat's death, and may have then commissioned him to 
 announce the divine punishment of his sin. But if Elijah com- 
 mitted the anointing of both Hazael and Jehu to his servant 
 Elisha, why may he not also have committed to him the de- 
 livery of this threatening prophecy which he had drawn up in 
 writing? Without bringing forward in support of this such 
 hypotheses as that the contents of the letter would have all the
 
 400 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 greater effect, since it would seem as if the man of God were 
 speaking to him from beyond the grave (O. v. Gerlach), we have 
 yet a perfect right to suppose that a written word from the 
 terrible man whom the Lord had accredited as His prophet by 
 fire from heaven, in his struggle against Baal -worship under 
 Ahab and Ahaziah, would be much better fitted to make an 
 impression upon Joram and his consort Athaliah, who was walk- 
 ing in the footsteps of her mother Jezebel, than a word of Elisha, 
 or any other prophet who was not endowed with the spirit and 
 power of Elijah. 
 
 Elijah's writing pointed out to Joram two great transgres- 
 sions : (1) his forsaking the Lord for the idolatrous worship of 
 the house of Ahab, and also his seducing the people into this 
 sin ; and (2) the murder of his brothers. For the punishment 
 of the first transgression he announced to him a great smiting 
 which God would inflict upon his people, his family, and his 
 property; for the second crime he foretold heavy bodily chas- 
 tisements, by a dreadful disease which would terminate fatally. 
 D" 1 ^ ?y D 1 ^ ver. 15, is accus. of duration : days on days, i.e. 
 continuing for days added to days ; cf. nj^ 7J? rutP 32D, Isa. 
 xxix. 1. D^ Berth, takes to mean a period of a year, so that by 
 this statement of time a period of two years is fixed for the dura- 
 tion of the disease before death. But the words in themselves 
 cannot have this signification ; it can only be a deduction from 
 ver. 18. These two threats of punishment' were fulfilled. The 
 fulfilment of the first is recorded in ver. 16 f. God stirred up 
 the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians (Wi nx "V^n, as in 1 
 Chron. v. 26), so that they came up against Judah, and broke it, 
 i.e. violently pressed into the land as conquerors (#3, to split, 
 then to conquer cities by breaking through their walls ; cf. 2 
 Kings xxv. 4, etc.), and carried away all the goods that were 
 found in the king's house, with the wives and sons of Joram, 
 except Jehoahaz the youngest (xxii. 1). Movers (Chron. S. 122), 
 Credner, Hitz., and others on Joel iv. 5, Berth., etc., conclude 
 from this that these enemies captured Jerusalem and plundered 
 it. But this can hardly be the case; for although Jerusalem 
 belonged to Judah, and might be included in n^n 11 ?, yet as a rule 
 Jerusalem is specially named along with Judah as being the chief 
 city ; and neither the conquest of Judah, nor the carrying away 
 of the goods from the king's house, and of the king's elder sons, 
 with certainty involves the capture of the capital. The opinion
 
 CHAP. XXL 12-19. 401 
 
 that by the " substance which was found in the king's house" we 
 are to understand the treasures of the royal palace, is certainly 
 incorrect. B"O1 denotes property of any sort; and what the 
 property of the king or of the king's house might include, we 
 may gather from the catalogue of the nn^'iK of David, in the 
 country, in the cities, villages, and castles, 1 Chron. xxvii. 25 ff., 
 where they consist in vineyards, forests, and herds of cattle, 
 and together with the ^SH niiYX formed the property (B^n) 
 of King David. All this property the conquering Philistines 
 and Arabians who had pressed into Judah might carry away 
 without having captured Jerusalem. But ^n JV2 denotes here, 
 not the royal palace, but the king's family ; for ^>n JVap NV3H 
 does not denote what was found in the palace, but what of the 
 possessions of the king's house they found. Ni?3 w jth p is not 
 synonymous with 2 K -fP?j but denotes to be attained, possessed 
 by; cf. Josh. xvii. 16 and Deut. xxi. 17. Had Jerusalem been 
 plundered, the treasures of the palace and of the temple would 
 also have been mentioned : 2 Chron. xxv. 24, xii. 9 ; 2 Kings xiv. 
 13 f. and 1 Kings xiv. 26 ; cf. Kuhlmey, alttestl. Studien in der 
 Luther. Ztsclir. 1844, iii. S. 82 ff. Nor does the carrying away 
 of the wives and children of King Joram presuppose the capture 
 of Jerusalem, as w r e learn from the more exact account of the 
 matter in xxii. 1. Ver. 18 f. The second punishment fell upon 
 the body and life of the king. The Lord smote him in his bowels 
 to (with) disease, for which there was no healing. NSn*? P^? is in 
 apposition to vrp, literally, " to not being healing." Ver. 19. And 
 it came to pass in days after days (i.e. when a number of days 
 had passed), and that at the time (^31) of the expiration of the 
 end in two days, then his bowels went out during his sickness, 
 and he died in sore pains (D'wnn, phenomena of disease, i.e. 
 pains). The words DJJP D> flan riM? njni are generally trans- 
 lated as if D^tp E^v were a mere periphrasis of the stat. constr. 
 Vatabl. and Cler., for example, translate : et secundum tempus 
 egrediendi finis annorum duorum, i.e. postquam advenit finis a. d. t 
 or cum exacti essent duo anni; similarly Berth. : < at the time of 
 the approach of the end of two times." But against this we have 
 not only the circumstance that no satisfactory reason for the use 
 of this periphrasis for the genitive can be perceived, and that no 
 analogies can be found for the expression D?JB> D^P fi?n, the end 
 of two years, instead of D^B> D'JpV) ft? ; but also the more decisive 
 linguistic reason that "i5H riNX cannot denote the approach of the 
 
 20
 
 402 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES 
 
 end, but only the expiry, the running out of the end; and finally, 
 that the supposition that B^ here and in ver. 15 denotes a year 
 is without foundation. Schmidt and Ramb. have already given 
 a better explanation : quumque esset tempus, quo exiit finis s. quum 
 exiret ac compleretur terminus ille, in epistola Elice v. 15 prce- 
 fixus; but in this case also we should expect VWn Y\>, since 
 QV& D 11 ^? should point back to D't?* ?V O^, and contain a more 
 exact d*efinition of the terms employed in ver. 15, which are not 
 definite enough. We therefore take YW ^^r? by itself, and trans- 
 late : At the time of the end, i.e. when the end, sc. of life or of the 
 disease, had come about two days, i.e. about two days before the 
 issue of the end of the disease, then the bowels went out of the 
 body they flowed out from the body as devoured by the disease, 
 i'pn DP, in, during the sickness, consequently before the decease 
 (cf. for DV in this signification, Ps. Ixxii. 5, Dan. iii. 33). Trusen 
 (Sitten, Gebr. und Krankh. der alien Hebraer, S. 212 f.) holds this 
 disease to have been a violent dysentery (diarrhoea), " being an in- 
 flammation of the nervous tissue (Nervenhauf) of the whole great 
 intestine, which causes the overlying mucous membrane to decay 
 and peel off, which then falls out often in tube-shape, so that the 
 intestines appear to fall from the body." His people did not 
 make a burning for him like the burning of his fathers, cf. xvi. 
 14'; that is, denied him the honours usual at burial, because of 
 their discontent with his evil reign. Ver. 20. The repetition of 
 his age and the length of his reign (cf. ver. 6) is accounted for 
 by the fact that the last section of this chapter is derived from a 
 special source, wherein these notes likewise were contained. The 
 peculiarity of the language and the want of the current expres- 
 sions of our historian also favour the idea that some special autho- 
 rity has been used here. " And he departed, mourned by none." 
 Luther erroneously translates, " and walked in a way which was 
 not right" (und wandelt das nicht fein war), after the " ambu- 
 lavit non recte" of the Vulg. ; for "Tnon denotes, not a good walk, 
 but desiderium, i"nn s6a ? sine desiderio, i.e. a nemine dcsideratus. 
 ^l?n, to depart, i.e. die, as Gen. xv. 2. Moreover, though he was 
 buried in the city of David, yet he was not laid in the graves of 
 the kings, by which act also a judgment was pronounced upon 
 his reign ; cf. xxiv. 25 and xxvi. 23.
 
 CHAP. XXII. 1-9. 403 
 
 CHAP. XXII. THE REIGN'S OF AHAZIAH AND THE IMPIOUS 
 ATHALIAH. 
 
 Vers. 1-9. Ahaziah's reign of a year, and Ids death. The 
 account of Ahaziah iu 2 Kings viii. 26-29 agrees with our 
 narrative, except that there the reflections of the chronicler 
 on the spirit of his government are wanting ; but, on the con- 
 trary, the account of his death is very brief in the Chronicle 
 (vers. 6-9), while in 2 Kings ix. and x. the extirpation of the 
 Ahabic house by Jehu, in the course of which Ahaziah was slain 
 with his relatives, is narrated at length. Ver. 1. Instead of the 
 short stereotyped notice, " and Ahaziah his son was king in his 
 stead," with which 2 Kings viii. 24 concludes the history of Joram, 
 the Chronicle gives more exact information as to Ahaziah's 
 accession : " The inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah, his 
 youngest son (who is called in xxi. 17 Jehoahaz), king in his 
 stead ; for all the elder (sons), the band which had come among 
 the Arabs to the camp had slain." In ^yt?! we have a hint 
 that Ahaziah's succession was disputed or doubtful ; for where 
 the son follows the father on the throne without opposition, it is 
 simply said in the Chronicle also, "and his son was king in his 
 stead." But the only person who could contest the throne with 
 Ahaziah, since all the other sons of Joram who would have had 
 claims upon it were not then alive, was his mother Athaliah, who 
 usurped the throne after his death. All the elder sous (D"jb>N*)n, 
 the earlier born) were slain by the troop which had come among 
 (with) the Arabians (see xxi. 16 f.) into the camp, not of the 
 Philistines (Cler.), but of the men of Judah ; that is, they were 
 slain by a reconnoitring party, which, in the invasion of Judah 
 by the Philistines and Arabs, surprised the camp of the men of 
 Judah, and slew the elder sons of Joram, who had marched to 
 the war. Probably they did not cut them down on the spot, but 
 (according to xxi. 17) took them prisoners and slew them after- 
 wards. Ver. 2. The number 42 is an orthographical error for 22 
 (n having been changed into o), 2 Kings viii. 26. As Joram was 
 thirty-two years of age at his accession, and reigned eight years 
 (xxi. 20 and 5), at his death his youngest son could not be older 
 than twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, and even then 
 Joram must have begotten him in his eighteenth or nineteenth 
 year. It is quite consistent with this that Joram had yet older 
 sons ; for in the East marriages are entered upon at a very early
 
 404 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 age, and the royal princes were wont to have several wives, or, 
 besides their proper wives, concubines also. Certainly, had Ahaziah 
 had forty-two older brothers, as Berth, and other critics conclude 
 from 2 Kings x. 13 f., then he could not possibly have been 
 begotten, or been born, in his father's eighteenth year. But that 
 idea rests merely upon an erroneous interpretation of the passage 
 quoted ; see on ver. 8. Ahaziah' s mother Athaliah is called the 
 daughter, i.e. granddaughter, of Omri, as in 2 Kings viii. 26, 
 because he was the founder of the idolatrous dynasty of the 
 kingdom of the ten tribes. Ver. 3. He also (like his father 
 Joram, xxi. 6) walked in the ways of the house of Ahab. This 
 statement is accounted for by the clause : for his mother (a 
 daughter of Ahab and the godless Jezebel) was his counsellor to 
 do evil, i.e. led him to give himself up to the idolatry of the 
 house of Ahab. Ver. 4. The further remark also, " he did that 
 which was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, like the house of 
 Ahab," is similarly explained ; for they (the members of the 
 house of Ahab related to him through his mother) were coun- 
 sellors to him after the death of his father to his destruction, cf. 
 xx. 23 ; while in 2 Kings viii. 27, the relationship alone is 
 spoken of as the reason of his evil-doing. How far this counsel 
 led to his destruction is narrated in ver. 5 and onwards, and the 
 narrative is introduced by the words, lt He walked also in their 
 counsel ;" whence it is clear beyond all doubt, that Ahaziah entered 
 along with Joram, Ahab's son, upon the war which was to bring 
 about the destruction of Ahab's house, and to cost him his life, 
 on the advice of Ahab's relations. There is no doubt that Joram, 
 Ahab's son, had called upon Ahaziah to take part in the war 
 against the Syrians at Ramoth Gilead (see on xviii. 28), and that 
 Athaliah with her party supported his proposal, so that Ahaziah 
 complied. In the war the Aramaeans (Syrians) smote Joram ; 
 i.e., according to ver. 6, they wounded him (E^Vf is a contrac- 
 tion for D^l^?, 2 Kings viii. 28). In consequence of this Joram 
 returned to Jezreel, the summer residence of the Ahabic royal 
 house (1 Kings xviii. 45), the present Zerin ; see on Josh. 
 xix. 18. D'liisn Va has no meaning, and is merely an error for 
 D^asn |j 2 Kings viii. 29, which indeed is the reading of several 
 Codd. : to let himself be cured of his strokes (wounds). ^"]$1, 
 too, is an orthographical error for ^THKI : and Ahaziah went down 
 to visit the wounded Joram, his brother-in-law. Whether he 
 went from Jerusalem or from the loftily-situated Earn ah cannot
 
 CHAP. XXTI. 7-9. 405 
 
 be with certainty determined, for we have no special account of 
 the course of the war, and from 2 Kings ix. 14 f. we only learn 
 that the Israelite army remained in Ramoth after the return of 
 the wounded Joram. It is therefore probable that Ahaziah went 
 direct from Ramoth to visit Joram, but it is not ascertained; 
 for there is nothing opposed to the supposition that, after Joram 
 had been wounded in the battle, and while the Israelite host 
 remained to hold the city against the Syrian king Hazael, 
 Ahaziah had returned to his capital, and thence went after some 
 time to visit the wounded Joram in Jezreel. 
 
 Vers. 7-9. Without touching upon the conspiracy against 
 Joram, narrated in 2 Kings ix., at the head of which was Jehu, 
 the captain of the host, whom God caused to be anointed king 
 over Israel by a scholar of the prophets deputed by Elisha, and 
 whom he called upon to extirpate the idolatrous family of Ahab, 
 since it did not belong to the plan of the Chronicle to narrate 
 the history of Israel, our historian only briefly records the 
 slaughter of Ahaziah and his brother's sons by Jehu as being 
 the result of a divine dispensation. Ver. 7. " And of God was 
 (came) the destruction (nDttn, a being trodden down, a forma- 
 tion which occurs here only) of Ahaziah, that he went to Joram ;" 
 i.e. under divine leading had Ahaziah come to Joram, there to 
 find his death. 'U1 i^-^, And when he was come, he went out 
 with Joram against Jehu (instead of WPP"?^ we have in 2 
 Kings ix. 21 the more distinct N^rv run??, towards Jehu) the son 
 of Nimshi, whom God had anointed to extirpate the house of 
 Ahab (2 Kings ix. 1-10). Ver. 8. When Jehu was executing 
 judgment upon the house of Ahab (BSW usually construed with 
 riN, to be at law with any one, to administer justice ; cf. Isa. 
 Ixvi. ] 6, Ezek. xxxviii. 22), he found the princes of Judah, and 
 the sons of the brothers of Ahaziah, serving Ahaziah, and slew 
 them. D'TnB'O, i.e. in the train of King Ahaziah as his servants. 
 As to when and where Jehu met the brothers' sons of Ahaziah 
 and slew them, we have no further statement, as the author of 
 the Chronicle mentions that fact, only as a proof of the divinely 
 directed extirpation of all the members of the idolatrous royal 
 house. In 2 Kings x. 12-14 we read that Jehu, after he had 
 extirpated the whole Israelite royal house Joram and Jezebel, 
 and the seventy sons of Ahab went to Samaria, there to eradi- 
 cate the Baal-worship, and upon his way thither met the brothers 
 of Ahaziah the king of Judah, and caused them to be taken
 
 406 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 alive, and then slain, to the number of forty-two. These ""HS 
 '"W -> forty-two men, cannot have been actual brothers of Ahaziah, 
 since all Ahaziah's brethren had, according to ver. 1 and xxi. 17, 
 been slain in the reign of Joram, in the invasion of the Philistines 
 and Arabians. They must be brothers only in the wider sense, 
 i.e. cousins and nephews of Ahaziah, as Movers (S. 258) and Ewald 
 recognise, along with the older commentators. The Chronicle, 
 therefore, is quite correct in saying, " sons of the brethren of 
 Ahaziah," and along with these princes of Judah, who, according 
 to the context, can only be princes who held offices at court, 
 especially such as were entrusted with the education and guar- 
 dianship of the royal princes. Perhaps these are included in the 
 number forty-two (Kings). But even if this be not the case, 
 we need not suppose that there were forty-two brothers' sons, or 
 nephews of Ahaziah, since D^HN includes cousins also, and in the 
 text of the Chronicle no number is stated, although forty-two 
 nephews would not be an unheard-of number ; and we do not 
 know how many elder brothers Ahaziah had. Certainly the 
 nephews or brothers' sons of Ahaziah cannot have been very old, 
 since Ahaziah's father Joram died at the age of forty, and 
 Ahaziah, who became king in his twenty-second year, reigned 
 only one year. But from the early development of posterity in 
 southern lands, and the polygamy practised by the royal princes, 
 Joram might easily have had in his fortieth year a considerable 
 number of grandsons from five to eight years old, and boys of 
 from six to nine years might quite well make a journey with their 
 tutors to Jezreel to visit their relations. In this way the diver- 
 gent statements as to the slaughter of the brothers and brothers' 
 sons of Ahaziah, contained in 2 Kings ix. and in our 8th verse, 
 may be reconciled, without our being compelled, as Berth, thinks 
 we are, to suppose that there were two different traditions on this 
 subject. Ver. 9. And he (Jehu) sought Ahaziah, and they 
 (Jehu's body-guard or his warriors) caught him while he was 
 hiding in Samaria, and brought him to Jehu, and slew him. Then 
 they (his servants, 2 Kings ix. 27) buried him, for they said : 
 He is a son of Jehoshaphat, who sought Jahve with all his heart. 
 We find more exact information as to Ahaziah's death in 2 Kings 
 ix. 27 f., according to which Ahaziah, overtaken by Jehu near 
 Jibleam in his flight before him, and smitten, i.e. wounded, fled 
 to Megiddo, and there died, and was brought by his servants to 
 Jerusalem, and buried with his fathers in the city of David. For
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 407 
 
 the reconciliation of these statements, see on 2 Kings ix. 27 f. 
 The circumstance that in our account first the slaughter of the 
 brothers' sons, then that of Ahaziah is mentioned, while ac- 
 cording to 2 Kings ix. and x. the slaughter of Ahaziah would 
 seem to have preceded, does not make any essential differ- 
 ence ; for the short account in the Chronicle is not arranged 
 chronologically, but according to the subject, and the death of 
 Ahaziah is mentioned last only in order that it might be con- 
 nected with the further events which occurred in Judah. The 
 last clause of ver. 9, " and there was not to the house of Ahab 
 one who would have possessed power for the kingdom," i.e. there 
 was no successor on the throne to whom the government might 
 straightway be transferred, forms a transition to the succeeding 
 account of Athaliah's usurpation. 
 
 Vers. 10-12. The six years' tyranny of Athaliah. In regard 
 to her, all that is stated is, that after Ahaziah's death she 
 ascended the throne, and caused all the royal seed of the house 
 of Judah, i.e. all the male members of the royal house, to be 
 murdered. From this slaughter only Joash the son of Ahaziah, 
 an infant a year old, was rescued, together with his nurse, by 
 the princess Jehoshabeath, who was married to the high priest 
 Jehoiada. He was hidden for six years, and during that time 
 Athaliah reigned. The same narrative, for the most part in the 
 same words, is found in 2 Kings xi. 1-3, and has been already 
 commented upon there. 
 
 CHAP. XXIII. AND XXIV. THE FALL OF ATHALIAH, AND THE 
 CORONATION AND REIGN OF JOASH. 
 
 After Joash had been kept in hiding for six years, the high 
 priest Jehoiada came to the resolution to make an end of the 
 tyranny of Athaliah, and to raise the young prince to the throne. 
 The carrying out of this resolution is narrated in chap, xxiii., and 
 thereafter in chap. xxiv. All that is important as to the reign of 
 Joash is communicated. 
 
 Chap, xxiii. Joash raised to the throne, and Athaliah slain. 
 In 2 Kings xi. 4-20 we have another account of these events, 
 in which the matter is in several points more briefly narrated, 
 and apparently differently represented. According to both nar- 
 ratives, the thing was undertaken and carried out by the high
 
 408 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 priest Jeholada ; but according to 2 Kings xi., the high priest 
 would appear to have mainly availed himself of the co-operation 
 of the royal body-guard in the execution of his plan, while ac- 
 cording to the Chronicle it is the Levites and the heads of the 
 fathers'-houses who are made use of. Thereupon De Wette, 
 Movers, Thenius, and Bertheau consequently maintain that the 
 author of the Chronicle, proceeding on the view that the high 
 priest, the chief of so many priests and Levites, would not have 
 recourse to the assistance of the. royal body-guard, has altered the 
 statements in the second book of Kings accordingly, and wishes 
 to represent the matter in a different way. But this assertion 
 can be made with an appearance of truth only on the presup- 
 position, already repeatedly shown to be erroneous, that the author 
 of the Chronicle has made the account in 2 Kings xi. the basis 
 of his narrative, and designedly altered it, and can scarcely be 
 upheld even by the incorrect interpretation of various words. 
 That 2 Kings xi. is not the source from which our account has 
 been derived, nor the basis on which it is founded, is manifest 
 from the very first verses of the chronicler's narrative, where the 
 names of the five princes over hundreds, with whose co-operation 
 Jehoiada elaborated his plan and carried it into execution, are 
 individually enumerated ; while in 2 Kings xi., where the pre- 
 parations for the accomplishment of the work are very briefly 
 treated of, they will be sought for in vain. But if, on the con- 
 trary, the two accounts be recognised to be extracts confining 
 themselves to the main points, excerpted from a more detailed 
 narrative of the event from different points of view, the discre- 
 pancies may be at once reconciled. Instead of the short state- 
 ment, 2 Kings xi. 4, that the high priest Jehoiada ordered the 
 centurions of the royal body-guard to come to him in the temple 
 (N2^1 . . . n^), made a covenant with them, caused them to swear, 
 and showed them the king's son, we read in the Chronicle (vers. 
 1-3), that the high priest Jehoiada took five centurions, whose 
 names are stated with historical exactitude, into covenant with 
 him, i.e. sent for them and made a covenant with them, and that 
 these men then went throughout Judah, and summoned the 
 Levites from all the cities of Judah, and the heads of the fathers'- 
 houses of Israel, to Jerusalem; whereupon Jehoiada with the 
 whole assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of 
 God, and Jehoiada said to the people, " The king's son shall be 
 king, as Jahve hath said of the sons of David." That this more
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 409 
 
 expanded narrative can without difficulty be reconciled with the 
 summary statement in 2 Kings xi. 4, is perfectly manifest. By 
 various devices, however, Berth, tries to bring out some discre- 
 pancies. In the first place, in the words, " Jehoiada sent and 
 brought the princes of hundreds" (Kings, ver. 4), he presses the 
 n?^, which is not found in the Chronicle, translates it by " he 
 sent out," and interprets it with ver. 2 of the Chronicle ; in the 
 second, he takes ?nj3n~?3 in ver. 3 of the Chronicle to mean " the 
 whole congregation," whereas it denotes only the assembly of the 
 men named in vers. 1 and 2 ; and, thirdly, he opposes the ex- 
 pression, " they made a covenant with the king" (ver. 3, Chron.), 
 to the statement (ver. 2, Kings) that Jehoiada made a 'covenant 
 to the princes, by making this latter statement mean that 
 Jehoiada made a covenant with the princes, but not with the 
 king, as if this covenant concerning the coronation of Joash as 
 king might not be called, by a shorter mode of expression, a 
 covenant with the king, especially when the declaration, " the 
 son of the king shall reign," follows immediately. Vers. 47. 
 The case is similar with the contradictions in the account of the 
 carrying out of the arrangements agreed upon. In Bertheau's 
 view, this is the state of the case : According to 2 Kings xi. 5-8, 
 the one part of the body-guard, which on Sabbath mounted 
 guard in the royal palace, were to divide themselves into three 
 bands : one third was to keep the guard of the royal house, 
 which was certainly in the neighbourhood of the main entrance ; 
 the second third was to stand at the gate Sur, probably a side- 
 gate of the palace ; the third was to stand behind the door of 
 the runners. The other part of the body-guard, on the other 
 hand all those who were relieved on the Sabbath were to 
 occupy the temple, so as to defend the young king. But ac- 
 cording to the representation of the Chronicle, (1) the priests 
 and the Levites were to divide themselves into three parts : the 
 first third, those of the priests and Levites, who entered upon 
 their duties on the Sabbath, were to be watchers of the thresh- 
 olds (cf. on 1 Chron. ix. 19 f.), i.e. were to mount guard in 
 the temple as usual ; the second third was to be in the house of 
 the king (i.e. where the first third was to keep watch, according 
 to 2 Kings) ; the third was to be at the gate Jesod. Then 
 (2) the whole people were to stand in the courts of the temple, 
 and, according to ver. 6, were to observe the ordinance of Jahve 
 (chap. xiii. 11), by which they were forbidden to enter the
 
 410 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 temple. From this Bertheau then concludes: "The guarding 
 of the house of Jahve for the protection of the king (2 Kings 
 xi. 7) has here become a mrv motlfo." But in opposition to this, 
 we have to remark that in 2 Kings xi. 5-8 it is not said that 
 the royal body-guard was to be posted as guards in the royal 
 palace and in the temple; that is only a conclusion from the 
 fact that Jehoiada conferred on the matter with the nixsn "njy of 
 the executioners and runners, i.e. of the royal satellites, and 
 instructed these centurions, that those entering upon the service 
 on Sabbath were to keep watch in three divisions, and those 
 retiring from the service in two divisions, in the following places, 
 which are then more accurately designated. The one division 
 of those entering upon the service were to stand, according to 
 2 Kings, by the gate Sur ; according to the Chronicle, by the 
 gate Jesod. The second, according to 2 Kings, was to keep the 
 guard of the king's house ; according to the Chronicle, it was to 
 be in or by the king's house. The third was, according to 2 
 Kings, to be by (in) the gate behind the runners, and to keep 
 the guard of the house Massach ; according to the Chronicle, 
 they were to serve as watchers of the thresholds. If, as is ac- 
 knowledged by all, the gate "IID is identical with the gate ^D'n, 
 although it can neither be ascertained whether the difference in 
 name has resulted merely from an orthographical error, or rests 
 upon a double designation of one gate ; nor yet can it be pointed 
 out what the position of this gate, which is nowhere else men- 
 tioned, was, then the Chronicle and 2 Kings agree as to the 
 posts which were to occupy this door. The position also of the 
 third part, ?J;Bn JV23 (Chron.), will not be different from that of 
 the third part, to which was committed the guarding of the 
 king's house (Kings). The place where this third part took up 
 its position is not exactly pointed out in either narrative, yet the 
 statement, " to keep the watch of the house (temple) for warding 
 off " (Kings), agrees with the appointment " to be guards of the 
 thresholds" (Chron.), since the guarding of the thresholds has no 
 other aim than to prevent unauthorized persons from entering. 
 Now, since the young king, not merely according to the Chron., 
 but also according to 2 Kings xi. 4, where we are told that 
 Jehoiada showed the son of the king to the chief men whom he 
 had summoned to the house of Jahve, was in the temple, and 
 only after his coronation and Athaliah's death was led solemnly 
 into the royal palace, we might take the king's house, the guard
 
 CHAP. XXIIL 411 
 
 of which the one third of those entering upon the service were 
 to keep (Kings, ver. 7), to be the temple building in which the 
 young king was, and interpret ^n jvaa in accordance with that 
 idea. In that case, there would be no reference to the settling 
 of guards in the palace ; and that view would seem to be favoured 
 by the circumstance that the other third part of those entering 
 upon their service on the Sabbath were to post themselves at 
 the gate, behind the runners, and keep the guard of the house 
 HDD. That HDD is not a nom. propr., but appellat., from npa, to 
 ward off, signifying warding off, is unanimously acknowledged 
 by modern commentators ; only Thenius would alter HDD info 
 nb^j " and shall ward off." Gesenius, on the contrary, in his 
 Thesaurus^ takes the word to be a substantive, cum rnp^'p per 
 appositionem conjunction, in the signification, the guard for 
 warding off, and translates, et vos agetis custodiam templi ad 
 depellendum sc. populum (to ward off). If this interpretation be 
 correct, then these words also do not treat of a palace guard ; 
 and to take IVan to signify the temple is so evidently suggested 
 by the context, according to which the high priest conducted 
 the whole transaction in the temple, that we must have better 
 grounds for referring the words to the royal palace than the 
 mere presumption that, because the high priest discussed the plan 
 with the captains of the royal body-guard, it must be the occupa- 
 tion of the royal palace which is spoken of. But quite apart 
 from the Chronicle, even the further account of the matter in 2 
 Kings xi. is unfavourable to the placing of guards in the royal 
 palace. According to ver. 9, the captains did exactly as Jehoiada 
 commanded. They took each of them their men those coming 
 on the Sabbath, and those departing and went to the priest 
 Jehoiada, who gave them David's weapons out of the house of 
 God (ver. 10), and the satellites stationed themselves in the court 
 of the temple, and there the king was crowned. The unam- 
 biguous statement, ver. 9, that the captains, each with his men 
 i.e. those coming on Sabbath (entering upon the service), and those 
 departing came to the high priest in the temple, and there took 
 up their position in the court, decisively excludes the idea that 
 " those coming on the Sabbath" had occupied the guard-posts in 
 the royal palace, and demands that the divisions mentioned in 
 vers. 5 and 6 should be posted at different parts and gates of 
 the temple. That one third part had assigned to it a place 
 behind the gate of the runners is not at all inconsistent with the
 
 412 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 above idea ; for even if the gate behind the runners be identical 
 with the gate of the runners (Kings, ver. 19), it by no means 
 follows from that that it was a gate of the palace, and not of the 
 outer court of the temple. In accordance with this view, then, 
 vers. 5 and 6 (Kings) do not treat of an occupation of the royal 
 palace, but of a provision for the security of the temple by 
 the posting of guards. It is, moreover, against the supposition 
 that the entrances to the palace were occupied by guards, that 
 Athaliah, when she heard from her palace the noise of the 
 people in the temple, came immediately into the temple, and 
 was dragged forth and slain by the captains there in command. 
 For what purpose can they have placed guards by the palace 
 gates, if they did not desire to put any hindrance in the way of 
 the queen's going forth into the temple? The hypotheses of 
 Thenius, that it was done to keep away those who were devoted 
 to Athaliah, to make themselves masters of the palace, and to 
 hinder Athaliah from taking any measures in opposition to them, 
 and to guard the place of the throne, are nothing but expedients 
 resulting from embarrassment. If there was no intention to put 
 any hindrance in the way of the queen leaving the palace, 
 there could have been none to prevent her taking opposing 
 measures. For the rest, the result obtained by careful con- 
 sideration of the account in 2 Kings xi., that in vers. 5-and 6 
 an occupation by guards, not of the royal palace, but of the 
 temple, is spoken of, does not stand or fall with the supposition 
 that =1^0 fV3 was the dwelling of the young king in the temple 
 building, and not the palace. The expression JT3 rna>'p "lOIJ' 
 *J??^} to guard the guard of the king's house, i.e. to have regard 
 to whatever is to be regarded in reference to the king's house, is 
 so indefinite and elastic, that it may have been used of a post 
 which watched from the outer court of the temple what was 
 going on in the palace, which was over against the temple. 
 With this also the corresponding span JV33, in the short account 
 of the distribution of the guards given by the chronicler 
 (ver. 5), may be reconciled, if we translate it " at the house of 
 the king," and call to mind that, according to 2 Kings xvi. 18 
 and 1 Kings x. 5, there was a special approach from the palace 
 to the temple for the king, which this division may have had 
 to guard. But notwithstanding the guarding of this way, 
 Athaliah could come from the palace into the court of the 
 temple by another way, or perhaps the guards were less
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 413 
 
 watchful at their posts during the solemnity of the young king's 
 coronation. 
 
 And not less groundless is the assertion that the priest Je- 
 hoiada availed himself in the execution of his plan, according to 
 2 Kings xi., mainly of the co-operation of the royal body-guard, 
 according to the Chronicle mainly of that of the Levites; or 
 that the chronicler, as Thenius expresses it, " has made the 
 body-guards of 2 Kings into Levites, in order to divert to the 
 priesthood the honour which belonged to the Praetorians." The 
 niNBH n^ ? mentioned by name in the Chronicle, with whom 
 Jehoiada discussed his plan, and who had command of the 
 guards when it was carried out, are not called Levites, and may 
 consequently have been captains of the executioners and runners, 
 i.e. of the royal body-guard, as they are designated in 2 Kings 
 xi. 4. But the men who occupied the various posts are called in 
 both texts Fia^n ''S3 (Kings, ver. 5 ; Chron. ver. 4) : in 2 Kings, 
 vers. 7 and 9, the corresponding rot^n <l sy s is added ; while in the 
 Chronicle the mirn ''Na are expressly called Levites, the words 
 D'ph cnnbp being added. But we know from Luke i. 5, com- 
 pared with 1 Chron. xxiv. (see above, p. 263), that the priests 
 and Levites performed the service in the temple in courses from 
 one Sabbath to another, while we have no record of any such 
 arrangement as to the service of the Praetorians; so that we 
 must understand the words "coming on the Sabbath" (entering 
 upon the service), and "going on the Sabbath" (those relieved 
 from it), of the Levites in the first place. Had it been intended 
 that by these words in 2 Kings xi. we should understand Prce- 
 torians, it must necessarily have been clearly said. From the 
 words spoken to the centurions of the body-guard, " the third 
 part of you," etc., it does not follow at all as a matter of course 
 that they were so, any more than from the fact that in Kings, 
 ver. 11, the posts set are called STl?? the runners = satellites. 
 If we suppose that in this extraordinary case the Levitic temple 
 servants were placed under the command of centurions of the 
 royal body-guard, who were in league with the high priest, the 
 designation of the men they commanded by the name DTJ, 
 satellites, is fully explained ; the men having been previously 
 more accurately described as those who were entering upon and 
 being relieved from service on the Sabbath. In this way I have 
 explained the matter in my apologet. Vcrsuch iiber die Chron. 
 S. 362 ff., but this explanation of it has neither been regarded
 
 414 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 nor confuted by Thenius arid Bertheau. Even the mention of 
 ""is and D^'l along with the captains and the whole people, in 
 Kings, ver. 19, is not inconsistent with it ; for we may without 
 difficulty suppose, as has been said in my commentary on that 
 verse, that the royal body-guard, immediately after the slaughter 
 of Athaliah, went over to the young king just crowned, in order 
 that they, along with the remainder of the people who were assem- 
 bled in the court, might lead him thence to the royal palace. There 
 is only one statement in the two texts which can scarcely be 
 reconciled with this conjecture, namely, the mention of the D" 1 ^ 
 and of the people in the temple before Athaliah was slain (ver. 
 12 Chron. and ver. 13 Kings), since it follows from that that 
 runners or satellites belonging to the body-guard were either 
 posted, or had assembled with the others, in the court of the 
 temple. To meet this statement, we must suppose that the 
 centurions of the body-guard employed not merely the Levitic 
 temple guard, but also some of the royal satellites, upon whose 
 fidelity they could rely, to occupy the posts mentioned in vers. 5-7 
 (Kings) and vers. 4 and 5 (Chron.) ; so that the company under 
 the command of the centurions who occupied the various posts in 
 the temple consisted partly of Levitic temple guards, and partly 
 of royal body-guards. But even on this view, the suspicion that 
 the chronicler has mentioned the Levites instead of the body- 
 guard is shown to' be groundless and unjust, since the B" 1 ^ also 
 are mentioned in the Chronicle. 
 
 According to this exposition, the true relation between the 
 account in the Chronicle and that in the book of Kings would 
 seem to be something like this : Both accounts mention merely 
 the main points of the proceedings, the author of the book of 
 Kings emphasizing the part played in the affair by the royal 
 body-guard ; the author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, 
 emphasizing that played by the Levites : so that both accounts 
 mutually supplement each other, and only when taken together 
 give a full view of the circumstances. We have still to make 
 the following remarks on the narrative of the Chronicle in detail. 
 The statement (Kings, ver. 5) that all those relieved on the 
 Sabbath were to keep guard of the house of Jahve, in refer- 
 ence to the king, in two divisions, is in Chronicles, ver. 5, thus 
 generalized : " all the people were in the courts of the house of 
 Jahve." Byn~73 is all the people except the before-mentioned 
 bodies of men with their captains, and comprehends not only
 
 CHAP. XXIII. 415 
 
 the remainder of the people mentioned in 2 Kings xi. 13 and 19, 
 who came to the temple without any special invitation, but also 
 the body of guards who were relieved from service on Sabbath. 
 This is clear from ver. 8 of the Chronicle, where we have the 
 supplementary remark, that those departing on the Sabbath also, 
 as well as those coming, did what Jehoiada commanded. In 
 addition to this, in ver. 6 this further command of Jehoiada is 
 communicated : Let no one enter the house of Jahve (HIPP ITS is 
 the temple building, i.e. the holy place and the most holy, as 
 distinguished from the courts), save the priests, and they that 
 minister of the Levites, i.e. of those Levites who perform the 
 service, who are consecrated thereto; but all the people shall 
 keep the watch of the Lord, i.e. keep what is to be observed in 
 reference to Jahve, i.e. here, to keep without the limits appointed 
 in the law to the people in drawing near to the sanctuaries. 
 The whole verse, therefore, contains only an elucidation of the 
 command that all the people were to remain in the courts, and 
 not to press farther into the sanctuary. Ver. 7. " And the Levites 
 shall compass the king round about, each with his weapons in 
 his hand." The Levites are the bodies of guards mentioned in 
 vers. 4, 5. If we keep that in view, then the following words, 
 " every one who cometh into the house shall be put to death," 
 say the same as the words, " every one who cometh within the 
 ranks" (Kings, ver. 8). A contradiction arises only if we mis- 
 interpret ^pn, and understand it of the forming of a circle 
 around the king ; whereas ^[pn, like Efl?ii>n (Kings), is to be 
 understood, according to the context, of the setting of the guards 
 both at the temple gate and in the courts, so that whoever en- 
 tered the court of the temple came within the ranks of the 
 guards thus placed. Vers. 8-10. The account of the occupation 
 of the temple thus arranged agrees with vers. 9-11, Kings. In- 
 stead of niKtsn *n|2> (Kings), in ver. 8 are very fittingly named 
 " the Levites (as in ver. 5) and all Judah," viz. in its chiefs, 
 since the high priest had assured himself of the support of the 
 heads of the fathers'-houses of Israel (ver. 2). Further, to the 
 statement that those who were departing from the service also 
 took part in the affair, it is added, " for Jehoiada had not dis- 
 missed the courses." nippnen are the divisions which, according 
 to the arrangement made by David (1 Chron. xxiv.-xxvi.), had 
 charge of the temple service at that time. To the captains 
 Jehoiada gave the spears and shields which had been presented
 
 416 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 to the temple by David as offerings, because they had come into 
 the temple without weapons ; see on 2 Kings xi. 10. T?JW, " and 
 he caused the whole people to take position," is connected for- 
 mally with Jfl;% ver. 9 ; while in Kings, ver. 11, we have simply 
 ^PV^. Ver. 11. The coronation of Joash, as in ver. 12 (Kings). 
 The subject of ^irt 8 ! and wn 8 ! is those present, while in N^i"! and 
 |W (Kings), Jehoiada as leader of the whole is referred to. In 
 the Chronicle, Jehoiada and his sons, i.e. the high priest with 
 the priests assisting him, are expressly named as subject to vB! 
 and 'inrjEWj where in Kings also the plural is used ; while, on 
 the contrary, " the clapping of the hands" as a sign of joyful 
 acclamation (Kings) is omitted, as being unimportant. Vers. 
 12-15. Slaughter of Athaliah, as in 2 Kings xi. 13-16. In ver. 
 13 of the Chronicle, the statement that the assembled people 
 played on instruments is expanded by the addition, " and sing- 
 ing with instruments of song, and proclaiming aloud to praise," 
 i.e. and praising. Ni s 1, ver. 14, is an orthographical error for 
 WM (Kings). 
 
 Vers. 16-21. The renewal of the covenant, extirpation of Baal- 
 worship, and the solemn entry of the king into his palace, as in 
 2 Kings xi.. 17-20, and already commented on in that place. The 
 remark as to the renewal of the covenant is in ver. 16 (Chron.) 
 somewhat more brief than in Kings, ver. 17 ; and i^3, between 
 himself, the same as between himself, the high priest, as repre- 
 sentative of Jehovah. In Kings, ver. 17, the matter is more 
 
 O / / 
 
 clearly expressed. In ver. 18 f ., the statement, " the priest set 
 overseers over the house of Jahve" (Kings), is expanded by the 
 addition of the words, " by means of the Levitic priests whom 
 David had distributed for the house of Jahve to offer sacrifices ; 
 . . . and he placed doorkeepers at the doors of the house of 
 Jahve," etc. The meaning is: Jehoiada again introduced the 
 old arrangement of the public worship in the temple as David 
 had settled it, it having either fallen into decay or wholly ceased 
 under the rule of the idolatrous Athaliah. As to the remainder, 
 see on 2 Kings xi. 19 and 30. 
 
 Chap. xxiv. The reign of Joash ; cf. 2 Kings xii. In both 
 accounts only two main events in Joash's reign of. forty years 
 are narrated at any length, the repair of the temple, and the 
 campaign of the Syrian king Hazael against Jerusalem. Be- 
 sides this, at the beginning, we have a statement as .to the 
 duration and spirit of his reign ; and in conclusion, the murder
 
 CHAP. XXIV. 4-22. 417 
 
 of Joash in consequence of a conspiracy is mentioned. Both 
 accounts agree in all essential points, but are shown to be extracts 
 containing the most important part of a more complete history of 
 Joash, by the fact that, on the one hand, in 2 Kings xii. single 
 circumstances are communicated in a more detailed and more 
 exact form than that in which the Chronicle states them ; while, 
 on the other hand, the account of the Chronicle supplements the 
 account in 2 Kings xii. in many respects. To these latter belong 
 the account of the marriage of Joash, and his many children, 
 the account of the death of Jehoiada at the age of 130 years, 
 and his honourable burial with the kings, etc. ; see on ver. 15. 
 
 Vers. 4-14. As to the repair of the temple, see the commentary 
 on 2 Kings xii. 5-17, where both the formal divergences and the 
 essential agreement of the two narratives are pointed out. Ver. 
 11. 'Ul NU^ nya 1| rn ) translate: It came to pass at the time when 
 they brought the chest to the guard of the king by the Levites, i.e. 
 to the board of oversight appointed by the king from among the 
 Levites. J"iy stat. constr. before a sentence following. Qi 1 '? 017 
 does not denote every day, but every time when there was much 
 money in the chest. Ver. 13. navis ?yrn, and there was a band 
 laid upon the work, i.e. the restoration of the house of God was 
 furthered ; cf. for this symbolical expression, Nell. iv. 1, Jer. 
 viii. 7. Ver. 14. Ov3 ^nb'jw, therefrom (the king) caused to be 
 made (prepared) vessels for the house of J alive, (namely) vessels 
 of the service, i.e., according to Num. iv. 12, in the holy place, 
 and for- the offering of burnt-offering, i.e. altar vessels, and 
 (besides) bowls, and (other) vessels of gold and silver. The 
 last clause of ver. 14 leads on to the following : " They (king 
 and people) offered burnt-offering continually so long as Jehoiada 
 lived." 
 
 Vers. 15-22. Jehoiada' 8 death : the fall of the people into 
 idolatry : the protest of the prophet Zechariah against it, and the 
 stoning of him. This section is not found in 2 Kings xii., but is 
 important for the understanding of the later history of Joash 
 (ver. 23 ff.). With the death of the grey-haired high priest 
 came a turning-point in the reign of Joash. Jehoiada had saved 
 the life and throne of Joash, preserved to the kingdom the royal 
 house of David, to which the promises belonged, and had put an 
 end to the idolatry which had been transplanted into Judah by 
 Joram's marriage into the royal house of Ahab, restoring the 
 Jahve-worship. For this he was honoured at his death, his body 
 
 2D
 
 418 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 being laid in the city of David among the kings : " For he had 
 done good in Israel, and towards God and His house " (the 
 temple). According to 2 Kings xii. 7, he still took an active 
 part in the repair of the temple in the twenty-third year of 
 Joash, and according to ver. 14 he lived for some time after the 
 completion of that work. But after his death the people soon 
 forgot the benefits they owed him. Ver. 17 f. The princes of 
 Judah besought the king to allow them to worship the Astartes 
 and idols, and the kinsj hearkened to them, did not venture to 
 
 t_ f_ 
 
 deny their request. =]?>? Vinrr^, they bowed themselves before 
 the king, i.e they besought him. What they thus beseechingly 
 requested is not stated, but may be gathered from what they did, 
 according to ver. 18. They forsook Jahve the God of their 
 fathers, etc. There came wrath upon Judah because of this 
 their trespass, ^'i?, a wrathful judgment of the Lord, cf. xxix. 
 8, viz. the invasion of the land by Hazael, ver. 23 ff. On the 
 construction HNT DTOK, cf. E\v. 293, c, S. 740. Against 
 this defection prophets whom the Lord sent did indeed lift up 
 their testimony, but they would not hearken to them. Of these 
 prophets, one, Zechariah the son of the high priest Jehoiada, is 
 mentioned by name in ver. 20 ff., who, seized by the Spirit of 
 the Lord, announced to the people divine punishment for their 
 defection, and was thereupon, at the king's command, stoned in 
 the court of the temple. With neb!? ran cf. 1 Chron. xii. 18, 
 and the commentary on Judg. vi. 34. DJ^ ?o, above the 
 people, viz., as we learn from ver. 21, in the inner, higher-lying 
 court, so that he was above the people who were in the outer 
 court. " Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, 
 and (why) will ye not prosper 1 " Fidelity to the Lord is the 
 condition of prosperity. If Israel forsake the Lord, the Lord 
 will also forsake it; cf. xii. 5, xv. 2. Ver. 21. And they (the 
 princes and the people) conspired against him, and stoned him, 
 at the command of the king, in the court of the temple. This 
 nj")3T is the Za-^apiaf whose slaughter is mentioned by Christ in 
 Matt, xxiii. 36 and Luke xi. 51 as the last prophet-murder nar- 
 rated in the Old Testament, whose blood would come upon the 
 people, although Matthew calls him wo? Bapa^iov. According 
 to these passages, he was slain between the temple and the altar 
 of burnt-offering, consequently in the most sacred part of the court 
 of the priests. That the king, Joash, could give the command 
 for this murder, shows how his compliance with the princes'
 
 CHAP. XXIV. 2.1-26. 419 
 
 demands (ver. 17) had made him the slave of sin. Probably the 
 idolatrous princes accused the witness for God of being a seditious 
 person and a rebel against the majesty of the crown, and thereby 
 extorted from the weak king the command for his death. For it 
 is not said that Joash himself worshipped the idols ; and even in 
 ver. 22 it is only the base ingratitude of which Joash had been 
 guilty, in the slaughter of the son of his benefactor, which is 
 adduced against him. But Zechariah at his death said, " May 
 the Lord look upon it, and take vengeance " (B^n, to seek or re- 
 quire a crime, i.e. punish it). This word became a prophecy, 
 which soon began to be fulfilled, ver. 23 ff. 
 
 Vers. 23-26. The punishment comes upon them. Joash 
 afflicted by the invasion of Judah by Hazael the Syrian ; and his 
 death in consequence of a conspiracy against him. These two 
 events are narrated in 2 Kings xii. 18-22 also, the progress of 
 Hazael's invasion being more exactly traced ; see the commen- 
 tary on 2 Kings xii. 18 f. The author of the Chronicle brings 
 forward only those parts of it which show how God punished 
 Joash for his defection from Him. Ver. 23. " At the revolu- 
 tion of a year," i.e. scarcely a year after the murder of the 
 prophet Zechariah, a Syrian army invaded Judah and advanced 
 upon Jerusalem ; " and they destroyed all the princes of the 
 people from among the people," i.e. they smote the army of Joash 
 in a battle, in which the princes (the chief and leaders) were 
 destroyed, i.e. partly slain, partly wounded. This punishment 
 came upon the princes as the originators of the defection from 
 the Lord, ver. 17. "And they sent all their booty to the king 
 (Hazael) to Damascus." In this booty the treasures which 
 Joash gave to the Syrians (2 Kings xii. 19) to buy their with- 
 drawal are also included. In order to show that this invasion of 
 the Syrians was a divine judgment, it is remarked in ver. 24 
 that the Syrians, with a small army, gained a victory over the 
 very large army of Judah, and executed judgment upon Joash. 
 D^BDB> n^y, as in Ex. xii. 12, Num. xxxiii. 4, frequently in 
 Ezekiel, usually construed with 3, here with J"IK, analogous to the 
 DK 2iD nti>y, e.g. 1 Sam. xxiv. 19. These words refer to the 
 wounding of Joash, and its results, ver. 25 f. In the war Joash 
 was badly wounded ; the Syrians on their withdrawal had left 
 him behind in many wounds (D^vno only met with here, synony- 
 mous witli D'wnn, xxi. 19). Then his own servants, the court 
 officials named in ver. 26, conspired against him, and smote him
 
 420 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 upon his bed. In 2 Kings xii. 21, the place where the king, 
 lying sick upon his bed, was slain is stated. He met with his 
 end thus, " because of the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the 
 priest " which had been shed. The plural V.? is perhaps only 
 an orthographical error for |3, occasioned by the preceding "W 
 (Berth.) ; but more probably it is, like V33, xxviii. 3 and xxxiii. 6, 
 a rhetorical plural, which says nothing as to the number, but 
 only brings out that Joash had brought blood-guiltiness upon 
 himself in respect of the children of his benefactor Jehoiada ; 
 see on xxviii. 3. Upon the murdered king, moreover, the 
 honour of being buried in the graves of the kings was not be- 
 stowed ; cf. xxi. 20. On the names of the two conspirators, ver. 
 26, see on 2 Kings xii. 21. In ver. 27 it is doubtful how mi is 
 to be read. The Keri demands 3^, which Berth, understands 
 thus : And as regards his sons, may the utterance concerning 
 him increase ; which might signify, " May the wish of the dying 
 Zechariah, ver. 22, be fulfilled on them in a still greater degree 
 than on their father." But that is hardly the meaning of the 
 Keri. The older theologians 1 took ^ relatively : et quam creverit 
 s. multiplicatum fuerit. Without doubt, the Keth. Shi or Til is 
 the correct reading. N&Bn ; too, is variously interpreted. Vulg., 
 Luther, and others take it to be synonymous with HStJ'O, vers. 6, 
 9, and understand it of the money derived from Moses' tax ; but 
 to that V?y is by no means suitable. Others (as Then.) think of 
 the tribute laid upon him, 2 Kings xii. 19, but very arbitrarily. 
 On the other hand, Clericus and others rightly understand it of 
 prophetic threatenings against him, corresponding to the state- 
 ment in ver. 19, that God sent prophets against him. As to the 
 Midrash of the book of Kings, see the Introduction, p. 31 f. 
 
 CHAP. XXV. THE EEIGN OF AMAZIAH. CF. 2 KINGS XIV. 1-20. 
 
 Vers. 1-4. The statement as to the duration and spirit of the 
 reign agrees with 2 Kings xiv. 1-6, except that in ver. 2 the 
 estimation of the spirit of the reign according to the standard of 
 David, li only not as his ancestor David, but altogether as his 
 father Joash did," which we find in the book of Kings, is re- 
 placed by <l only not with a perfect heart ; " and the standing 
 formula, " only the high places were not removed," etc., is 
 omitted. 
 
 The succeeding section, vers. 5-16, enlarges upon Amaziah's
 
 CHAP. XXV. 5-13. 421 
 
 preparations for war with Edom, which had revolted under 
 Joram of Judah, 2 Kings viii. 22 ; upon the victory over the 
 Edomites in the Valley of Salt, and on the results of this war ; 
 on all which we have in 2 Kings xiv. 7 only this short note : " he 
 smote Edom in the valley of Salt 10,000 men, and took Selah 
 in war, and called its name Joktheel unto this day." But the 
 more exact statements of the Chronicle as to the preparations 
 and the results of this war and victory are important for Ama- 
 ziah's later war with King Joash of Israel, which is narrated in 
 ver. 17 ff. of our chapter, because in them lie the causes of that 
 war, so fatal to Amaziah ; so that the history of Amaziah is 
 essentially supplemented by those statements of the Chronicle 
 which are not found in 2 Kings. 
 
 Vers. 5-13. The preparations for the war against Edom, and 
 the victory over the Edomites in the Valley of Salt. Ver. 5. 
 Amaziah assembled Judah, i.e. the men in his kingdom capable 
 of bearing arms, and set them up (ordered them) according to 
 the princes of thousands and hundreds, of all Judah and Ben- 
 jamin, and passed them in review, i.e. caused a census to be 
 taken of the men liable to military service from twenty years old 
 and upward. They found 300,000 warriors "bearing spear and 
 target" (cf. xiv. 7); a relatively small number, not merely in 
 comparison with the numbers under Jehoshaphat, chap. xvii. 14 ff., 
 which are manifestly too large, but also with the numberings made 
 by other kings, e.g. Asa, chap. xiv. 7. By Joram's unfortunate 
 wars, chap. xxi. 17, those of Ahaziah, and especially by the defeat 
 which Joash sustained from the Syrians, xxiv. 43, the number 
 of men in Judah fit for war may have been very much reduced. 
 Amaziah accordingly sought to strengthen his army against the 
 Edomites, according to ver. 6, by having an auxiliary corps of 
 100,000 men from Israel (of the ten tribes) for 100 talents of 
 silver, i.e. he took them into his pay. But a prophet advised him 
 not to take the Israelitish host with him, because Jahve was not 
 with Israel, viz. on account of their defection from Jahve by the 
 introduction of the calf-worship. To Israel there is added, (with) 
 all the sons of Ephraim, to guard against any misunderstanding. 
 Ver. 8. Amaziah is to go alone, and show himself valiant in 
 war, and the Lord will help him to conquer. This is without 
 doubt the thought in ver. 8, which, however, does not seem to be 
 contained in the traditional Masoretic text. 'PXn ^ V CO. can hardly, 
 after the preceding imperatives do, be strong for battle be other-
 
 422 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 -wise translated than by, " and God will cause thee to stumble 
 before the enemy." But this is quite unsuitable. Clericus, 
 therefore, would take the words ironically : sin minus, tu vadito, 
 etc. ; i.e. if thou dost not follow my advice, and takest the Israel- 
 ites with thee to the war, go, show thyself strong for the war, 
 God will soon cause thee to stumble. But 2K 13 can never signify 
 sin minus. Others, as Schmidt and Ramb., translate : Rather do 
 thou go alone (without the Israelitish auxiliaries), and be valiant, 
 alioquin enim, si illos tecum duxeris, corruere te faciet Deus ; or, 
 May God make thee fall before the enemy (De Wette). But the 
 supplying of alioquin, which is only hidden by De Wette's trans- 
 lation, cannot be grammatically justified. This interpretation of 
 the r? l?' l K'?! would be possible only if the negation &O DX 13 stood 
 in the preceding clause and v^?! was joined to it by 1. The 
 traditional text is clearly erroneous, and we must, with Ewald 
 and Berth.j supply a s& or NT) before l? 1 ^! : Go thou (alone), 
 do, be valiant for battle, and God will not let thee come to ruin. 1 
 After this we have very fittingly the reason assigned : " for with 
 God there is power to help, and to cause to fall." Ver. 9. 
 Amaziah had regard to this exhortation of the prophet, and asked 
 him only what he should do for the 100 talents of silver which 
 he had paid the Israelite auxiliary corps ; to which the prophet 
 answered that Jahve could give him more than that sum. Ama- 
 ziah thereupon dismissed the hired Ephraimite mercenaries. 
 OT^J he separated them (sc. from his army prepared for battle), 
 viz. the band, that they might go to their place, i.e. might return 
 home. The ? before l^n is nota accus., and "iVianp is in apposi- 
 tion to the suffix in B? 1 "^. But the auxiliaries thus dismissed 
 returned home full of wrath against Judah, and afterwards fell 
 upon the border cities of Judah, wasting and plundering (ver. 
 13). Their anger probably arose from the fact that by their 
 dismissal the opportunity of making a rich booty in war was taken 
 away. Ver. 11 f. But Amaziah courageously led his people into 
 the Valley of Salt, and smote the Edomites. P?nnn, as in xv. 8, 
 refers back to pTH, ver. 8 : he showed himself strong, according to 
 the word of the prophet. As to the Valley of Salt, see on 2 Sam. 
 
 1 Even the old translators could make nothing of the present text, and 
 expressed the first clause of the verse as they thought best. LXX., Sn ktiu 
 tJ7roX/3jjj x.u.Ta.ox,v<jtt.i \v rainoi; ; Vulg., quod si 2itcs in robore exercitns lella 
 consistere ; after which Lnth., " denn so du komest das du cine kuuheit be- 
 weisest im streit, \vird Gott dich fallen lasscn fur deinen Feindeu."
 
 CHAP. XXV. 5-13. 423 
 
 viii. 13 and 1 Chron. xviii. 12. Besides the 10,000 slain in the 
 battle, the men of Judali took 10,000 other Edomites prisoners, 
 whom they cast from the top of a rock. This statement is want- 
 ing in 2 Kings xiv. 7, where, instead of it, the capture of the city 
 Sela (Petra) is mentioned. The conjecture of Thenius, that this 
 last statement of the Chronicle has been derived from a text of 
 the Kings which had become illegible at this place, has already 
 been rejected as untenable by Bertheau. Except the word S^O, 
 the two texts have nothing in common with each other; but it 
 does suggest itself that y??n 'N~i, the top of the rock (which has 
 become famous by this event), is to be looked for in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the city Selah, as the war was ended only by the 
 capture of Selah. Besides the battle in the Valley of Salt there 
 were still further battles ; and in the numbers 10,000, manifestly 
 the whole of the prisoners taken in the war are comprehended, 
 who, as irreconcilable enemies of Judah, were not made slaves, but 
 were slain by being thrown down from a perpendicular rock. 
 Ver. 13. The Ephraimite host dismissed by Amaziah fell plunder- 
 ing upon the cities of Judah, and smote of them (the inhabitants 
 of these cities) 3000, and carried away great booty. They would 
 seem to have made this devastating attack on their way home ; 
 but to this idea, which at first sufrirests itself, the more definite 
 
 / *^_-o ' 
 
 designation of the plundered cities, " from Samaria to Bethhoron," 
 does not correspond, for these words can scarcely be otherwise 
 understood than as denoting that Samaria was the starting-point 
 of the foray, and not the limit up to which the plundered cities 
 reached. For this reason Berth, thinks that this attack upon the 
 northern cities of Judah was probably carried out only at a later 
 period, when Amaziah and his army were in Edom. The latter 
 is certainly the more probable supposition ; but the course of 
 events can hardly have been, that the Ephraimite auxiliary 
 corps, after Amaziah had dismissed it, returned home to Samaria, 
 and then later, when Amaziah had marched into the Valley of 
 Salt, made this attack upon the cities of Judah, starting from 
 Samaria. It is more probable that the dismissal of this auxiliary 
 corps, which Amaziah had certainly obtained on hire from King 
 Joash, happened after they had been gathered together in 
 Samaria, and had advanced to the frontier of Judah. Then, 
 roused to anger by their dismissal, they did not at once separate 
 and return home ; but, Amaziah having meanwhile taken the field 
 against the Edomites with his army, made an attack upon the
 
 424 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 northern frontier cities of Judah as far as Bethhoron, plundering 
 as they went, and only after this plundering did they return home. 
 As to Bethhoron, now Beit-Ur, see on 1 Chron. vii. 24. 
 
 Vers. 14-16. AmaziaTis idolatry. Ver. 14. On his return 
 from smiting the Edomites, i.e. from the war in which he had 
 smitten the Edomites, Amaziah brought the gods (images) of the 
 sons of Seir (the inhabitants of Mount Seir) with him, and set 
 them up as gods, giving them religious adoration. 1 In order to 
 turn him away from this sin, which would certainly kindle Jahve's 
 wrath, a prophet said to Amaziah, " Why dost thou seek the gods 
 of the people, who have not delivered their people out of your 
 hand ? " The prophet keeps in view the motive which had 
 induced the king to set up and worship the Edomite idols, viz. 
 the belief of all polytheists, that in order to make a people sub- 
 ject, one must seek to win over their gods (cf. on this belief the 
 remarks on Num. xxii. 17), and exposes the folly of this belief by 
 pointing out the impotence of the Edomite idols, which Amaziah 
 himself had learnt to know. Ver. 16. -The king, however, in his 
 blindness puts aside this earnest warning with proud words : 
 " Have we made thee a counsellor of the king ? Forbear, why 
 should they smite thee ? " ^ru is spoken collectively : We, the 
 king, and the members of the council. And the prophet ceased, 
 only answering the king thus : " I know that God hath deter- 
 mined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this (introduced 
 Edomite idols), and hast not hearkened unto my counsel." The 
 prophet calls his warning " counsel," referring to the king's word, 
 that he was not appointed a counsellor to the king. 
 
 1 This statement, which is not found in 2 Kings xiv., may, in the opinion 
 of Berth., perhaps not rest upon a definite tradition, but be merely the appli- 
 cation of a principle which generally was found to act in the history of Israel 
 to a particular case ; i.e., it may be a clothing in historical garments of the 
 principle that divine punishment came upon the idolatrous king, because it 
 does not agree with the statement of 2 Kings xiv. 3. In that passage it is 
 said of Amaziah : He did what was right in the eyes of Jahve, only not as 
 David ; altogether as his father Joash had done, did he. But Joash allowed 
 his princes, after Jehoiada's death, to worship idols and Asheras, and had 
 caused the prophet Zechariah, who reproved this idolatry, to be stoned. 
 These are facts which, it is true, are narrated only in the Chronicle, but which 
 are admitted by Bertheau himself to be historical. Now if Amaziah did alto- 
 gether the same as his father Joash, who allowed idolatry, etc., it is hard 
 indeed to see wherein the inconsistency of our account of Amaziah's idolatry 
 with the character assigned to this king in 2 Kings xiv. 3 consists. Bertheau 
 has omitted to give us any more definite information on this point.
 
 CHAP. XXVI. 1-5. 425 
 
 Vers. 17-24. The icar with Joash, king of Israel. Instead of 
 following the counsel of the prophet, Araaziah consulted (sc. with 
 his public officials or courtiers), and challenged King Joash of 
 Israel to war. The challenge, and the war which follpwed, are 
 also narrated in 2 Kings xiv. 8-14 in agreement with our account, 
 and have been already commented upon at that place, where we 
 have also considered the occasion of this war, so fatal to Amaziah 
 and the kingdom of Judah, an account of which has been handed 
 down to us only in the supplementary narrative of the Chronicle. 
 "^ in ver. 17 for n3p, come, as in Num. xxiii. 13 and Judg. xix. 
 13. In ver. 20 the chronicler explains Amaziah's refusal to hear 
 the warning of Joash before the war with him, by a reference to 
 the divine determination : " For it (came) of God (that Amaziah 
 still went to war), that He might deliver them (the men of Judah) 
 into the hand, because they had sought the gods of Edom." T3 JH3, 
 to give into the power of the enemy. In ver. 23, ^ian "iyB> is a 
 manifest error for naan (Kings, ver. 13). Were ^iian, the gate 
 that turns itself, faces (in some direction), correct, the direction 
 would have to be given towards which it turned, e.g. Ezek. viii. 3. 
 'U1 arwr^at, ver. 24, still depends upon B>BPI, ver. 23 : and (took 
 away) all the gold, etc. In Kings, ver. 14, npTi i s supplied. 
 
 Vers. 25-28. The end of Amaziah's reign ; cf. 2 Kings xiv. 
 17-20. Although conquered and taken prisoner by Joash, Ama- 
 ziah did not lose the throne. For Joash, contented with the 
 carrying away of the treasures of the temple and of the palace, 
 and the taking of hostages, set him again at liberty, so that he 
 continued to reign, and outlived Joash by about fifteen years. 
 Ver. 26. On the book of the kings of Judah and Israel, see the 
 Introduction, p. 30 f. Ver. 27. On the conspiracy against Ama- 
 ziah, his death, etc., see the commentary on 2 Kings xiv. 17 f. 
 rrrirp "VJ73, in the city of Judah, is surprising, since everywhere 
 else " the city of David" is mentioned as the burial-place, and 
 even in our passage all the ancient versions have " in the city of 
 David." "VTCiT 1 would therefore seem to be an orthographical error 
 for T"n, occasioned by the immediately following n"iin% 
 
 CHAP. XXVI. THE REIGN OF UZZIAH (AZARIAH). 
 CF. 2 KINGS XIV. 21, 22, AND XV. 1-7. 
 
 Vers. 1-5. The statements as to Uzziah's attainment of 
 dominion, the building of the seaport town Elath on the Red
 
 426 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Sea, the length and character of his reign (vers. 1-4), agree 
 entirely with 2 Kings xiv. 21, 22, and xv. 2, 3; see the com- 
 mentary on these passages. Uzziah (^^V) i called in 1 Chron. 
 iii. 12 and in 2 Kings (generally) Azariah ( n ^1!J|) ; cf., on the 
 use of the two names, the commentary on 2 Kings xiv. 21. In 
 ver. 5, instead of the standing formula, "only the high places 
 were not removed," etc. (Kings), Uzziah's attitude towards the 
 Lord is more exactly defined thus : " He was seeking God in the 
 days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God ; and in 
 the days when he sought Jahve, God gave him success." In W 
 tin"!? the infinitive with p is subordinated to ?vn, to express the 
 duration of his seeking, for which the participle is elsewhere used. 
 Nothing further is known of the Zechariah here mentioned : 
 the commentators hold him to have been an important prophet ; 
 for had he been a priest, or the high priest, probably jnijn would 
 have been used. The reading Ew^fl nifcO2 (Keth.) is surprising, 
 'n '2 pssn can only denote, who had insight into (or understand- 
 ing for the) seeing of God ; cf. Dan. i. 17. But Kimchi's idea, 
 which other old commentators share, that this is a periphrasis to 
 denote the prophetic endowment or activity of the man, is opposed 
 by this, that " the seeing of God " which was granted to the 
 elders of Israel at the making of the covenant, Ex. xxiv. 10, 
 cannot be regarded as a thing within the sphere of human action 
 or practice, while the prophetic beholding in vision is essentially 
 different from the seeing of God, and is, moreover, never so 
 called. niN"Q would therefore seem to be an orthographical error 
 for flK"!^, some MSS. having DIKTa or nxTn (cf. de Rossi, varies 
 lectt.) ; and the LXX., Syr., Targ., Arab., Raschi, Kimchi, and 
 others giving the reading 'n J"1KT2 P?*??, who was a teacher (in- 
 structor) in the fear of God, in favour of which also Vitringa, 
 proll. in Jes. p. 4, has decided. 
 
 Vers. 6-13. Wars, buildings, and army of Uzziah. Of the 
 successful undertakings by which Uzziah raised the kingdom of 
 Judah to greater worldly power and prosperity, nothing is said in 
 the book of Kings ; but the fact itself is placed beyond all doubt, 
 for it is confirmed by the portrayal of the might and greatness of 
 Judah in the prophecies of Isaiah (chap, ii.-iv.), which date from 
 the times of Uzziah and Jotham. Ver. 6. After Uzziah had, in 
 the very beginning of his rejgn, completed the subjection of the 
 Edomites commenced by his father by the capture and fortification 
 of the seaport Elath (ver. 2), he took the field to chastise the
 
 CHAP. XXVI. G-13. 427 
 
 Philistines and Arabians, who had under Joram made an inroad 
 upon Judah and plundered Jerusalem (xxi. 16 f.). In the war 
 against the Philistines he broke down the walls of Gath, Jabneh, 
 and Ashdod (i.e. after capturing these cities), and built cities in 
 Ashclod, i.e. in the domain of Ashdod, and D'nB?S3, i.e. in other 
 domains of the Philistines, whence we gather that he had wholly 
 subdued Philistia. The city of Gath had been already taken 
 from the Philistines by David ; see 1 Chron. xviii. 1 ; and as to 
 situation, see on xi. 8. Jabneh, here named for the first time, 
 but probably occurring in Josh. xv. 11 under the name Jabneel, 
 is often mentioned under the name Jamnia in the books of the 
 Maccabees and in Josephus. It is now a considerable village, 
 Jebnah, four hours south of Joppa, and one and a half hours 
 from the sea ; see on Josh. xv. 11. Ashdod is now a village 
 called Esdud ; see on Josh. xiii. 3. Ver. 7. As against the 
 Philistines, so also against the Arabians, who dwelt in Gur-Baal, 
 God helped him, and against the Maanites, so that he overcame 
 them and made them tributary. Gur-Baal occurs only here, 
 and its position is unknown. According to the Targum, the 
 city Gerar is supposed to be intended ; LXX. translate eVt rfjs 
 Ue'rpa?, having probably had the capital city of the Edomites, 
 Petra, in their thoughts. The D'OWD are the inhabitants of 
 Maan ; see on 1 Chron. iv. 41. Ver. 8. And the Ammonites 
 also paid him tribute ( n ^p), and his name spread abroad even to 
 the neighbourhood of Egypt ; i.e., in this connection, not merely 
 that his fame spread abroad to that distance, but that the report 
 of his victorious power reached so far, he having extended his 
 rule to near the frontiers of Egypt, for he was exceedingly 
 powerful. P^HDj to show power, as in Dan. xi. 7. Ver. 9. In 
 order enduringly to establish the power of his kingdom, he still 
 more strongly fortified Jerusalem by building towers at the gates, 
 and the wall of the citadel. At the corner gate, i.e. at the 
 north- west corner of the city (see on xxv. 23 and 2 Kings xiv. 13), 
 and at the valley gate, i.e. on the west side, where the Jaffa 
 gate now is. From these sides Jerusalem was most open to 
 attack. Vtepsri, at the corner, i.e., according to Neh. iii. 19 f., 24 f., 
 on the east side of Zion ; at the place where the wall of Zion 
 crossed over at an angle to the Ophel, and joined itself to the 
 south wall of the temple hill, so that the tower at this corner 
 defended both Zion and the temple hill against attacks from the 
 valley to the south-east. Ep^ 1 ?}, he made them (thereby) strong
 
 428 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 or firm ; not, he put them in a condition of defence (Berth.), 
 although the making strong was for that end. Ver. 10. More- 
 over, Uzziah took measures for the defence of his herds, which 
 formed one main part of his revenues and wealth. He built 
 towers in the wilderness, in the steppe-lands on the west side 
 of the Dead Sea, so well fitted for cattle-breeding (i.e. in the 
 wilderness of Judah), to protect the herds against the attacks of 
 the robber peoples of Edom and Arabia. And he dug many 
 wells to water the cattle ; " for he had much cattle" in the wilder- 
 ness just mentioned, and " in the lowland " (Shephelah) on the 
 Mediterranean Sea (see 1 Chron. xxvii. 28), and " in the plain " 
 (liB^ID), i.e. the fiat land on the east side of the Dead Sea, extend- 
 ing from Arnon to near Heshbon in the north, and to the north- 
 east as far as Eabbath Ammon (see on Deut. iii. 10), i.e. the 
 tribal land of Reuben, which accordingly at that time belonged 
 to Judah. Probably it had been taken from the Israelites by the 
 Moabites and Ammonites, and reconquered from them by Uzziah, 
 and incorporated with his kingdom; for, according to ver. 8, he had 
 made the Ammonites tributary ; cf. on 1 Chron. v. 17. Hus- 
 bandmen and vine-dressers had he in the mountains and upon 
 Carmel, for he loved husbandry. After 'U1 ^"QK, i? vn is to be 
 supplied. '"^tf, the land, which is cultivated, stands here for 
 agriculture. As ,to Carmel, see on Josh. xix. 26. Vers. 11-14. 
 His army. He had a host of fighting men that went out to 
 war by bands (*WJ?, in bands), " in the number of their muster 
 by Jeiel the scribe, and Maaseiah the steward ("iBb>), under 
 Hananiah, one of the king's captains." The meaning is : that 
 the mustering by which the host was arranged in bands or 
 detachments for war service, was undertaken by ("P3) two officials 
 practised in writing and the making up of lists, who were given 
 as assistants to Hananiah, one of the princes of the kingdom 
 (T ^0, or placed at his disposal. Ver. 12. The total number of 
 the heads of the fathers'-houses in valiant heroes CniaJ? with ? of 
 
 \ : : 
 
 subordination) was 2600, and under these (&" ty, to their hand, 
 i.e. subordinate to them) an army of 307,500 warriors with mighty 
 power, to help the king against the enemy. The army was 
 consequently divided according to the fathers'-houses, so that 
 probably each father's-house formed a detachment (1H3) led by 
 the most valiant among them. Ver. 14. Uzziah supplied this 
 force with the necessary weapons, shield, lance, helmet, and 
 coat of mail, bows and sling-stones. DH? is more closely defined
 
 CHAP. XXVI. 16-22. 429 
 
 by ?37. Ver. 15. Besides this, he provided Jerusalem with ma- 
 chines for defence on the towers and battlements, niahE>n from 
 itatrrij literally excoyitata, i.e. machines, with the addition "inven- 
 tion of the artificers," are ingenious machines, and as we learn 
 from the following 'W KW, slinging machines, similar or corre- 
 sponding to the catapultce and ballistcc of the Komans, by which 
 arrows were shot and great stones propelled. Thus his name 
 spread far abroad (cf. ver. 8), for he was marvellously helped 
 till he was strong. 
 
 Vers. 16-22. Uzzialis pride, and chastisement by leprosy. His 
 death and burial. The fact that the Lord smote Uzziah with 
 leprosy, which continued until his death, so that he was com- 
 pelled to dwell in a hospital, and to allow his son Jotham to 
 conduct the government, is narrated also in 2 Kings xv. 5 ; but 
 the cause of this punishment inflicted on him by God is stated 
 only in our verses. Ver. 16. " When Uzziah had become mighty 
 (inptns as in xii. 1), his heart was lifted up (in pride) unto 
 destructive deeds." He transgressed against Jahve his God, and 
 came into the sanctuary of Jahve to offer incense upon the altar 
 of incense. With a lofty feeling of his power, Uzziah wished to 
 make himself high priest of his kingdom, like the kings of Egypt 
 and of other nations, whose kings were also summi pontifices, and to 
 unite all power in his person, like Moses, who consecrated Aaron 
 and his sons to be priests. Then, and Ewald, indeed, think that 
 the powerful Uzziah wished merely to restore the high-priesthood 
 exercised by David and Solomon ; but though both these kings 
 did indeed arrange and conduct religious festal solemnities, yet 
 they never interfered in any way with the official duties reserved 
 for the priests by the law. The arrangement of a religious 
 solemnity, the dedicatory prayer at the dedication of the temple, 
 and the offering of sacrifices, are not' specifically priestly func- 
 tions, as the service by the altars, and the entering into the holy 
 place of the temple, and other sacrificial acts were. Ver. 17 ff. 
 The king's purpose was consequently opposed by the high priest 
 Azariah and eighty priests, valiant men, who had the courage to 
 represent to him that to burn incense to the Lord did not apper- 
 tain to the king, but only to the sanctified Aaronite priests ; but 
 the king, with the censer in his hand, was angry, and the leprosy 
 suddenly broke out upon his forehead. When the priests saw the 
 leprosy, they removed the king immediately from the holy place ; 
 and Uzziah himself also hurried to go forth, because Jahve had
 
 430 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 smitten him ; for he recognised in the sudden breaking out of 
 the leprosy a punishment from God. Azariah is called & ; Nin \r\3 } 
 i.e. a high priest, and is in all probability the same person as the 
 high priest mentioned in 1 Chron. v. 36 (see on the passage). 
 "11237 "?jp N?J It (the offering of incense) is not for thine honour 
 before Jahve." *$, to foam up in anger, isjtt^, and while 1 he 
 foamed against the priests, i.e. was hot against them, the leprosy 
 had broken out. ri2TB,r?i'O, from by = near, the altar. Thus 
 
 ~ / v I 
 
 was Uzziah visited with the same punishment, for his haughty 
 disregard of the divinely appointed privileges of the priesthood, 
 as was once inflicted upon Miriam for her rebellion against the 
 prerogatives assigned to Moses by God (Num. xii. 10). Ver. 21. 
 But Uzziah had to bear his punishment until his death, and 
 dwelt the rest of his life in a separate house, while his son 
 conducted the government for him. This is also recorded in 
 2 Kings xv. 5 (cf. for JVK'snn JV2 the commentary on that 
 passage). The reason of the separation of the king from inter- 
 course with others, by his dwelling in the hospital, is given in the 
 Chronicle in the words : tl for he was cut off (shut out) from the 
 house of Jahve." This reason can only mean, that because he, 
 as a leper, was shut out from the house of the Lord, he could not 
 live in fellowship with the people of God, but must dwell in a 
 separate house. For the rest, we cannot exactly say how long 
 Uzziah continued to live under the leprosy ; but from the fact 
 that his son Jotham, who at Uzziah's death was twenty-five 
 years old, conducted the government for him, so much is clear, 
 viz. that it can only have lasted a year or two. Ver. 22. The 
 history of his reign was written by the prophet Isaiah (see the 
 Introduction, p. 34). Ver. 23. At his death, Uzziah, having 
 died in leprosy, was not buried in the graves of the king?, but 
 only in the neighbourhood of them, in the burial-field which 
 belonged to the kings, that his body might not defile the royal 
 graves. 
 
 CHAP. XXVII. THE REIGN OF JOTHAM. CF. 2 KINGS XV. 32-38. 
 
 Vers. 1-4. Jotham having ascended the throne at the age of 
 twenty-five, reigned altogether in the spirit and power of his 
 father, with the single limitation that he did not go into the 
 sanctuary of Jahve (cf. xxvi. 16 ff.). This remark is not found 
 in 2 Kings xv., because there Uzziah's intrusion into the temple
 
 CHAP. XXVII. 5-9. 431 
 
 is also omitted. The people still did corruptly (cf. xxvi. 16). 
 This refers, indeed, to the continuation of the worship in the 
 high places, but hints also at the deep moral corruption which 
 the prophets of that time censure (cf. especially Isa. ii. 5 f., 
 v. 7 ff. ; Mic. i. 5, ii. 1 ff.). Ver. 3 f. He built the upper gate 
 of the house of Jahve, i.e. the northern gate of the inner or 
 upper court (see on 2 Kings xv. 35) ; the only work of his reign 
 which is mentioned in the book of Kings. But besides this, he 
 continued the fortifying of Jerusalem, which his father had com- 
 menced ; building much at the wall of the Ophel. ?2'jn was the 
 name of the southern slope of the temple mountain (see on xxxiii. 
 14) ; the wall of Ophel is consequently the wall connecting Zion 
 with the temple mountain, at which Uzziah had already built (see 
 on xxvi. 9). He likewise carried on his father's buildings for the 
 protection of the herds (xxvi. 10), building cities in the mountains 
 of Judah, and castles (rri'J'V'a, xvii. 12) and towers in the forests 
 of the mountains of Judah (W^Xj from tin.n, a thicket). 
 
 Vers. 5-9. He made war upon the king of the Ammonites, 
 and overcame them. The Ammonites had before paid tribute to 
 Uzziah. After his death they would seem to have refused to 
 pay this tribute; and Jotham made them again tributary by 
 force of arms. They were compelled to pay him after their 
 defeat, in that same year, 100 talents of silver, 10,000 cor of 
 wheat, and a similar quantity of barley, as tribute, v ^tJ'n DNT : 
 this they brought to him again, i.e. they paid him the same 
 amount as tribute in the second and third years of their subjec- 
 tion also. After three years, consequently, they would seem to 
 have again become independent, or refused the tribute, probably 
 in the last years of Jotham, in which, according to 2 Kings 
 xv. 37, the Syrian king Rezin and Pekah of Israel began to 
 make attacks upon Judah. Ver. 6. By all these undertakings 
 Jotham strengthened himself, sc. in the kingdom, i.e. he attained 
 to greater power, because he made his ways firm before Jahve, 
 i.e. walked stedfastly before Jahve ; did not incur guilt by fall- 
 ing away into idolatry, or by faithless infringement of the rights 
 of the Lord (as Uzziah did by his interference with the rights of 
 the priesthood). From the vnbnpp'i'a in the concluding remark 
 (ver. 7) we learn that he had waged still other successful wars. 
 The older commentators reckon among these wars, the war 
 against Rezin and Pekah, which kings the Lord began in his 
 days to send against Judah (see 2 Kings xv. 37), but hardly with
 
 432 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 justice. The position of this note, which is altogether omitted in 
 the Chronicle, at the end of the account of Jotham in 2 Kings 
 xv. 37, appears to hint that this war broke out only towards the 
 end of Jotham's reign, so that he could not undertake anything 
 important against this foe. Ver. 8. The repetition of the 
 chronological statement already given in ver. 1 is probably to 
 be explained by supposing that two authorities, each of which 
 contained this remark, were used. 
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. THE REIGN OF AHAZ. CF. 2 KIXGS XVI. 
 
 In the general statements as to the king's age, and the duration 
 and the spirit of his reign, both accounts (Chron. vers. 1-4 ; Kings, 
 vers. 1-4) agree entirely, with the exception of some unessential 
 divergences ; see the commentary on 2 Kings xvi. 1-4. From 
 ver. 5 onwards both historians go their own ways, so that they 
 coincide only in mentioning the most important events of the 
 reign of this quite untheocratic king. The author of the book 
 of Kings, in accordance with his plan, records only very briefly 
 the advance of the allied kings Rezin and Pekah against Jeru- 
 salem, the capture of the seaport Elath by the Syrians, the 
 recourse which the hard-pressed Ahaz Jiad to the help of Tiglath- 
 pileser the king of Assyria, whom he induced, by sending him the 
 temple and palace treasures of gold and silver, to advance upon 
 Damascus, to capture that city, to destroy the Syrian kingdom, to 
 lead the inhabitants away captive to Kir, and to slay King Kezin 
 (vers. 5-9). Then he records how Ahaz, on a visit which he paid 
 the Assyrian king in Damascus, saw an altar which so delighted 
 him, that he sent a pattern of it to the priest Urijah, with the 
 command to build a similar altar for the temple of the Lord, on 
 which Ahaz on his return not only sacrificed himself, but also 
 commanded that all the sacrifices of the congregation should be 
 offered. And finally, he recounts how he laid violent hands on 
 the brazen vessels of the court, and caused the outer covered sab- 
 bath way to be removed into the temple because of the king of 
 Assyria (vers. 10-18) ; and then the history of Ahaz is concluded 
 by the standing formulas (vers. 19, 20). The author of the 
 Chronicle, on the contrary, depicts in holy indignation against the 
 crimes of the godless Ahaz, how God punished him for his sins. 
 1. He tells us how God gave Ahaz into the hand of the king of 
 Syria, who smote him and led away many prisoners to Damascus,
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. 5-8. 433 
 
 and into the hand of King Pekah of Israel, who inflicted on him 
 a dreadful defeat, slew 120,000 men, together with a royal prince 
 and two of the highest officials of the court, and carried away 
 200,000 prisoners women and children with a great booty 
 (vers. 5-8) ; and how the Israelites yet, at the exhortation of the 
 prophet Odecl, and of some of the heads of the people who sup- 
 ported the prophet, again freed the prisoners, provided them with 
 food and clothing, and conducted them back to Jericho (vers. 
 9-15). 2. He records that Ahaz turned to the king of Assyria 
 for help (ver. 16), but that God still further humbled Israel by 
 an invasion of the land by the Edomites, who carried prisoners 
 away (ver. 17) ; by an attack of the Philistines, who deprived 
 Judah of a great number of cities (ver. 18) ; and finally also by 
 the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser, who, although Ahaz had sent 
 him the gold and silver of the temple and of the palaces of the 
 kings and princes, yet did not help him, but rather oppressed, him 
 (ver. 20 f.). 3. Then he recounts how, notwithstanding all 
 this, Ahaz sinned still more against Jahve by sacrificing to the 
 idols of the Syrians, cutting up the vessels of the house of God, 
 closing the doors of the temple, and erecting altars and high 
 places in all corners of Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judah, 
 for the purpose of sacrificing to idols (vers. 22-25). This whole 
 description is planned and wrought out rhetorically; cf. C. P. 
 Caspari, der syrisch-ephraimitische Krieg, S. 42 ff. Out of the 
 historical materials, those facts which show how Ahaz, notwith- 
 standing the heavy blows which Jahve inflicted upon him, always 
 sinned more deeply against the Lord his God, are chosen, and 
 oratorically so presented as not only to bring before us the in- 
 creasing obduracy of Ahaz, but also, by the representation of 
 the conduct of the citizens and warriors of the kingdom of 
 Israel towards the people of Judah who were prisoners, the 
 deep fall of that kingdom. 
 
 Vers. 5-8. The war with the Kings Rezin of Syria and Pekah 
 of Israel. On the events of this Avar, so far as they can be 
 ascertained by uniting the statements of our chapter with the 
 summary account in 2 Kings xvi., see the commentary on 2 
 Kings xvi. 5 ff. The author of the Chronicle brings the two 
 main battles prominently forward as illustrations of the way in 
 which Jahve gave Ahaz into the power of his enemies because of 
 his defection from Him. Into the power of the king of Aram. 
 They (13^ and they, the Arameans) smote i3, in him, i.e. they 
 
 2E
 
 434 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 inflicted on his army a great defeat. Just so also }3BQ signifies 
 of his army. n7i"J3 i"P2K>, a great imprisonment, i.e. a great number 
 of prisoners. And into the power of the king of Israel, Pekah, 
 who inflicted on him a still greater defeat. He slew in (among) 
 Judah 120,000 men " in one day," i.e. in a great decisive battle. 
 Judah suffered these defeats because they (the men of Judah) 
 had forsaken Jahve the God of their fathers. Judah' s defection 
 from the Lord is not, indeed, expressly mentioned in the first 
 verses of the chapter, but may be inferred as a matter of course 
 from the remark as to the people under Jotham, xxvii. 2. If 
 under that king, who did that which was right in the eyes of 
 Jahve, and stedfastly walked before the Lord (xxvii. 6), they 
 did corruptly, they must naturally have departed much further 
 from the God of the fathers, and been sunk much deeper in the 
 worship of idols, and the worship on high places, under Ahaz, 
 who served the Baals and other idols. Ver. 7. In this battle, 
 Zichri, an Ephraimite hero, slew three men who were closely con- 
 nected with the king: Maaseiah, the king's son, i.e. not a son of 
 Ahaz, for in the first years of his reign, in which this war arose, 
 he cannot have had an adult son capable of bearing arms, but a 
 royal prince, a cousin or uncle of Ahaz, as in xviii. 25, xxii. 11, 
 etc. (cf. Caspari, loc. cit. S. 45 ff.) ; Azrikam, a prince of the 
 house, probably not of the house of God (xxxi. 13 ; 1 Chron. ix. 
 11), but a high official in the royal palace ; and Elkanah, the 
 second from the king, i.e. his first minister; cf. Esth. x. 3, 1 
 Sam. xxiii. 17. Ver. 8. The Israelites, moreover, carried away 
 200,000 women, sons, and daughters from their brethren, and 
 a great quantity of spoil, and brought the booty (prisoners and 
 goods ; cf. for ^^ of men, Judg. v. 30) to Samaria, p? 1 ^? the 
 brethren of the Israelites, is the name given, with emphasis, to 
 the inhabitants of Judah, here and in ver. 11, in order to point 
 out the cruelty of the Israelites in not scrupling to carry away 
 captive the defenceless women and children of their brethren. 
 
 The modern critics have taken offence at the large numbers, 
 120,000 slain and 200,000 women and children taken prisoners, 
 and have declared them to be exaggerations of the wonder-loving 
 chronicler (Gesen. on Isa., De Wette, Winer, etc.). But in this 
 they are mistaken ; for if we consider the war more closely, we 
 learn from Isa. vii. 6 that the allied kings purposed to anni- 
 hilate the kingdom of Judah. And, moreover, the Ephraimites 
 acted always with extreme cruelty in war (cf. 2 Kings xv. 16) ;
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. 9-15. 435 
 
 but more especially cherished the fiercest hatred against the men 
 of Judahj because these regarded them as having fallen away 
 from the service of the true God (2 Chron. xxv. 6-10, xiii. 
 4 ff.). But in a war for the existence of the kingdom, Ahaz 
 must certainly have called out the whole male population capable 
 of bearing arms, which is estimated in the time of Amaziah at 
 300,000 men, and in that of Uzziah at 307,500 (xxv. 5, xxvi. 13), 
 numbers which appear thoroughly credible, considering the size 
 and populousness of Judah. If we suppose the army -of Ahaz to 
 have been as large, in a decisive battle fought with all possible 
 energy nearly 120,000 men may have fallen, especially if the 
 Epbraimites, in their exasperation, unsparingly butchered their 
 enemies, as the narrative would seem to hint both by the word 
 Jin in ver. 6, which, signifies to murder, massacre, butcher, and 
 by the saying of the prophet, ver. 9, " Ye massacred among them 
 with a rage which reached to heaven." By the character of the 
 war, which resembled a civil or even a religious war, and by the 
 cruelty of the Israelites, the great number of those carried captive 
 is accounted for ; for after the great defeat of the men of Judah 
 the whole land fell into the hands of the enemy, so that they 
 could sate their hatred and anger to their heart's content by 
 carrying off the defenceless women and children to make them 
 slaves. And finally, we must also consider that the numbers of 
 the slain and of the prisoners are not founded upon exact enu- 
 meration, but upon a mere general estimate. The immense loss 
 which was sustained in the battle was estimated on the side of 
 Judah at 120,000 men ; and the number of captive women and 
 children was so immense, that they were, or might be, estimated 
 at 200,000 souls, it being impossible to give an exact statement of 
 their number. These numbers were consequently recorded in 
 the annals of the kingdom, whence the author of the Chronicle 
 has taken them ; cf. Caspar!, S. 37 ff. 
 
 Vers. 9-15. Tlie liberation of the prisoners. In Samaria there 
 was a prophet of the Lord (i.e. not of the Jahve there worshipped 
 in the calf images, but of the true God, like Hosea, who also at 
 that time laboured in the kingdom of the ten tribes), Oded by 
 name. He went forth to meet the army returning with the pri- 
 soners and the booty, as Azariah-ben-Oded (xv. 2) once went to 
 meet Asa ; pointed out to the warriors the cruelty of their treat- 
 ment of their brethren, and the guilt, calling to Heaven for ven- 
 geance, which they thereby incurred ; and exhorted them to turn
 
 436 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 away the anger of God which was upon them, by sending back 
 the prisoners. To soften the hearts of the rude warriors, and to 
 gain them for his purpose, he tells them (ver. 9), " Because the 
 Lord God of your fathers was wroth, He gave them (the men of 
 Judah) into your hand : " your victory over them is consequently 
 not the fruit of your power and valour, but the work of the God 
 of your fathers, whose wrath Judah has drawn upon itself by 
 its defection from Him. This you should have considered, and 
 so have had pity upon those smitten by the wrath of God ; " but 
 ye have slaughtered among them with a rage which reacheth up 
 to heaven," i.e. not merely with a rage beyond all measure, but a 
 rage which calls to God for vengeance ; cf. Ezra ix. 6. Ver. 
 10. " And now the sons of Judah and Jerusalem ye purpose to 
 subject to yourselves for bondmen, and bondwomen ! " rvriPP \3a 
 is accus.j and precedes as being emphatic ; i.e. } your brethren, 
 whom the wrath of God has smitten, you purpose to keep in sub- 
 jection. EfiK also is emphatically placed, and then is again 
 emphasized at the end of the sentence by the suffix in D3? ; " Are 
 there not, only concerning you, with you, sins with Jahve your 
 God ? " i.e., Have you, to regard only you, not also burdened 
 yourselves with many sins against the Lord ? The question NvH 
 is a lively way of expressing assurance as to a matter which is 
 not at all doubtful. Ver. 11. After thus quickening the con- 
 science, he calls upon them to send back the prisoners which 
 they had carried away from among their brethren, because the 
 anger of Jahve was upon them. Already in their pitiless 
 butchery of their brethren they had committed a sin which cried 
 to heaven, which challenged God's anger and His punishments ; 
 but by the carrying away of the women and children from their 
 brethren they had filled up the measure of their sin, so that God's 
 anger and rage must fall upon them. Ver. 12. This speech 
 made a deep impression. Four of the heads of the Ephraimites, 
 here mentioned by name, according to ver. 12, four princes at 
 the head of the assembled people, came before those coming from 
 the army (?y D^p, to come forward before one, to meet one), and 
 said, ver. 13, "Bring not the captives hither; for in order that a 
 sin of Jahve come upon us, do you purpose (do you intend) to 
 add to our sins and to our guilt ? " i.e. to increase our sins and 
 our guilt by making these prisoners slaves ; " for great is our 
 guilt, and fierce wrath upon Israel." Ver. 14. Then the armed 
 men (P^O?, c ^ 1 Chron. xii. 23) who had escorted the prisoners
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. 9-15. 437 
 
 to Samaria left the prisoners and the booty before the princes 
 and the whole assembly. Ver. 15. " And the men which were 
 specified by name stood up." ntotib }3j33 "i>N does not signify 
 those before mentioned (ver. 12), but the men specified by name, 
 distinguished or famous men (see on 1 Chron. xii. 31), among 
 whom, without doubt, those mentioned in ver. 12 are included, 
 but not these alone ; other prominent men are also meant. These 
 received the prisoners and the booty, clothed all the naked, provid- 
 ing them with clothes and shoes (sandals) from the booty, gave 
 them to eat and to drink, anointed them, and set all the feeble upon 
 asses, and brought them to Jericho to their brethren (country- 
 men). The description is picturesque, portraying with satisfac- 
 tion the loving pity for the miserable. B^W?, nakedness, abstr. 
 pro concr., the naked. PK'ia "737 is accus., and a nearer definition 
 of the suffix in B^ru 1 '. : they brought them, (not all, but only) all 
 the stumbling, who could not, owing to their, fatigue, make the 
 journey on foot. Jericho, the city of palm trees, as in Judg. iii. 
 13, in the tribe of Benjamin, belonged to the kingdom of Judah ; 
 see Josh, xviii. 21. Arrived there, the prisoners were with their 
 brethren. 
 
 The speech of the prophet Oded is reckoned by Gesenius, on 
 Isaiah, S. 269, among the speeches invented by the chronicler; 
 but very erroneously so : cf. against him, Caspari, loc cit. i. S. 
 49 ff. The speech cannot be separated from the fact of the 
 liberation of the prisoners carried away from Judah, which it 
 brought about ; and that is shown to be a historical fact by the 
 names of the tribal princes of Ephraim, who, in consequence of 
 the warning of the prophet, took his part and accomplished the 
 sending of them back ; they being names which are not else- 
 where met with (ver. 12). The spontaneous interference of 
 these tribal chiefs would not be in itself impossible, but yet it is 
 very improbable, and becomes perfectly comprehensible only by 
 the statement that these men were roused and encouraged thereto 
 
 O 
 
 by the word of a prophet. We must consequently regard the 
 speech of the prophet as a fact which is as well established as 
 that narrated in vers. 12-15. " If that which is narrated in ver. 
 12 ff. be not invented, it would betray the greatest levity to hold 
 that which is recorded in vers. 9-11 to be incredible " (Gasp.). 
 And, moreover, the speech of the prophet does not contain the 
 thoughts and phrases current with the author of the Chronicle, 
 but is quite suitable to the circumstances, and so fully corre-
 
 438 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 spends to what we should expect to hear from a prophet on such 
 an occasion, that there is not the slightest reason to doubt the 
 authenticity of its contents. Finally, the whole transaction is 
 exactly parallel to the interference of the prophet Shemaiah in 
 1 Kings xii. 22-24 (2 Chron. xi. 1-4), who exhorted the army of 
 Judah, fully determined upon war with the ten tribes which had 
 just revolted from the house of David, not to make war upon 
 their brethren the Israelites, as the revolt had been brought 
 
 * O 
 
 about by God. " That fact at the beginning of the history of 
 the two separated kingdoms, and this at the end of it, finely 
 correspond to each other. In the one place it is a Judasan 
 prophet who exhorts the men of Judah, in the other an Ephraimite 
 prophet who exhorts the Ephraimites, to show a conciliatory spirit 
 to the related people ; and in both cases they are successful. If 
 we do not doubt the truth of the event narrated in 1 Kings xii. 
 22-24, why should that recorded in 2 Chron. xxviii. 9-11 be in- 
 vented?" (Gasp. S. 50.) 
 
 Vers. 1621. The further chastisements inflicted upon King 
 Aliaz and the kingdom of Judah. Ver. 16. At this time, when 
 the kings Rezin and Pekah had so smitten Ahaz, the latter sent 
 to the king of Assyria praying him for help. The time when 
 Ahaz sought the help of the king of Assyria is neither exactly 
 stated in 2 Kings xvi. 7-9, nor can we conclude, as Bertheau 
 thinks we can, from Isa. vii. f. that it happened soon after the 
 invasion of Judah by the allied kings. The plural "il$&? ^po is 
 rhetorical, like the plur. Via, ver. 3. For, that Ahaz applied 
 only to one king, in the opinion of the chronicler also, we learn 
 from vers. 20, 21. By the plural the thought is expressed that 
 Ahaz, instead of seeking the help of Jahve his God, which the 
 prophet had promised him (Isa. vii. 4 ff.), turned to the kings of 
 the world-power, so hostile to the kingdom of God, from whom 
 he naturally could obtain no real help. Even here the thought 
 which is expressed only in vers. 20, 21, is present to the mind of 
 the author of the Chronicle. For before he narrates the issue of 
 the help thus sought from the Assyrian world-power in vers. 17-19, 
 he ranges all the other afflictions which Judah suffered by its 
 enemies, viz. the devastating inroads of the Edomites and Philis- 
 tines, in a series of circumstantial clauses, as they preceded in 
 time the oppression of Tiglath-pileser. Ver. 17 is to be translated, 
 " And besides, the Edomites had come, and had inflicted a defeat 
 upon Judah, and carried away captives." liy, yet besides, prceterea.
 
 CHAP. XXV11J. 16-21. 439 
 
 as in Gen. xliii. 6, Isa. i. 5. The Edomites had been made subject 
 to the kingdom of Judah only by Amaziah and Uzziah (xxv. 11 ff., 
 xxvi. 2) ; but freed by Rezin from this (cf. 2 Kings xvi. 6), they 
 immediately seized the opportunity to make an inroad upon 
 Judah, and take vengeance on the inhabitants. Ver. 18. And 
 the Philistines whom Uzziah had subdued (xxvi. 6) made use of 
 the pressure of the Syrians and Ephraimites upon Judah, not 
 only to shake off the yoke imposed upon them, but also to fall 
 plundering upon the cities of the lowland and the south of Judah, 
 and to extend their territory by the capture of several cities of 
 Judah. They took Beth-shemesh, the present Ain Shems ; and' 
 Ajalon, the present village Jalo (see on 1 Chron. vi. 44 and 54) ; 
 Gederoth in the lowland (Josh. xv. 41), not yet discovered, for 
 there are not sufficient grounds for identifying it with Gedera 
 (Josh. xv. 36), which v. de Velde has pointed out south-eastward 
 from Jabneh (see on 1 Chron. xii. 4) ; Shocho, the present 
 Shuweike, which Rehoboam had fortified (xi. 7) ; Timnah, on 
 the frontier of the tribal domain of Judah, the present Tibneh, 
 three-quarters of an hour to the west of Ain Shems (see on Josh, 
 xv. 10) ; and Gimzo, now Jimsu, a large village about two 
 miles south-east of Lydda (Lud) on the way to Jerusalem (Rob. 
 sub voce). The three last-named cities, with their daughters, i.e. 
 the small villages dependent upon them. Ver. 19. Judah suf- 
 fered this defeat, because God humbled them on account of 
 Ahaz. Ahaz is called king of Israel, not because he walked in 
 the ways of the kings of the kingdom of the ten tribes (ver. 2), 
 but ironically, because his government was the bitterest satire upon 
 the name of the king of Israel, i.e. of the people of God (Casp.) ; 
 so that Israel here, and in ver. 27, as in xxi. 2, xii. 6, is used 
 with reference to the pregnant signification of the word. J^an 'Q, 
 for (Ahaz) had acted wantonly in Judah; not: made Judah 
 wanton, for Jp.?n is construed with 3, not with accus. obj., as in 
 Ex. v. 4. 
 
 After this episode the narrator comes back upon the help 
 which Ahaz sought of the Assyrians. The Assyrian king 
 Tiglath-pileser (on the name, see on 1 Chron. v. 6) did indeed 
 come, but V9JJ, against him (Ahaz), and oppressed him, but 
 strengthened him not. iptn N?l 6 ~W\ Thenius and Bertheau 
 translate : he oppressed him, that is, besieged him, yet did not 
 overcome him ; adducing in support of this, that P]n c. accus. 
 cannot be shown to occur in the signification to strengthen one,
 
 440 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 and according to Jer. xx. 7, 1 Kings xvi. 22, is to be translated, 
 to overcome. But this translation does not at all suit the reason 
 given in the following clause: "for Ahaz had plundered the house 
 of Jahve, . . . and given it to the king of Asshur ; but it did not 
 result in help to him." The sending away of the temple and palace 
 treasures to the Assyrian king, to obtain his help, cannot possibly 
 be stated as the reason why Tiglath-pileser besieged Ahaz, but 
 did not overcome him, but only as a reason why he did not give 
 Ahaz the expected help, and so did not strengthen him. iptn fcOl 
 
 L L -L T-: : 
 
 corresponds to the 1<> ?nrop Nvl ver. 21, and both clauses refer back 
 
 . A . i T:V; :' / 
 
 to v "Hy?, ver. 16. That which Ahaz wished to buy from Tig- 
 lath-pileser, by sending him the treasures of the palace and the 
 temple, namely, help against his enemies, he did not thereby 
 obtain, but the opposite, viz. that Tiglath-pileser came against him 
 and oppressed him. When, on the contrary, Thenius takes the 
 matter thus, that the subjection of Ahaz under Tiglath-pileser was 
 indeed prevented by the treasures given, but the support desired 
 was not purchased by them, he has ungrammatically taken ptn 
 as imperfect, and violently torn away the i? nnrj?? &O1 from what 
 precedes. If we connect these words, as the adversative N?1 re- 
 quires, with 'U1 \FN } then the expression, " Ahaz gave the Assyrian 
 king the treasures of the temple, . . . but it did not result in 
 help to him," gives no support to the idea that Tiglath-pileser 
 besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. The context 
 therefore necessarily demands that ptn should have the active 
 signification, to strengthen, notwithstanding that ptn in Kal is 
 mainly used as intransitive. Moreover, v "IVJ1 also does not 
 denote he besieged, as IvS "tt'l or V?y, 2 Sam. xx. 15, 1 Sam. 
 xxiii. 8; but only, he oppressed him, and cannot here be translated 
 otherwise than the v "ivn, ver. 22, which corresponds to it, where 
 Bertheau also has decided in favour of the signification oppress. 
 It is not stated wherein the oppression consisted ; but without 
 doubt it was that Tiglath-pileser, after he had both slain Rezin 
 and conquered his kingdom, and also taken away many cities in 
 Galilee and the land of Naphtali from Pekah, carrying away the 
 inhabitants to Assyria (2 Kings xvi. 9 and xv. 29), advanced 
 against Ahaz himself, to make him a tributary. The verbs P?n 
 and }n>1 (ver. 21) are pluperfects: "for Ahaz had plundered," etc. 
 Not when Tiglath-pileser oppressed him, but when he besought 
 help of that king, Ahaz had sent him the treasures of the temple 
 and the palace as "inc?, 2 Kings xvi. 7, 8. P?n denotes to plunder,
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. 16-21. 441 
 
 like i^n, a share of booty, Num. xxxi. 36, and booty, Job xvii. 5. 
 The selection of this word for the taking away of the treasures 
 of silver and gold out of the temple and palace arises from the 
 impassioned nature of the language. The taking away of these 
 treasures was, in fact, a plundering of the temple and of the 
 palace. Had Ahaz trusted in the Lord his God, he would not 
 have required to lay violent hands on these treasures. D'niS'rn is 
 added to ^sn ns ? 5 to signify that Ahaz laid hands upon the 
 precious things belonging to the high officials who dwelt in the 
 palace, and delivered them over to the Assyrian king (Berth.). 
 Although the author of the Chronicle makes the further 
 
 o 
 
 remark, that the giving of these treasures over did not result in 
 help to Ahaz, yet it cannot be at all doubtful that he had the 
 fact recorded in 2 Kings xvi. 7-9 before his eyes, and says 
 nothing inconsistent with that account. According to 2 Kings 
 xvi. 9, Tiglath-pileser, in consequence of the present sent him, 
 took the field, conquered and destroyed the kingdom of Rezin, 
 and also took possession of the northern part of the kingdom of 
 Israel, as is narrated in 2 Kings xv. 29. The author of the 
 Chronicle has not mentioned these events, because Ahaz was not 
 thereby really helped. Although the kings Rezin and Pekali 
 were compelled to abandon their plan of capturing Jerusalem 
 and subduing the kingdom of Judah, by the inroad of the Assy- 
 rians into their land, yet this help was to be regarded as nothing, 
 seeing that Tiglath-pileser not only retained the conquered terri- 
 tories and cities for himself, but also undertook the whole cam- 
 paign, not to strengthen Ahaz, but for the extension of his own 
 (the Assyrian) power, and so made use of it, and, as we are told 
 in ver. 20 of the Chronicle, oppressed Ahaz. This oppression is, 
 it is true, not expressly mentioned in 2 Kings xvi., but is hinted 
 in 2 Kings xvi. 18, and placed beyond doubt by 2 Kings xviii. 
 7, 14, 20 ; cf . Isa. xxxvi. 5. In 2 Kings xvi. 18 it is recorded 
 that Ahaz removed the covered sabbath portico which had been 
 built to the house of God, and the external entrance of the king 
 into the house of the Lord, because of ( H ?sp) the king of Assyria. 
 Manifestly Ahaz feared, as J. D. Mich, has already rightly 
 concluded from this, that the king of Assyria, whom he had 
 summoned to his assistance, might at some time desire to take 
 possession of the city, and that in such a case this covered sabbath 
 porch and an external entrance into the temple might be of use 
 to him in the siege. This note, therefore, notwithstanding its
 
 -> 
 
 442 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 obscurity, yet gives sufficiently clear testimony in favour of the 
 statement in the Chronicle, that the king of Assyria, who had 
 been called upon by Ahaz for help, oppressed him, upon which 
 doubt has been cast by Gesen. ha. i. S. 269, etc. Tiglath-pileser 
 must have in some way shown a desire to possess Jerusalem, 
 and Ahaz have consequently feared that he might wish to take it 
 by force. But from 2 Kings xviii. 7, 14, 20, cf. Isa. xxxvi. 5, it 
 is quite certain Ahaz had become tributary to the Assyrian king, 
 and the kingdom dependent upon the Assyrians. It is true, 
 indeed, that in these passages, strictly interpreted, this subjection 
 of Judah is only said to exist immediately before the invasion of 
 Sennacherib; but since Assyria made no war upon Judah between 
 the campaign of Tiglath-pileser against Damascus and Samaria 
 and Sennacherib's attack, the subjection of Judah to Assyria, 
 which Hezekiah brought to an end, can only have dated from 
 the time of Ahaz, and can only have commenced when Ahaz had 
 called in Tiglath-pileser to aid him against his enemies. Cer- 
 tainly the exact means by which Tiglath-pileser compelled Ahaz 
 to submit and to pay tribute cannot be recognised under, and 
 ascertained from, the rhetorical mode of expression : Tiglath- 
 pileser came against him, and oppressed him. Neither Ivy JGM 
 nor v "iy*l require us to suppose that Tiglath-pileser advanced 
 against Jerusalem with an army, although it is not impossible 
 that Tiglath-pileser, after having conquered the Israelite cities 
 in Galilee and the land of Naphtali, and carried away their 
 inhabitants to Assyria (2 Kings xv. 29), may have made a further 
 advance, and demanded of Ahaz tribute and submission, ordering 
 a detachment of his troops to march into Judah to enforce his 
 demand. But the words quoted do not necessarily mean more 
 than that Tiglath made the demand on Ahaz for tribute from 
 Galilee, with the threat that, if he should refuse it, he would 
 march into and conquer Judah ; and that Ahaz, feeling himself 
 unable to cope successfully with so powerful a king, prqmised to 
 pay the tribute without going to war. Even in this last case the 
 author of the Chronicle might say that the king who had been 
 summoned by Ahaz to his assistance came against him and 
 oppressed him, and helped him not. Cf . also the elaborate defence 
 of the account in the Chronicle, in Caspari, S. 56 ff. 
 
 Vers. 22-25. Increase of Ahaz 1 transgressions against the Lord. 
 Ver. 22. After this proof that Ahaz only brought greater 
 oppression upon himself by seeking help from the king of
 
 CHAP. XXVIII. 22-25. 443 
 
 Assyria (vers. 16-21), there follows (ver. 22 f.) an account of 
 how he, in his trouble, continued to sin more and more against 
 God the Lord, and hardened himself more and more in 
 idolatry. 6 isn njni corresponds to the wrm nj?a, ver. 16. At 
 the time when they oppressed him, he trespassed yet more 
 against the Lord, he King Ahaz." In the last words the 
 rhetorical emphasizing of the subject comes clearly out. The 
 sentence contains a general estimation of the attitude of the 
 godless king under the divine chastisement, which is then illus- 
 trated by facts (vers. 23-25). Ver. 23. He sacrificed to the 
 gods of Damascus, which smote him, saying, i.e. thinking, The 
 gods of the kings of Aram which helped them, to them will I 
 sacrifice, and they will help me. ^2 serves to introduce the 
 saying, and both &n and En? are rhetorical. Berth, incorrectly 
 translates the participle D^sn by the pluperfect : who had smitten 
 him. It was not after the Syrians had smitten him that Ahaz 
 sought to gain by sacrifice the help of their gods, but while the 
 Syrians were inflicting defeats upon him; not after the con- 
 clusion of the Syrian war, but during its course. The ungram- 
 matical translation of the participle by the pluperfect arises from 
 the view that the contents of our verse, the statement that Ahaz 
 sacrificed to the Syrian gods, is an unhistorical misinterpretation 
 of the statement in 2 Kings xvi. 10 ff., about the altar which 
 Ahaz saw when he went to meet the Assyrian king in Damas- 
 cus, and a copy of which he caused to be made in Jerusalem, 
 and set up in the temple court, in the place of the copper altar 
 of burnt-offering. But we have already rejected that view as 
 unfounded, in the exposition of 2 Kings xvi. 10. Since Ahaz 
 had cast and erected statues to the Baals, and even sacrificed his 
 son to Moloch, he naturally would not scruple to sacrifice to the 
 Assyrian gods to secure their help. But they (these gods) 
 brought ruin to him and to all Israel. '^T^ is in the accusative, 
 and co-ordinate with the suffix in W03H. Ver. 24 f. Not con- 
 tent with thus worshipping strange gods, Ahaz laid violent hands 
 upon the temple vessels and suppressed the temple worship. He 
 collected all the vessels of the house of God together, and broke 
 them in pieces. These words also are rhetorical, so that neither 
 the e lDX'!, which depicts the matter vividly, nor the ^3, is to be 
 pressed. The H?i? of the vessels consisted, according to 2 Kings 
 xvi. 17, in this, that he mutilated the artistically wrought vessels 
 of the court, and cut out the panels from the bases, and took
 
 444 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 away the layers from them, and took down the brazen sea from 
 the oxen on which it stood, and set it upon a pavement of stones. 
 " And he closed the doors of the house of Jahve," in order to 
 put an end to the Jahve-worship in the temple, which he re- 
 garded as superfluous, since he had erected altars at the corners 
 of all the streets in Jerusalem, and in all the cities of Judah. 
 The statement as to the closing of the temple doors, to which 
 reference is made in chap. xxix. 3, 7, is said by Berth, not to 
 rest upon good historical recollection, because the book of Kings 
 not only does not say anything of it, but also clearly gives us 
 to understand that Ahaz allowed the Jahve-worship to continue, 
 2 Kings xvi. 15 f. That the book of Kings (ii. 16) makes no 
 mention of this circumstance does not prove much, it being an 
 argumentum e silentio ; for the book of Kings is not a complete 
 history, it contains only a short excerpt from the history of the 
 kings ; while the intimation given us in 2 Kings xvi. 15 f. as to 
 the continuation of the worship of Jahve, may without difficulty 
 be reconciled with the closing of the temple doors. The ninTn 
 mrv TVa are not the gates of the court of the temple, but, ac- 
 cording to the clear explanation of the Chronicle, chap. xxix. 7, 
 the doors of the porch, which in xxix. 3 are also called doors of 
 the house of Jahve ; the " house of Jahve" signifying here not 
 the whole group of temple buildings, but, in the narrower sense 
 of the words, denoting only the main body of the temple (the 
 Holy Place and the Most Holy, wherein Jahve was enthroned). 
 By the closing of the doors of the porch the worship of Jahve in 
 the Holy Place and the Most Holy was indeed suspended, but the 
 worship at the altar in the court was not thereby necessarily inter- 
 fered with : it might still continue. Now it is the worship at the 
 altar of burnt-offering alone of which it is said in 2 Kings xvi. 15 
 that Ahaz allowed it to continue to this extent, that he ordered 
 the priest Urijah to offer all the burnt-offerings and sacrifices, 
 meat-offerings and drink-offerings, which were offered morning 
 and evening by both king and people, not upon the copper sacri- 
 ficial altar (Solomon's), but on the altar built after the pattern of 
 that which he had seen at Damascus. The cessation of worship at 
 this altar is also left unmentioned by the Chronicle, and in xxix. 
 7. Hezekiah, when he again opened the doors of the house of 
 Jahve, only says to the priests and Levites, " Our fathers have 
 forsaken Jahve, and turned their backs on His sanctuary ; yea, 
 have shut the doors of the porch, put out the lamps, and have
 
 CHAP. XXIX.-XXXII. 445 
 
 not burnt incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the Holy Place 
 unto the God of Israel" Sacrificing upon an altar built after a 
 heathen model was not sacrificing to the God of Israel. There 
 is therefore no ground to doubt the historical truth of the state- 
 ment in our verse. The description of the idolatrous conduct of 
 Ahaz concludes with the remark, ver. 25, that Ahaz thereby 
 provoked Jahve, the God of his fathers, to anger. 
 
 Vers. 26 and 27. The end of his reign. Ver. 27. Ahaz 
 indeed both died and was buried in the city, in Jerusalem (as 
 2 Kings xvi. 20), but was not laid in the graves of the kings, 
 because he had not ruled like a king of the people of God, the 
 true Israel. Since the name Israel is used in a pregnant sense, 
 as in ver. 19, the terms in which the place where he died is 
 designated, " in the city, in Jerusalem," would seem to have 
 been purposely selected to intimate that Ahaz, because he had 
 not walked during life like his ancestor David, was not buried 
 along with David when he died. 
 
 CPAP. XXIX.-XXXII. THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH. 
 CF. 2 KINGS XVIII.-XX. 
 
 Hezekiah, the pious son of the godless Ahaz, recognised that 
 it was to be the business of his reign to bring the kingdom out of 
 the utterly ruinous condition into which Ahaz had brought it by 
 his idolatry and his heathen policy, and to elevate the state again, 
 both in respect to religion and morals, and also in political affairs. 
 He consequently endeavoured, in the rst place, to do away with 
 the idolatry, and to restore the Jahve-worship according to the 
 law, and then to throw off the yoke of subjection to the Assyrian. 
 These two undertakings, on the success of which God bestowed 
 His blessing, form the contents of the history of his reign both 
 in the books of Kings and in the Chronicle ; but they are differ- 
 ently treated by the authors of these books. In the book of 
 Kings, the extirpation of idolatry, and Hezekiah's faithfulness in 
 cleaving to the Lord his God, are very briefly recorded (2 Kings 
 xvii. 3-7) ; while the throwing off of the Assyrian yoke, which 
 brought on Sennacherib's invasion, and ended with the destruction 
 of the Assyrian army before Jerusalem, and the further results 
 of that memorable event (the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah, 
 the arrival of a Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem, and Hezekiah's 
 reception of them), are very fully narrated in 2 Kings xviii. 8-
 
 446 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 xx. 19. The author of the Chronicle, on the contrary, enlarges 
 upon Hezekiah's reform of the cultus, the purification of the 
 temple from all idolatrous abominations, the restoration of the 
 Jahve-worship, and a solemn celebration of the passover, to which 
 the king invited not only his own subjects, but also the remainder 
 of the ten tribes (chap, xxix. xxxi.) ; and gives merely a brief 
 summary of the chief points in Sennacherib's invasion, and the 
 events connected with it (chap, xxxii.). 
 
 Chap. xxix. The beginning of his reign (vers. 1, 2). Purifica- 
 tion and consecration of the temple (vers. 3-36). Vers. 1 and 2. 
 Age of Hezekiah, duration and spirit of his reign, as in 2 Kings 
 xviii. 1-3. With ver. 3 the account of the restoration of the 
 Jahve-worship begins. In the first year of his reign, in the first 
 month, Hezekiah caused the temple doors to be opened, and the 
 priests and Levites to assemble, in order that he might rouse 
 them by an energetic address to purify the house of God from 
 all the uncleannesses of idolatry (vers. 3-11). They, vigorously 
 commencing the work, completed the purification of the . temple 
 with its courts and vessels in sixteen days, and reported to the 
 king what had been done (vers. 12-19) ; and then the' king and 
 the chiefs of the city offered a great sacrifice to consecrate the 
 purified sanctuary, upon which followed burnt-offerings, and 
 sacrifices, and thankofferings of the whole assembly (vers. 20-36). 
 
 Vers. 3-19. The purification of the temple by the priests and 
 Levites. Ver. 3. In the first year of his reign, in the first month, 
 he caused the doors of the house of Jahve to be opened and 
 repaired (p?n as 'in xxiv. 12, where it alternates with B^.n). Cf. 
 herewith the remark in 2 Kings xviii. 16, that Hezekiah caused 
 the doors of the J^n to be covered with leaf-gold. The date, in 
 Hie first month, in the first year of his reign, is variously inter- 
 preted. As the Levites, according to ver. 17, began the purifi- 
 cation on the first day of the first, month, in eight days had 
 reached the porch, and on the sixteenth day of the first month 
 had completed the work, while the king had, according to ver. 4, 
 before called upon the priests and Levites to sanctify themselves 
 for the work, and those summoned then assembled their brethren 
 for this purpose, and after they had consecrated themselves, 
 began the cleansing (ver. 15), it would seem as if the sum- 
 mons of the king and the calling together of the remaining 
 Levites had occurred before the first day of the first month, when 
 they began the purification of the house of God. On that
 
 CHAP. XXIX. 3-19. 447 
 
 account Caspar! (Bcitrage z. Einleit. in d. B. JesaiaJi, S. Ill) 
 thinks that the first month (ver. 3) is not the first month of the 
 year (Nisan), but the first month of the reign of Hezekiah, who 
 probably became king shortly before Nisan, towards the end of 
 the year. But it is not at all likely that |iBWn enhn i s US ed in 
 a different sense in ver. 3 from that in which it is used in ver. 17. 
 We therefore hold, with Berth, and others, the first month, both 
 in ver. 3 and in ver. 17, to be the first month of the ecclesiastical 
 year Nisan, without, however, accepting the supposition of Gum- 
 pach and Bertheau that the years of Hezekiah's reign began 
 with the first of Tishri, for for that way of reckoning there are 
 no certain data in the historical books of the Old Testament. 
 The statement, " in the first year of his reign, in the first month" 
 (not in the first year, in the first month of his reign), is suffi- 
 ciently explained if Hezekiah ascended the throne in one of the 
 last months of the calendar year, which began with Nisan. In 
 that case, on the first of Nisan of the new year, so few months, 
 or perhaps only weeks, would have elapsed since his accession, 
 that what he did in Nisan could not rightly have been dated 
 otherwise than li in the first year of his reign." The other diffi- 
 culty, that the purification of the temple began on the first day of 
 the first month (ver. 7), while the preparations for it which pre- 
 ceded were yet, according to ver. 3, made also in the first month, 
 is removed if we take ver. 3 to be a comprehensive summary of 
 what is described in the following verses, and regard the connec- 
 tion between vers. 3 and 4 ff. as only logical, not chronological, 
 the 1 consec. (N?jV) expressing, not succession in time, but con- 
 nection in thought. The opening of the doors of the house of 
 God, and the repairing of them (ver. 3), did not precede in time 
 the summons to the priests (ver. 4), but is placed at the com- 
 mencement of the account of the reopening and restoration of 
 the temple as a contrast to the closing and devastation of the 
 sanctuary by Ahaz. Hezekiah commenced this work in the first 
 year of his reign, in the first month of the calendar year, and 
 accomplished it as is described in vers. 4-1 7. If we take ver. 3 as 
 a statement of the contents of the succeeding section, as are e.g. 
 (1 Kings vi. 14, vii. 1) the statements, li he built the house, and 
 completed it," where in both passages the completion of the 
 building is described only in the succeeding verses, we need not 
 confine the preparations spoken of in vers. 4-15 to the first day 
 of the first month, but may quite well suppose that these pre-
 
 448 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 parations preceded the first day of the month, and that only the 
 accomplishment of that which had been resolved upon and com- 
 manded by the king fell in the first month, as is more accurately 
 stated in ver. 17. Ver. 4. Hezekiah gathered the priests and 
 Levites together " into the open space of the east," i.e in the 
 eastern open space before the temple, not " in the inner court " 
 (Berth.), see on Ezra x. 9, and called upon them (ver. 5) to 
 sanctify themselves, and then to sanctify the house of the Lord. 
 To purify the temple they must first sanctify themselves (cf. ver. 
 15), in order to proceed to the work of sanctifying the house of 
 God in a state of Levitical purity. The work was to remove all 
 that was unclean from the sanctuary, rnan is Levitical un- 
 cleanness, for which in ver. 16 we have nxctsn ; here the abomi- 
 nations of idolatry. The king gave the reason of his summons 
 in a reference to the devastation which Ahaz and his contempo- 
 raries had wrought in the house of God (vers. 6, 7), and to the 
 wrath of God which had on that account come upon them (vers. 
 8, 9). " Our fathers" (ver. 6), that is, Ahaz and his contempo* 
 raries, for only these had been guilty of displeasing God in the 
 ways mentioned in vers. 6 and 7, " have turned away their face 
 from the dwelling of Jahve, and turned their back (upon it)." 
 These words are a symbolical expression for : they have ceased 
 to worship Jahve in His temple, and exchanged it for idolatry. 
 Ver. 7. Even (03) the doors of the porch have they shut, and 
 caused the service in the sanctuary, the lighting of the lamps, 
 and the sacrifices of incense, to cease ; see on xxviii. 24. The 
 words, " and they brought not burnt-offerings in the sanctuary to 
 the God of Israel," do not imply the complete cessation of the 
 legal sacrificial worship, but only that no burnt-offerings were 
 brought to the God of Israel. Sacrifices offered upon the altar 
 of burnt-offering built after a heathen pattern by Ahaz were not, 
 in the eyes of the author of the Chronicle, sacrifices which were 
 offered to the God of Israel ; and it is also possible that even this 
 sacrificial worship may have more and more decayed. t^P, ver. 
 7, is the whole sanctuary, with the court of the priests. Ver. 8 f. 
 Wherefore the wrath of the Lord came upon Judah and Jeru- 
 salem. Cf. for the expression, xxiv. 18, xxxii. 25 ; on ver. 8&, cf. 
 Deut. xxviii. 25, 37, Jer. xxiv. 9, xxv. 9, etc. " As ye see with 
 your eyes." The shameful defeats which Judah had sustained 
 under Ahaz from the Syrians, Ephraimites, Philistines, and 
 Edomites, and the oppression by the Syrian king (xxviii. 5 ff.,
 
 CHAP. XXIX. 12-19. 449 
 
 vers. 17-21), are here referred to, as we learn from ver. 9. Ver. 
 10. To turn away this anger of God, Hezekiah wishes to make a 
 covenant with the Lord, i.e. to renew the covenant with Jahve 
 
 f 
 
 by restoring His worship ( S 23p DJJ as in vi. 7, ix. 1, 1 Chron. 
 xxviii. 2, etc.), and therefore calls upon the Levites not to neglect 
 the performance of their duty. "^ he calls the Levites, address- 
 ing them in kindly language ; cf. Prov. i. 8, etc. v$n in Niph. 
 occurs only here, and denotes to avoid a thing from carelessness 
 or laziness, from n?B>, to draw forth ; Job xxvii. 8. On ver. 
 116, cf. Deut. x. 8, l' Chron. xxiii. 13. 
 
 Vers. 12-19. This address was heard with gladness. The 
 Levites present assembled their brethren, and set to work, after 
 they had all sanctified themselves, to purify the temple. In 
 vers. 12-14 fourteen names are mentioned as those of the audi- 
 ence, viz. : two Levites of each of the great families of Kohath, 
 Merari, and Gershon ; two of the family of Elizaphan, i.e. Elza- 
 phan the son of Uzziel, the son of Kohath, Ex. vi. 18, who in 
 the time of Moses was prince of the family of Kohath, Num. iii. 
 30 ; and then two Levites of the descendants of Asaph (of the 
 family of Gershon) ; two of Heman's descendants (of the family 
 of Kohath) ; and two of Jeduthun's (of the family of Merari) : 
 see on 1 Chron. vi. 18-32. Of these names, Mahath, Eden, and 
 Jehiel occur again in chap. xxxi. 13-15 ; several others, Joah 
 ben Zimmah and Kish ben Abdi, have occurred already in the 
 genealogy, 1 Chron. vi. 5 f. and ver. 29, for in the various 
 families the same name often repeats itself. Ver. 15. These 
 fourteen heads of the various families and branches of Levi 
 assembled their brethren (the other Levites who dwelt in Jeru- 
 salem) ; then they all sanctified themselves, and went forward, 
 according to the command of the king, with the work of cleans- 
 
 ing the temple. HIM 11 "nTta belongs to 'on rny3, according to the 
 command of the king, which was founded upon the words of 
 Jahve, i.e. upon the commands of Moses' law ; cf. xxx. 12. Ver. 
 16. The priests went into the inner part of the house of the 
 Lord (into the holy place, probably also into the most holy place) 
 to cleanse it, and removed all the uncleanness which was there 
 into the court, whence the Levites carried it out into the valley 
 of the brook Kidron (<v&n, out of the precincts of the temple). 
 The Levites were forbidden by the law to enter the holy place, 
 and this command was strictly observed. Of what nature the 
 uncleannesses were which the priests found in the holy place 
 
 2 F
 
 450 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 ( ? ^} cannot be accurately ascertained. Owing to the preva- 
 lence of idolatry under Ahaz, vessels, e.g. sacrificial bowls, which 
 were used in the worship, may have come into the holy place ; 
 and besides, all vessels of the holy place would require to be 
 cleaned, and their filth removed. The closing of the temple 
 doors (xxviii. 24) occurred only in the last year of Ahaz, while 
 idolatry had been practised from the beginning of his reign. 
 On the Kidron, see on 2 Kings xxiii. 4. Ver. 17. The duration 
 of the purification. On the first day of the first month they 
 commenced with the purification of the courts ; on the eighth 
 day of the same month they came to the porch of Jahve, and 
 with it began the purification of the temple building. This 
 lasted eight days more, so that the work was finished on the six- 
 teenth day of the first month. Ver. 18 f. At the end of this 
 business they made their report to the king. " All the vessels 
 which King Ahaz had thrown away, i.e. made worthy of re- 
 jection," are the copper altar of burnt-offering, the brazen sea, 
 and the lavers upon the bases (2 Kings xvi. 14, 17). ^an, we 
 have prepared, is a shorter form of ^iran ; cf . Gesen. Gramm. 
 72. 5, and J. Olshausen, Jiebr. Grammat. S. 565. The altar 
 of Jahve is the altar of burnt-offering; cf. ver. 21. 
 
 Vers. 2030. The re-dedication of the temple by offering sacri- 
 fices* Ver. 20. Probably on the very next morning Hezekiah 
 went with the princes (heads) of the city into the house of the 
 Lord, and brought seven bullocks, seven rams, and seven lambs 
 for a burnt-offering, and seven he-goats for a sin-offering, " for 
 the kingdom, for the sanctuary, and for Judah," i.e. as expiation 
 for and consecration of the kingdom, sanctuary, and people. 
 These sacrifices were offered by the priests according to the 
 prescription of the law of Moses, vers. 22-24. The burnt- 
 offerings are first named, as in the sacrificial Torah in Lev. 
 i.-vi., although the offering of the sin-offering preceded that of 
 the burnt-offering. The laying on of hands, too, is mentioned 
 only with the sin-offering, ver. 23, although according to Lev. 
 i. 4 the same ceremony was gone through with the burnt-offer- 
 ings ; but that is not because a confession of sin was probably 
 made during the laying on of hands, as Bertheau conjectures, ad- 
 ducing Lev. xvi. 21, for from that passage no such conclusion can 
 be drawn. The ceremony is mentioned only in the one case to 
 emphasize the fact that the king and the assembly (the latter, of 
 course, by their representatives) laid their hands upon the sacri-
 
 CHAP. XXIX. 20-30. 451 
 
 ficial beasts, because the atonement was, according to the king's 
 words, to be for all Israel. "All Israel" are probably not only 
 all the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah, but Israelites in 
 general (the twelve tribes), for whom the temple in Jerusalem 
 was the only lawful sanctuary. En OX Stan signifies to bring the 
 blood to the altar for an atonement, in the manner prescribed in 
 Lev. iv. 30, 34. Ver. 25. Hezekiah, moreover, restored again 
 the music with which the Levites were wont to accompany the 
 sacrificial act, and which David, with the prophets Gad and 
 Nathan, had arranged. The 1 consec. with "ipiw expresses the 
 secution of thought, and ver. 25 corresponds to the 21st verse. 
 First, the beasts to be sacrificed were prepared for the sacrifice, 
 and then to the Levites was committed the performance of in- 
 strumental and vocal music during the sacrificial act. In refer- 
 ence to the musical instruments, see on 1 Chron. xv. 16. The 
 Levites were appointed to sing, " according to the command of 
 David;" but this command was T?j by interposition of Jahve, 
 viz. given by His prophets. David had consequently made this 
 arrangement at the divine suggestion, coming to him through 
 the prophets. With ^sn nth c f. 1 Chron. xxi. 9. V^3J Ta is 
 in explanatory apposition to nifV T3, and 1^33 is not to be re- 
 ferred to David, although David is called in viii. 14 " man of 
 God." Ver. 26. TH "fa are the musical instruments the use of 
 which David introduced into the public worship ; see 1 Chron. 
 xxiii. 5. The first clause, ver. 27, " And Hezekiah commanded 
 to offer the burnt-offering upon the altar," is repeated from ver. 
 21 to form a connection for what follows: "At the time when 
 the sacrificial act began, the song of Jahve commenced," i.e. the 
 praising of Jahve by song and instrumental music (>"nrv *VK> = 
 miT^ VBJ, 1 Chron. xxv. 7), and (the blowing) of trumpets, " and 
 that under the leading (^* ?JJ) of the instruments of David." 
 This is to be understood as denoting that the blowing of the 
 trumpets regulated itself by the playing of the stringed instru- 
 ments, suited itself to the song and the music of the stringed 
 instruments. Ver. 28. During the offering of the burnt-offering, 
 until it was ended, the whole congregation stood worshipping ; 
 and the song of the Levites, accompanied by the music of the 
 stringed instruments and the trumpet-blowing of the priests, 
 continued. TpVE "T'tjfy " the song was singing," stands for " the 
 body of singers sang ; " and the trumpets also stand for the 
 trumpeters. Ver. 29. At the conclusion of the sacrificial act
 
 452 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 0"ii%6 is a contraction for nbiyn ffbgk, ver. 27) the king and all 
 who were present knelt and worshipped. Ver. 30. The king 
 and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the 
 Lord with the words (psalms) of David and of Asaph ; and they 
 sang praise with joy, and bowed themselves and worshipped. 
 This verse does not mean that the Levites began to sing psalms 
 at the king's command only after the sacrificial act and the 
 instrumental music (ver. 27 f.) had been finished, but it forms a 
 comprehensive conclusion of the description of the sacrificial 
 solemnities. The author of the Chronicle considered it neces- 
 sary to make express mention of the praising of God in psalms, 
 already implicite involved in the TO^P "^'l, ver. 28, and to 
 remark that the Levites also, at the conclusion of the song of 
 praise, knelt and worshipped. Asaph is here called nth, as 
 Jeduthun (Ethan) is in chap. xxxv. 15, and Heman, 1 Chron. 
 xxv. 5. 
 
 Vers. 31-36. The sacrifice of thank-offerings and praise-offer- 
 ings and voluntary burnt-offerings. Hezekiah introduces this, the 
 concluding act of this religious festival, with the words, tl Now 
 have ye filled your hand to the Lord," i.e. you have again con- 
 secrated yourselves to the service of the Lord (cf. Ex. xxxii. 39 
 and the commentary on Lev. vii. 37 f.) ; " come near, and bring 
 sacrifices and thank-offerings into the house of the Lord." The 
 words "Now have ye filled" are regarded by the commentators 
 (Clericus, Eamb., Bertheau, etc.) as addressed to the priests; 
 while the following '131 VkJ>3 are supposed to be directed to the con- 
 gregation, and Clericus and Ramb. consequently supply before 
 tt?3, vos verOj Israelites. The summons ^N^ni 15^3 can certainly 
 only be addressed to the congregation, as is shown by the words 
 $n|3n wajlj and the congregation brought, which correspond to 
 the summons. But the supplying of vos vero before 1E'3 is quite 
 arbitrary. If in ^3 other persons are addressed than those to 
 whom the king formerly said, "Now have ye filled your hands," 
 the change in the persons addressed would have been intimated 
 by mention of the person, or at least by BflNl, tl but ye." As the 
 two clauses at present stand, they must be spoken to the same 
 persons, viz. the whole assembled congregation, including the 
 priests and Levites. We must therefore suppose that the phrase 
 ''? *P N^OJ which in its narrower sense denotes only the conse- 
 cration of the priests for service at the altar (see on Lev. vii. 37), 
 is here used in a wider sense, and transferred to the whole con-
 
 CHAP. XXIX, 31-36. 453 
 
 gregation. They, by their participation in the consecratory 
 offerings, by laying on of hands and worship during the sacri- 
 ficial act, had consecrated themselves anew to the service of the 
 Lord as their God, and had anew made a covenant with the 
 Lord (ver. 10) ; so that only the sacrificial meal was wanting 1 to 
 the completion of this celebration of the covenant, and for this 
 the offering of sacrifices was requisite. The collocation DTOT 
 
 O f . ' T: 
 
 nilim is strange. DTOT are Dw0 DTnr, sacrifices of peace-offer- 
 
 : o * T * / "** JL 
 
 ing, also called briefly D'D73'. Of these, in the law, three species 
 praise-offerings (nilin), vowed offerings, and voluntary offerings 
 are distinguished (Lev. vii. 11, 16). rrilin therefore denotes a 
 species of the sacrifices or peace-offerings, the praise or thank- 
 offerings in the stricter sense ; and ni"iirn must be taken as expli- 
 cative : sacrifices, and that (or namely) praise-offerings. 3**D~231 
 2?, and every one who was heartily willing, (brought) burnt- 
 offerings ; i.e., all who felt inwardly impelled to do so, brought of 
 their own accord burnt-offerings. Ver. 32. The number of the 
 burnt-offerings brought spontaneously by the congregation was 
 very large: 70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs. Ver. 33. 
 B'^ij'.'Tlj and the consecrated, i.e. the beasts brought as thank- 
 offering (cf. xxxv. 13, Neh. x. 34), were 600 bullocks and 3000 
 small cattle (sheep and goats). In vers. 34-36 the account closes 
 with some remarks upon these sacrifices and the festal solemnity. 
 Ver. 34. But there were too few priests, and they were not able 
 (so that they were not able) to flay all the burnt-offerings ; and 
 their brethren the Levites helped them till the work was ended 
 (i.e. the flaying), and until the priests had sanctified themselves. 
 In the case of private burnt-offerings the flaying of the beast 
 was the business of the sacrificer (Lev. i. 6) ; while in the case 
 of those offered on solemn occasions in the name of the congre- 
 gation it was the priest's duty, and in it, as the work was not of 
 a specifically priestly character, the Levites might assist. The 
 burnt-offerings which are spoken of in ver. 34 are not merely those 
 voluntarily offered (ver. 34), but also the consecratory burnt- 
 offerings (vers. 22, 27). Only ver. 35 refers to the voluntary 
 offerings alone. "For the Levites had been more upright to 
 sanctify themselves than the priests." l!? nt^ rectiores animo, 
 had endeavoured more honestly. Perhaps the priests had taken 
 more part in the idolatrous worship of Ahaz than the Levites, 
 which would be quite accounted for, as Kueper, das Priesterth. 
 des A. Bundes (1870), S. 216, remarks, by their relation to the
 
 454 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 court of the king, and their dependence upon it. They con- 
 sequently showed themselves more slack even in the purification 
 than the Levites, who forte etiam idololatricis sacris minus con- 
 taminati et impediti erant (Ramb.). Ver. 35 gives yet another 
 reason why the Levites had to help the priests : lt And also the 
 burnt-offerings were in abundance, with the fat of the peace- 
 offerings, and the drink-offerings for every burnt -offering." 
 The priests could not accomplish the flaying for this reason also, 
 that they had, besides, to see to the proper altar service (sprink- 
 ling of the blood, and burning of the sacrifices upon the altar), 
 which taxed their strength, since, besides the consecratory burnt- 
 offerings, there were the voluntary burnt-offerings (ver. 31), 
 which were offered along with the thank-offerings and the drink- 
 offerings, which belonged to the burnt-offerings of Num. xv. 
 1-15. Thus the service of the house of Jahve was arranged, 
 rniuj^ is not the purification and dedication of the temple (Berth.), 
 but only the sacrificial service, or rather all that concerned the 
 regular temple worship, which had decayed under Ahaz, and had 
 at length wholly ceased. Ver. 36. Hezekiah and the whole 
 people rejoiced because of it. l^nn 7y ? over that which God had 
 prepared for the people (by the purification of the temple and 
 the restoration of the Jahve-worship), not "because God had 
 made the people ready " (Ramb., Berth.). The article with r?0 
 represents the relative pronoun "lE'tf ; see on 1 Chron. xxvi. 28. 
 The joy was heightened by the fact that the thing was done 
 suddenly. 
 
 Chap. xxx. The celebration of the passover. Vers. 1-12. The 
 preparations for this celebration. Ver. 1. Hezekiah invited all 
 Israel and Judah to it ; " and he also wrote letters to Ephraim and 
 Manasseh," the two chief tribes of the northern kingdom, which 
 here, as is manifest from vers. 5, -10, are named instar omnium. 
 But the whole sentence serves only to elucidate 7K"JBT'? ' n r^?- 
 To all Israel (of the ten tribes) he sent the invitation, and this he 
 did by letters. The verse contains a general statement as to the 
 matter, which is further described in what follows. Ver. 2. The 
 king consulted with his princes and the whole assembly in Jeru- 
 salem, i.e. with the community of the capital assembled in their 
 representatives for this purpose, as to keeping the passover in the 
 second month. This was (Num. ix. 6-13) allowed to those who, 
 by uncleanness or by absence on a distant journey, were prevented 
 from holding the feast at the lawful time, the 14th of the first
 
 CHAP. XXX. 1-12. 455 
 
 month. Both these reasons existed in this case (ver. 3): the 
 priests had not sufficiently sanctified themselves, and the people 
 had not assembled in Jerusalem, sc. at the legal time in the .first 
 month. "TOP, contracted from T^o, that which is sufficient, is 
 usually interpreted, "not in sufficient number" (Rashi, Vulg., 
 Berth., etc.) ; but the reference of the word to the number can- 
 not be defended. ^D? denotes only ad sufficientiam, and means 
 not merely that the priests had not sanctified themselves in such 
 numbers as were required for the slaughtering and offering of 
 the paschal lambs, but that the priesthood in general was not yet 
 sufficiently consecrated, many priests not having at that time 
 wholly renounced idolatry and consecrated themselves anew. 
 Nor does the passage signify, as Bertheau says it does, "that 
 although the purification of the temple was completed only on 
 the sixteenth day of the first month (xxix. 17), the passover 
 would yet have been celebrated in the first month, though per- 
 haps not on the legal fourteenth day, had not a further postpone- 
 ment become necessary for the reasons here given ; " for there 
 is nothing said in the text of a " further postponement." That 
 is just as arbitrarily dragged into the narrative as the idea that 
 Hezekiah ever intended to hold the passover on another day than 
 the legal fourteenth day of the month, which is destitute of all 
 support, and even of probability. The postponement of the 
 passover until the second month in special circumstances was pro- 
 vided for by the law, but the transfer of the celebration to another 
 day of the month was not. Such a transfer would have been an 
 illegal and arbitrary innovation, which we cannot suppose Heze- 
 kiah capable of. Rather it is clear from the consultation, that 
 the king and his princes and the congregations were persuaded 
 that the passover could be held only on the fourteenth day of 
 the month ; for they did not consult as to the day, but only as 
 to the month, upon the basis of the law : if not in the first, then 
 at any rate in the second month. The day was, for those con- 
 sulting, so definitely fixed that it was never discussed, and is not 
 mentioned at all in the record. If this were so, then the con- 
 sultation must have taken place in the first month before the 
 fourteenth day, at a time when the lawful day for the celebra- 
 tion was not yet past. This is implied in the words, " for they 
 could not hold it at that time." KVin nya is the first month, in 
 contrast to " in the second month ; " not this or that day of the 
 mouth. Now, since the reason given for their not being able to
 
 456 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 hold it in the first month is that the priests had not sufficiently 
 purified themselves, and the people had not assembled them- 
 selves in Jerusalem, we learn with certainty from these reasons 
 that it is not a celebration of the passover in the first year of 
 Hezekiah's reign which is here treated of, as almost all com- 
 mentators think. 1 In the whole narrative there is nothing to 
 favour such a supposition, except (1) the circumstance that the 
 account of this celebration is connected by l consec. (in rw'l) 
 with the preceding purification of the temple and restoration of 
 the Jahve-worship which took place in the first year of Heze- 
 kiah's reign ; and (2) the statement that the priests had not 
 sufficiently sanctified themselves, ver. 3, which, when compared 
 with that in chap. xxix. 34, that the number of priests who had 
 sanctified themselves was not sufficient to flay the beasts for 
 sacrifice, makes it appear as if the passover had been celebrated 
 immediately after the consecration of the temple ; and (3) the 
 mention of the second month in ver. 2, which, taken in connec- 
 tion with the mention of the first month in xxix. 3, 17, seems 
 to imply that the second month of the first year of Hezekiah's 
 reign is meant. But of these three apparent reasons none is 
 convincing. 
 
 The use of 1 consec. to connect the account of the celebra- 
 tion of the passover with the preceding, without the slightest 
 hint that the celebration took place in another (later) year, is 
 fully accounted for by the fact that in no case is the year in 
 which any event of Hezekiah's twenty-nine years' reign occurred 
 stated in the Chronicle. In chap, xxxii. 1, Sennacherib's inva- 
 sion of Judah is introduced only by the indefinite formula, " and 
 after these events," though it happened in the fourteenth year 
 of Hezekiah ; while the arrangements as to the public worship 
 made by this king, and recorded in chap, xxxi., belong to the 
 first years of his reign. Only in the case of the restoration of 
 the Jahve-worship is it remarked, xxix. 3, that Hezekiah com- 
 menced it in the very first year of his reign, because that was 
 important in forming an estimate of the spirit of his reign; 
 but the statement of the year in which his other acts were done 
 had not much bearing upon the practical aim of the chronicler. 
 Nor does the reason given for the transfer of the celebration of 
 the passover to the second month, viz. that the priests had not 
 
 1 Cf. the elaborate discussion of this question in Caspari, Beilrr. zitr EinL 
 in das B. Jesaja, S. 109 ff.
 
 CHAP. XXX. 1-12. 457 
 
 sufficiently sanctified themselves, prove that the celebration took 
 place in the first year of Hezekiah. During the sixteen years' 
 reign of the idolater Ahaz, the priesthood had beyond doubt 
 fallen very low, become morally sunk, so that the majority of 
 them would not immediately make haste to sanctify themselves 
 for the Jahve-worship. Finally, the retrospective reference to 
 xxix. 3, 17, would certainly incline us to take S 3$n Bnrm to mean 
 the second month of the first year ; but yet it cannot be at once 
 taken in that sense, unless the reasons given for the transfer of 
 the celebration of the passover to the second month point to the 
 first year. But these reasons, so far from doing so, are rather 
 irreconcilable with that view. The whole narrative, chap. xxix. 
 and xxx., gives us the impression that Hezekiah had not formed 
 the resolution to hold a passover to which the whole of Israel and 
 Judah, all the Israelites of the ten tribes as well as the citizens 
 of his kingdom, should be invited before or during the purifica- 
 tion of the temple ; at least he did not consult with his princes 
 and the heads of Jerusalem at that time. According to xxix. 20, 
 the king assembled the princes of the city only after the report 
 had been made to him, on the completion of the purification of 
 the temple on the sixteenth day of the first month, when he 
 summoned them to the dedication of the purified temple by 
 solemn sacrifice. But this consecratory solemnity occupied several 
 days. The great number of burnt-offerings, first seven bullocks, 
 seven rams, and seven lambs, besides the sin-offering for the 
 consecration of the temple (xxix. 21) ; then, after the comple- 
 tion of these, the voluntary burnt-offering of the congregation, 
 consisting of 70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs, together 
 with and exclusive of the thank-offerings (xxix. 32), could not 
 possibly be burnt on one day on one altar of burnt-offering, and 
 consequently the sacrificial meal could not well be held on the 
 same day. If, then, the king consulted with the princes and the 
 assembly about the passover after the conclusion of or during 
 celebration, say in the time between the seventeenth and the 
 twentieth day, it could not be said that the reason of the post- 
 ponement of the passover was that the priests had not yet suffi- 
 ciently sanctified themselves, and the people were not assembled 
 in Jerusalem : it would only have been said that the fourteenth 
 day of the first month was already past. Caspari has therefore 
 rightly regarded this as decisive. But besides that, the invitation 
 to all Israel (of the ten tribes) to this passover is more easily ex-
 
 458 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 plained, if the celebration of it took place after the breaking up 
 of the kingdom of the ten tribes by the Assyrians, than if it was 
 before that catastrophe, in the time of Hosea, the last king of 
 that kingdom. Though King Hosea may not have been so evil 
 as some of his predecessors, yet it is said of him also, " he did 
 that which was evil in the sight of Jahve " (2 Kings xvii. 2). 
 Would Hezekiah have ventured, so long as Hosea reigned, to 
 invite his subjects to a passover at Jerusalem ? and would Hosea 
 have permitted the invitation, and not rather have repelled it as 
 an interference with his kingdom ? Further, in the invitation, 
 the captivity of the greater part of the ten tribes is far too 
 strongly presupposed to allow us to imagine that the captivity 
 there referred to is the carrying away of several tribes by Tig- 
 lath-pileser. The words, " the escaped who are left to you from 
 the hand of the king of Assyria " (ver. 6), presuppose more than 
 the captivity of the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes and the 
 Naphtalites ; not merely because of the plural, the " kings of 
 Assur," but also because the remaining five and a half tribes were 
 not at all affected by Tiglath-pileser's deportation, while there is 
 no mention made of any being carried away by King Pul, nor is 
 it a probable thing in itself ; see on 1 Chron. v. 26. Finally, 
 according to chap. xxxi. 1, the Israelites who had been assembled 
 in Jerusalem for the passover immediately afterwards destroyed the 
 pillars, Astartes, high places, and altars, not merely in all Judah 
 and Benjamin, but also in Ephraim and Manasseh (consequently 
 even in the capital of the kingdom of the ten tribes), " unto com- 
 pletion," i.e. completely, leaving nothing of them remaining. Is 
 it likely that King Hosea, and the other inhabitants of the king- 
 dom of the ten tribes who had not gone to the passover, but had 
 laughed at and mocked the messengers of Hezekiah (ver. 10), 
 would have quietly looked on and permitted this? All these 
 things are incomprehensible if the passover was held in the 
 first year of Hezekiah, and make it impossible to accept that 
 view. 
 
 Moreover, even the preparation for this passover demanded 
 more time than from the seventeenth day of the first month to the 
 fourteenth day of the second. The calling of the whole people 
 together, lt from Dan to Beersheba" (ver. 5), could not be accom- 
 plished in three weeks. Even if Hezekiah' s messengers may 
 have gone throughout the land and returned home again in that 
 time, we yet cannot suppose that those invited, especially those
 
 CHAP. XXX. 1-12. 459 
 
 of the ten tribes, could at once commence their journey, so as to 
 appear in Jerusalem at the time of the feast. In consequence of 
 all these things, we must still remain stedfastly of the opinion 
 already expressed in the Commentary on the Books of Kings 
 (vol. ii. p. 81 ff.), that this passover was not held in the first 
 year of Hezekiah, only a week or two after the restoration of 
 the Jahve-worship according to the law had been celebrated. 
 But if it was not held in the first year, then it cannot have been 
 held before the ruin of the kingdom of the ten tribes, in the 
 sixth year of Hezekiah. In the third year of Hezekiah, Shal- 
 maneser marched upon Samaria, and besieged the capital of the 
 kingdom of the ten tribes. But during the occupation of that 
 kingdom by the Assyrians, Hezekiah could not think of inviting 
 its inhabitants to a passover in Jerusalem. He can have re- 
 solved upon that only after the Assyrians had again left the 
 country, Samaria having been conquered, and the Israelites 
 carried away. " But after an end had been thoroughly made of 
 the kingdom of the house of Israel, Hezekiah might regard him- 
 self as the king of all Israel, and in this character might invite 
 the remnant of the ten tribes, as his subjects, to the passover 
 (cf. Jer. xl. 1) ; and he might cherish the hope, as the Israelitish 
 people had been just smitten down by this last frightful cata- 
 strophe, that its remaining members would humble themselves 
 under the mighty hand of God, which had been laid on them 
 solemnly, and turning to Him, would comply with the invitation ; 
 while before the ruin of the Israelitish kingdom, in inviting the 
 
 O ' O 
 
 Israelites of the ten tribes, he would have been addressing the 
 subjects of a foreign king" (Caspari, S. 125). And with this 
 view, the statement, xxx. 10, that the messengers of Hezekiah 
 were laughed at by the majority of the Israelites, in the land of 
 Ephraim and Manasseh unto Zebulun, may be easily reconciled. 
 " If we only look," as Caspari pertinently says in answer to this 
 objection, " at the conduct of those who remained in Judea 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, and who soon afterwards fled 
 to Egypt to Jeremiah (Jer. xlii. 44), we will understand how 
 the majority of the people of the kingdom of the ten tribes, who 
 remained behind after the deportation by Shalmaneser, could be 
 hardened and blinded enough to laugh at and mock the messen- 
 gers of Hezekiah." 
 
 But if Hezekiah formed the resolution of holding such a 
 passover festival only after the destruction of the kingdom of
 
 460 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Israel, it may perhaps be asked why he did not take the matter 
 into consideration early enough to allow of the festival being 
 held at the legal time, i.e. in the first month ? To this we cer- 
 tainly cannot give an assured answer, because, from the reasons 
 given for the delay of the passover to the second month (ver. 3), 
 we can only gather that, when the king consulted with the 
 princes in the matter, there was no longer sufficient time to carry 
 out the celebration in the manner proposed at the legal time. 
 ut it is quite possible that Hezekiah resolved to invite the 
 remnant of the ten tribes to the next passover, only ia the be- 
 ginning of the year, when the Assyrians had withdrawn from 
 the land, and that in the consultation about the matter the two 
 circumstances mentioned in ver. 3' were decisive for the post- 
 ponement of the feast to the second month. It became clear, on 
 the one hand, that the whole priesthood was not yet sufficiently 
 prepared for it"; and on the other, that the summoning of the 
 people could not be accomplished before the 14th Nisan, so as 
 to allow of the feast being held in the way proposed at the legal 
 time ; and accordingly it was decided, in order to avoid the 
 postponement of the matter for a whole year, to take advantage 
 of the expedient suggested by the law, and to hold the feast in 
 the second month. From ver. 14 and chap. xxxi. 1 we gather 
 that at that time there were still standing in Jerusalem, and in 
 the cities of Judah and Benjamin, Mazzeboth, Asherim, Bamoth, 
 and altars; consequently, that the Baal-worship had not yet 
 been extirpated. The continuance of the Baal- worship, and 
 that on the high places in Jerusalem and Judah, until the sixth 
 or seventh year of Hezekiah's reign, will not much astonish us, 
 if we consider that even before Ahaz the most pious kings had 
 not succeeded in quite suppressing worship on the high places 
 on the part of the people. The reopening of the temple, and of 
 the Jahve-worship in it, Hezekiah might undertake and carry 
 out in the beginning of his reign, because he had all those of 
 the people who were well inclined upon his side. But it was 
 otherwise with the altars on the high places, to which the people 
 from ancient times had been firmly attached. These could not 
 be immediately destroyed, and may have been again restored 
 here and there after they had been destroyed, even in the cor- 
 ners of the capital. Many Levitic priests had, to a certainty, 
 taken part in this worship on high places, since, as a rule, it was 
 not heathen idols, but Jahve, to whom sacrifice was offered upon
 
 CHAP. XXX. 1-12. 461 
 
 the high places, though it was done in an illegal way. Such 
 Levitic priests of the high places could not, even if they had 
 not practised idolatry, straightway take part in a passover to be 
 celebrated to Jahve according to the precepts of the law. They 
 must first sanctify themselves by abandoning the worship on 
 the high places, and earnestly turning to the Lord and to His 
 law. Now, if the passover was to be a general one, the time 
 necessary for this sanctification of themselves must be granted 
 to these priests. For the sanctification of these priests, and for 
 the invitation of all Israel to the festival, the time up to the 
 fourteenth of the second month was sufficient, and the king's 
 proposal was consequently approved of by the whole assembly. 
 Ver. 5. They established the matter ("OT ^W*., Vulg. rightly, 
 according to the sense, decreverunt), to make proclamation through- 
 out all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan (cf . Judg. xx. 1), that they 
 should come to keep the passover. 2h/> N7 'a, for not in multi- 
 tude had they celebrated it, as it is written. These words were 
 interpreted as early as by Rashi thus : they had not celebrated it 
 for a long time according to the precepts of the law, and were 
 referred to the time of the division of the kingdom. But to this 
 Berth, has rightly objected that the use of 3~b of time is unusual, 
 and has correctly referred the words to the Israelites : they had 
 not celebrated it in multitude, i.e. in the assembly of the whole 
 people, as the law required. The words consequently tell us 
 nothing as to the length of time during which it had not been 
 celebrated in multitude : as to that, see ver. 26. Still less does it 
 follow from the words that under Hezekiah, after the restoration 
 of the temple worship, the passover had not been yearly held. 
 Ver. 6. " The runners (whether soldiers of the royal body-guard, 
 cf. xii. 10, or other royal couriers, as Esth. iii. 13, 15, cannot be 
 determined) went with letters from the hand of the king, . . . 
 and according to the commandment of the king to say." To the 
 written invitation of the king and his princes they were to add 
 words of exhortation : " Turn again to Jahve, . . . that He may 
 return (turn Himself) to the remnant which remains to you from 
 the hand of the kings of Assyria," i.e. of Tiglath-pileser and 
 Shalmaneser. Ver. 7. Be not like your fathers, your brethren, 
 i.e. those carried away by Tiglath and Shalmaneser. On HG'^ QJir 
 cf. xxix. 8. Ver. 8. Be not stiff-necked ; cf. 2 Kings xvii. 14. 
 " Give the hand to the Lord," i.e. here, not submit yourselves, as 
 1 Chron. xxix. 24, construed with nnri; it denotes the giving of
 
 462 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 the hand as a pledge of fidelity, as in 2 Kings x. 15, Ezra x. 19, 
 Ezek. xvii. 18. Ver. 9. If ye return to the Lord, your brethren 
 and your sons (who are in exile) shall be for mercy, i.e. shall find 
 mercy of them who carried them away, and for returning, i.e, 
 and they shall return into this land. 'til i^n 'S, cf. Ex. xxxiv. 6. 
 Ver. 10. The couriers went about from city to city in the land 
 of Ephraim and Manasseh, even unto Zebulun ; but the people 
 laughed to scorn and mocked at the summons to return, and the 
 invitation to the passover festival. The words " from city to city" 
 are not inconsistent with the view that the kingdom of Israel had 
 already been ruined. The Assyrians had not blotted out all the 
 cities from the face of the land, nor carried away every one of 
 the inhabitants to the last man, but had been satisfied with the 
 capture of the fortresses and their partial or complete demolition, 
 and carried only the flower of the inhabitants away. No doubt 
 also many had saved themselves from deportation by flight to 
 inaccessible places, who then settled again and built in the cities 
 and villages which had not been completely destroyed, or perhaps 
 had been completely spared, after the enemy had withdrawn. 
 From the statement, moreover, that the couriers passed through 
 the land of Ephraim and'Manasseh unto Zebulun, no proof can 
 be derived that the messengers did not touch upon the domain of 
 the tribes led away captive by Tiglath-pileser (Naphtali and the 
 trans- Jordanic land), but only visited those districts of the country 
 which formed the kingdom of Israel as it continued to exist after 
 Tiglath-pileser. If that were so, it would follow that the king- 
 dom had not then been destroyed. But the enumeration is not 
 complete, as is manifest from the fact that, according to vers. 11 
 and 18, men of the tribes of Asher and Issachar came to Jerusa- 
 lem in compliance with the invitation ; and the domain of Asher 
 extended to the northern frontier of Canaan. If we further take 
 it into consideration, that, according to the resolution of the king 
 and his princes, all Israel, from Beersheba on the southern fron- 
 tier to Dan on the northern, were to be invited, it is not to be 
 doubted that the couriers went through the whole land. Ver. 12. 
 Also upon Judah came the hand of God, to give them one heart, 
 to do ... The phrase 1 njvn mrv T has usually a punitive sig- 
 nification (cf. Ex. ix. 3 ; Deut. ii. 15, etc.), but here it is the 
 helping hand of God. God wrought powerfully upon Judah to 
 make them of one mind, nirv "Q1? as in xxix. 15. 
 
 Vers. 13-22. T/ie celebration of the passover. Ver. 13. The
 
 CHAP. XXX. 13-22. 463 
 
 assembly of the people at Jerusalem to celebrate the feast became 
 a great congregation. Ver. 14. Before the slaying of the pass- 
 over, in order to purify and sanctify the city for the feast, they 
 removed the (illegal) altars and places for offering incense which 
 had been erected under Ahaz (xxviii. 24), and threw them into 
 the Kidron (xxix. 16). niitppD is here a substantive : places for 
 incense-offerings (cf. Ew. 160, e), and denotes altars intended 
 for the offering of the nnbp. Ver. 15. When they slaughtered 
 the passover on the 14th, the Levites and priests also were 
 ashamed, i.e. had sanctified themselves under the influence of a 
 feeling of shame, and offered the sacrifice in the house of the 
 Lord ; i.e. they performed the sacrificial functions incumbent 
 upon them at the passover in the temple, as is stated more in 
 detail in ver. 16. The clause *W D'onbrn is a circumstantial 
 clause, and the statement points back to ver. 3. The mention 
 of Levites along with the priests here is worthy of remark, since 
 in xxix. 34 it is said that at the celebration of the dedication of 
 the temple the Levites had sanctified themselves more zealously 
 than the priests. But these two statements do not contradict 
 each other. In chap. xxix. 34 it is the Levites and priests then 
 present in or dwelling in Jerusalem who are spoken of ; here, on 
 the contrary, it is the priests and the Levites of the whole king- 
 dom of Judah. Even though, at the former period, the Levites 
 were more zealous in sanctifying themselves for the dedication 
 of the temple, yet there must certainly have been many Levites 
 in Judah, who, like many of the priests, did not immediately 
 purify themselves from their defilement by the worship in the 
 high places, and were only impelled and driven to sanctify them- 
 selves for the service of the Lord by the zeal of the people who 
 had come to Jerusalem to hold the passover. Ver. 16. Standing 
 in their place, according to their right, i.e. according to the pre- 
 scribed arrangement (see on 1 Chron. vi. 17), the priests sprinkled 
 the blood (of the paschal lambs) from the hand of the Levites, 
 they handing it to them. This was not the rule : in the case of 
 the paschal lamb, the father of the family who slew the lamb 
 had to hand the blood to the priest, that it might be sprinkled 
 upon the altar ; here the Levites did it for the reasons given in 
 ver. 17. Because many in the assembly had not sanctified them- 
 selves, the Levites presided over the slaying of the paschal lambs 
 for every one who was unclean, to sanctify (the lambs) to the 
 Lord (see also on xxxv. 6, 11). nan, stat. constr. before the
 
 464 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 noun with a preposition, stands as neuter substantively : there was 
 a multitude in the assembly who . . . D?! in ver. 18 is to be 
 taken in a similar manner, not as an adverb (Berth.). S^SNO nin 
 'U1 is in apposition to DJ?n rVS"}*?, a multitude of people, viz. : Many 
 of Ephraim . . . had not purified themselves, but ate the pass- 
 over in an illegal fashion, not according to the precept (cf. Num. 
 ix. 6). This clause explains how it happened that the Levites 
 presided at the slaying of the passover for those who had not 
 sanctified themselves, i.e. they caught the blood and gave it to 
 the priests. Had this been done by persons levitically un- 
 clean, the expiatory sacrificial blood would have been defiled. 
 The eating of the paschal lamb or the participation in the pass- 
 over meal was indeed allowed only to the clean ; but yet it was 
 not so holy an act, i.e. did not bring the people into such imme- 
 diate contact with God, who was present at His altar, that those 
 who were not clean might not, under some circumstances, be 
 admitted to it. Here it was allowed, for Hezekiah had prayed 
 for them that God might forgive the transgression of the law. 
 Ver. 18 ends, according to the Masoretic verse-division, with the 
 preposition *W? ; but that division seems merely to have arisen 
 from ignorance of the construction \^ tal~73, of the fact that 
 "jys stands before a relative sentence without "i ; N, like ?K in 
 1 Chron. xv. 12, and is certainly wrong. If we separate 1^3 
 from what follows, we must, with Aben Ezra, supply npx, and 
 make I" 1 ? 1 !? (ver. 19) refer to Hezekiah, both being equally inad- 
 missible. Rightly, therefore, the LXX., Vulg., and also Kimchi, 
 with the majority of commentators, have given up this division 
 of the verses as incorrect, and connected the words in this way : 
 May the good Jahve atone, i.e. forgive every one who has fixed 
 his heart (cf . xii. 14) to seek God, Jahve, the God of his fathers, 
 but not in accordance with the purity of the sanctuary. This 
 intercession of Hezekiah's is worthy of remark, not only because 
 it expresses the conviction that upright seeking of the Lord, 
 which proceeds from the heart, is to be more highly estimated 
 than strict observance of the letter of the law, but also because 
 Hezekiah presumes that those who had come out of Ephraim, etc., 
 to the passover had fixed their heart to seek Jahve, the God 
 of their fathers, but had not been in a position to comply with 
 the precept of the law, i.e. to purify themselves up to the day 
 appointed for the passover. Ver. 20. God heard this interces- 
 sion, and healed the people. N&7, sanare, is not to be explained
 
 CHAP. XXX. 23-27. 465 
 
 by supposing, with Bertheau, that first sickness, and then even 
 death, were to be expected as the results of transgression of the 
 law, according to Lev. xv. 31, and that the people might be 
 already regarded as sick, as being on the point of becoming so. 
 The use of the word is explained by the fact that sin was re- 
 garded as a spiritual disease, so that ND1 is to be understood of 
 healing the soul (as Ps. xli. 5), or the transgression (Hos. xiv. 5 ; 
 Jer. iii. 22). Ver. 21. And the Israelites that were present at 
 Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with 
 great gladness ; and the Levites and priests praised the Lord 
 day by day, singing to the Lord niPP? fjj ^33, " with instruments 
 of power to the Lord," i.e. with which they ascribed power to 
 the Lord ; or, to express it more clearly, which they played to 
 the praise of the power of the Lord. The stringed instruments 
 played by the Levites, and the trumpets blown by the priests, to 
 accompany the psalm-singing, are meant. The singing of praise 
 in connection with the sacrificial service took place on the seventh 
 day of the feast. Ver. 22. Hezekiah spoke to the heart of all 
 the Levites, i.e. spoke encouraging words of acknowledgment to 
 all the Levites, " who showed good understanding in regard to 
 Jahve," i.e. not qui erant rerum divinarum peritiores aliosque in- 
 struere poterant, but, as Clericus has already said, those who had 
 distinguished themselves by intelligent playing to the honour of 
 the Lord. "And they ate" not merely the Levites and priests, 
 but all who took part in the festival the festal sacrifices, seven 
 days. The expression *iyisn~nx 73^, to hold the festal sacrificial 
 meal, is formed after npsrrnx ?3X ; to eat the passover = the 
 passover meal. This we gather from the following participial 
 clause, " offering peace-offerings," of which the sacrificial meals 
 were prepared. D'HtfiJpij and acknowledged the Lord, the God of 
 their fathers, n^nn denotes here neither " to make confession of 
 sin," nor " to approach with thank-offerings" (Berth.), but simply 
 to acknowledge the Lord with heart and mouth, word and deed, 
 or by prayer, praise, thanks, and offering of sacrifice. 
 
 Vers. 23-27. Prolongation of the festival for seven days more, 
 and the conclusion of it. Ver. 23 f. Since the king and the 
 princes had given a very large number of beasts for sacrifice as 
 thank-offerings, it was resolved to keep joy for other seven days, 
 i.e. to keep them festally, with sacrificial meals. The expression 
 CW nbtyj to hold or celebrate days, is similar to noa nb'y, to hold 
 the passover. nnB> is an adverbial accusative : in joy. For this 
 
 2G
 
 466 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 resolution two reasons are given in ver. 24: 1. Hezekiah had 
 given to the assembly 1000 bullocks and 7000 head of small 
 cattle, and the princes had given 1000 bullocks and 10,000 head 
 of small cattle besides ; so that there was more than they could 
 use during the seven days of the Mazzoth feast. Bertheau in- 
 correctly supposes that these were " rich gifts for further sacri- 
 ficial feasts." The gifts were bestowed for the Mazzoth festival, 
 but were so plentiful that they sufficed for another festival of 
 seven days. O^n, like """^"ify denotes to bestow, i.e. to present 
 beasts, etc., with the design that they should be used as sacrifices ; 
 cf. xxxv. 7. 2. The second reason : " priests also had sanctified 
 themselves in multitude," so as to'be able to carry on the service 
 at the altar, even with such numerous sacrifices, refers back to 
 vers. 15 and 3. Vers. 25-27. Concluding remarks on this 
 festival. There took part in it (1) the whole congregation of 
 Judah, and the priests and Levites ; (2) the whole congregation 
 of those who had come out of Israel (the ten tribes) ; (3) the 
 strangers, both those who came out of the land of Israel and 
 those dwelling in Judah. Ver. 26. The joy was great, for there 
 had not been the like in Jerusalem since the days of Solomon. 
 u The meaning is, that this feast could be compared only with the 
 feast at the dedication of the temple in the time of Solomon, 
 chap. vii. 1-10, in respect to its length, the richness of the sacri- 
 ficial gifts, the multitude of those who participated, and the 
 joyous feeling it caused" (Berth.). The feast at the dedication 
 of the temple had been a festival of fourteen days ; for the feast 
 of tabernacles, which lasted seven days, came immediately after 
 the proper dedicatory feast, and since the time of Solomon all 
 the tribes had never been united at a feast in Jerusalem. Ver. 
 27. At the end the Levitic priests dismissed the people with the 
 blessing (the 1 before D^?n in some MSS., and which the LXX., 
 Vulg., and Syr. also have, is a copyist's gloss brought from ver. 
 25 ; cf. against it, chap, xxiii. 18), and the historian adds, " Their 
 voice was heard, and their prayer came to His holy dwelling-place, 
 to heaven." This conclusion he draws from the divine blessing 
 having been upon the festival ; traceable partly in the zeal which 
 the people afterwards showed for the public worship in the temple 
 (chap, xxxi.), partly in the deliverance of Judah and Jerusalem 
 from the attack of the Assyrian Sennacherib (chap, xxxii.). 
 
 Chap. xxxi. Destruction of the idols and the altars of the high 
 places. Provisions for the ordering and maintenance of the temple
 
 CHAP. XXXI. 2-21. 467 
 
 worship, and the attendants upon it. Ver. 1. At the conclusion of 
 the festival, all the Israelites who had been present at the feast 
 (D'SVean i>sy^? to be understood as in xxx. 21) went into the 
 cities of Judah, and destroyed all the idols, high places, and 
 altars not only in Judah and Benjamin (the southern kingdom), 
 but also in Ephraim and Manasseh (the domain of the ten tribes), 
 utterly (n^~"lV, cf. xxiv. 10), and only then returned each to 
 his home ; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 4. 
 
 Vers. 2-21. Restoration of order in the public worship, and of 
 the temple revenues and those of the priests. Ver. 2. Hezekiah 
 appointed the courses of the priests and Levites according to 
 their courses, each according to the measure of his service (cf. 
 Num. vii. 5, 7), viz. the priests and Levites ('tvl 'ro? are sub- 
 ordinated to t^K in apposition by ?), for burnt-offerings and 
 thank-offerings, to serve (to wait upon the worship), and to 
 praise and thank (by song and instrumental music) in the gates 
 of the camp of Jahve, i.e. in the temple and court of the priests ; 
 see on 1 Chron. ix. 18 f. Ver. 3. And the portion of the king 
 from his possession was for the burnt-offerings, etc. ; that is, 
 the material for the burnt-offerings which are commanded in 
 Num. xxviii. and xxix. the king gave from his possessions, which 
 are enumerated in chap, xxxii. 27-29. Vers. 4-8. The priests 
 and Levites received their maintenance from the first-fruits (Ex. 
 xxiii. 19 ; Num. xviii. 12 ; Deut. xxvi. 2) and the tithes, which the 
 people had to pay from the produce of their cattle-breeding and 
 their agriculture (Lev. xxvii. 30-33, cf. with Num. xviii. 21-24). 
 Hezekiah commanded the people, viz. the inhabitants of Jeru- 
 salem, to give this portion to the Levites and priests, that they 
 might hold themselves firmly to the law of Jahve, i.e. might 
 devote themselves to the duties laid upon them by the law, the 
 attendance upon the worship, without being compelled to labour 
 for their subsistence ; cf . Neh. xiii. 10 ff. Ver. 5. When the 
 word (the royal command) went forth (spread abroad), the 
 Israelites brought in abundance the first-fruits which had been 
 assigned to the priests (xviii. 12 f.), and the tithes, which were 
 paid to the whole tribe of Levi (Num. xviii. 21-24). ^b* ^.?, 
 ver. 6, are not the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, but the 
 Israelites who had emigrated from that kingdom into Judah (as 
 xxx. 25, xi. 16, x. 17). ttcng. itwo, the tenth from the holy 
 gifts which were consecrated to Jahve, is surprising, since in the 
 law, Num. xviii. 8 ff., it is not the tenth of the consecrated gifts
 
 468 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 which is spoken of, but only &''5Jnip T '!} nionn (Num. xviii. 19). 
 Proceeding upon the assumption that all D^KHp which were con- 
 secrated to Jahve were given over to the tribe of Levi, Bertheau 
 finds no correspondence between the law and the statement of 
 our verse, that the tenth of the holy things was given, and points 
 out that the LXX. seem to have read D^Enjarn TJfl instead of 
 D^EHp "it^yo, without, however, himself deciding in favour of that 
 reading. But the LXX. have rendered the words D^Ehp ~\\yyz>i 
 D^EnpEH by e-n-iSeKara alywv, /cat rpyiaarav, and consequently 
 cannot have read TJJJ for "^J^, since in their translation eVtSe/cara 
 corresponds to 1E>J?D. But the deviation of the statement in our 
 verse from the law, Num. xviii., arises partly from an incorrect 
 or inexact interpretation of the provisions of the law, Num. 
 xviii. 8 ff. In the law, DHTJp as such were not assigned to the 
 tribe of Levi, or more correctly to the priests (Aaron and his 
 sons), but only the D^E/'i^ap nionn, the heave-offerings of all the 
 holy gifts of the sons of Israel, i.e. the pieces or parts of the 
 sacrificial gifts of the Israelites which were not burnt upon the 
 altar, consequently the greater part of the meal, and oil, and 
 flesh of the oblations, the sin-offerings, the trespass-offerings, 
 and of the peace-offerings, the wave-breast and wave-thigh, 
 and whatever else was waved in wave-offerings; see on Num. 
 xviii. 8 ff. These Therumoth of the consecrated gifts are in our 
 verse designated E^P. "^B, because they were only a fragment 
 of that which was consecrated to the Lord, just as the tenth was 
 a fragment of the whole herd, and of the field produce. The 
 statement of our verse, therefore, differs only in expression from 
 the prescription of the law, but in substance it completely agrees 
 with it. '"W nionj? rn, and they made many heaps, i.e. they 
 brought the first-fruits and tithes in heaps. Ver. 7. In the 
 third month, consequently immediately at the end of the grain 
 harvest, they commenced to found the heaps (to lay the founda- 
 tion of the heaps) ; and in the seventh month, i.e. at the end of 
 the fruit and wine harvest, they completed them (the heaps). 
 In the third month fell pentecost, or the harvest feast ; in the 
 seventh, the feast of tabernacles, after the gathering in of all 
 the fruits. "liBy nas Daghesh in D, because this verb in the im- 
 perf. assimilates its * like 3 to the second radical, and the infini- 
 tive is formed after the imperf. ; cf. Ew. 245, a. Ver. 8. 
 When Hezekiah and the priests saw these heaps, they praised 
 the Lord and His people Israel.
 
 CHAP. XXXL 2-21. 4G9 
 
 The employment and storing of these gifts, vers. 9-10. Ver. 
 9 f . Hezekiah questioned (ty~>T.) the priests and Levites concerning 
 the heaps, i.e. not as to whether they were sufficient for the sup- 
 port of the priests and Levites, but as to how it happened that 
 such masses had been heaped up. Thereupon Azariah the high 
 priest (hardly the Azariah mentioned xxvi. 17, who forty years 
 before tried to prevent Uzziah from pressing into the holy place), 
 of the house of Zadok, answered him : Since they began to 
 bring (N <I 37 for N^np) the heave-offerings into the house of the 
 Lord, we have eaten and 'satisfied ourselves, and have left in 
 plenty. The infin. absoll. "ini'"K Visb'i ?iDK stand in animated 
 speech instead of the first pers. plur. perf. From the same ani- 
 mation arises the construction of ponnvix w ith nnian ; for " that 
 which is left" signifies, and we have left this quantity here. Ver. 
 
 11 f. Then the king commanded to prepare cells in the house of 
 God for the storing of the provisions. Whether new cells were 
 built, or cells already existing were prepared for this purpose, 
 cannot be decided, since l^n may signify either. Into these cells 
 they brought the nonrij which here denotes the first-fruits (cf. 
 ver. 5), the tithes, and the dedicated things, n^X2 7 with fidelity, 
 cf. xix. 9. EH'vj;, over them (the first-fruits, etc.) the Levite 
 Cononiah was set as ruler (inspector), and his brother Shimei as 
 second ruler (nptjfo). Ver. 13. To them at their hand, i.e. as 
 subordinate overseers, were given ten Levites, who are enume- 
 rated by name. Of the names, Jehiel and Mahath occur in xxix. 
 
 12 and 14. ^i??E3 is translated by the Vulg. ex imperio, better 
 ex mandato Hizkice. Azariah, the prince of the house of God, 
 is the high priest mentioned in ver. 10. To the fourteen 
 Levites named in vers. 13 and 14 was committed the oversight 
 and storing of the first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts. 
 Besides these, there were special officers appointed for the distri- 
 bution of them. In vers. 14-19 these are treated of; ver. 14 
 dealing with the distribution of the voluntary gifts of God, i.e. 
 all which was offered to God of spontaneous impulse (Lev. xxiii. 
 38 ; Deut. xii. 17), to which the first-fruits and tithes did not 
 belong, they being assessments prescribed by the law. Over the 
 freewill offerings the Levite Kore, the doorkeeper towards the 
 east (see on 1 Chron. ix. 18), was set. His duty was to give 
 (distribute) " the heave-offerings of Jahve," i.e. that portion of 
 the thank-offerings which properly belonged to Jahve, and which 
 was transferred by Him to the priests (Lev. vii. 14, xxxii. 10,
 
 470 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 14 f. ; Num. v. 9), and the "most holy," i.e. that part of the sin 
 and trespass offerings (Lev. vi. 10, 22, vii. 6) and of the oblations 
 (Lev. ii. 3, 10) which was to be eaten by the priests in the holy 
 place. Ver. 15. At his hand (i'P ity = "!*, ver. 13), i.e. under his 
 superintendence, there were six Levites, enumerated by name, in 
 the priests' cities, with fidelity, " to give to their brethren in their 
 courses, as well to the great as to the small" (i.e. to the older and 
 to the younger), sc. the portion of the gifts received which fell to 
 each. By the brethren in their courses we are to understand 
 not merely the Levites dwelling in the priests' cities, who on. 
 account of their youth or old age could not come into the temple, 
 but also those who at the time were not on duty, since the Levites' 
 courses performed it by turns, only some courses being on duty 
 in the temple, while the others were at home in the priests' cities. 
 The object to fin?, ver. 15, is not to be taken straightway from 
 the objects mentioned with fin? in ver. 14. For the most holy 
 gifts could not be sent to the priests' cities, but were consumed 
 in the holy place, i.e. in the temple. Nor can we confine nn? to 
 the Q^npsn nta*i3 ; for since the gifts of the people, laid up in the 
 cells, consisted in first-fruits, -tithes, and consecrated gifts (ver. 
 11), and special officers were appointed for the storing and distri- 
 bution of them, the business of distribution could not consist 
 merely in the giving out of freewill offerings, but must have ex- 
 tended to all the offerings of the people. When, therefore, it 
 is said of the Levite Kore, in ver. 14, that he was appointed over 
 the freewill offerings, to distribute the heave-offerings and the 
 most holy, only his chief function is there mentioned, and the 
 functions of the officials associated with and subordinated to him 
 in the priests' cities are not to be confined to that. The object 
 to fiTvj ver. 15, is consequently to be determined by the whole 
 context, and the arrangements which are assumed as known from 
 the law ; i.e. we must embrace under that word the distribution 
 of the first-fruits, tithes, and consecrated gifts, of which the 
 Levites in the priests' cities were to receive their portion accord- 
 ing to the law. In ver. 16, the nippnoa Drrnx O f ver. 15 is more 
 closely defined by an exception : " Besides their catalogue of the 
 men (i.e. exclusive of those of the male sex catalogued by them) 
 from three years old and upward, namely, of all those who came 
 into the house of Jahve to the daily portion, for their service in 
 their offices according to their courses." iDto DV~i3'n signifies, 
 in this connection, the portion of the holy gifts coming to them
 
 CHAP. XXXI. 2-21. 471 
 
 for every day ; cf. Neh. xi. 23. The meaning of the verse is : 
 From those dwelling in the priests' cities were excluded those who 
 had come to perform service in the temple; and, indeed, not 
 merely those performing the service, but also their male children, 
 who were catalogued along with them if they were three years old 
 and upward. Thence it is clear that those entering upon their 
 service took their sons with them when they were three years old. 
 These children ate in the place of the sanctuary of the portion 
 coming to their parents. Ver. 17 contains a parenthetic remark 
 as to the catalogues. J"IN1, as nota accus., serves here to empha- 
 size the statement which is added as an elucidation (cf. Ew. 
 277, d) : " But concerning the catalogue of the priests, it was 
 (taken, prepared) according to the fathers'-houses ; and the 
 Levites, they were from twenty years old and upwards in their 
 offices in their courses." All the duties were discharged by 
 several courses. On the age fixed on, see 1 Chron. xxiii. 27. 
 Ver. 18. The connection and interpretation of this verse is doubt- 
 ful. If we take fewnrfo as a continuation of fcrrnrrntn, ve r. 17, 
 it gives us no suitable sense. The addition, " and also to every 
 priest and Levite was a larger or smaller portion given according 
 to the catalogue" (Ramb., etc.), is arbitrary, and does not fully 
 express the 3 before DSD~?3. Berth., on the other hand, cor- 
 rectly remarks, " After the parentheses in vers. 16 and 17, EWnriTi 
 may be taken as a continuation of fin? in ver. 16 ;" but the word 
 itself he translates wrongly thus : The men were in the priests' 
 cities, also to register their children, etc., disregarding the con- 
 struction of frnTin with 2. From ver. 19, where the same con- 
 struction recurs, we learn how to interpret 'B'?^ E>rvnn : the 
 catalogue = those registered in (of) all their children. According 
 to this view, brvnnh corresponds to the EiTnxp, ver. 15 : to give 
 to their brethren, . . . and to the registered of all their children, 
 their wives, and their sons and daughters, viz. to the whole multi- 
 tude (sc. of the wives, sons, and daughters), i.e. as many of them 
 as there were. This interpretation of the '^i?"-^? seems simpler 
 than with Schmidt and Ramb. to understand '? to denote the 
 corporation of priests. There was therefore no one forgotten or 
 overlooked ; " for according to their fidelity (ver. 15) did they 
 show themselves holy in regard to the holy," i.e. they acted in a 
 holy manner with the holy gifts, distributed them disinterestedly 
 and impartially to all who had any claim to them. Ver. 19. 
 And for the sons of Aaron, the priests, in the field of the districts
 
 472 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of their cities (cf . Lev. xxv. 34 ; Num. xxxv. 5), in each city 
 were men (appointed) famous (niOK'a &$ ">'K, as in xxviii. 15 ; 
 see on 1 Chron. xii. 31), to give portions to each male among the 
 priests, and to all that were registered among the Levites. As 
 for the inhabitants of the priests' cities (ver. 15), so also for the 
 priests and Levites dwelling in the pasture grounds of the priests' 
 cities, were special officers appointed to distribute the priestly 
 revenues. 
 
 Vers. 20, 21. The conclusion of this account. Thus did 
 Hezekiah in all Judah, and wrought in general that which was 
 good and right and ftoxn before the Lord his God ; and in every 
 work that he commenced for the service of the house of God, 
 and for the law and the commandment (i.e. for the restoration of 
 the law and its commands), to seek his God, he did it with all his 
 heart, and prospered. 
 
 Chap, xxxii. Sennacherib's campaign against Judah and Israel: 
 Hezekialis sickness, the remainder of his reign, and his death. 
 Cf; 2 Kings xviii. 13 xx. 21, and Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. Vers. 
 1-13. Sennacherib's campaign against Judah and Jerusalem, 
 and the annihilation of his whole army by the angel of the 
 Lord. In 2 Kings xviii. and xix., and Isa. xxxvi. and 
 xxxvii., we have two minute parallel accounts of this war, which 
 threatened the existence of the kingdom of Judah, in both of 
 which the course of this attack by the Assyrian world-power 
 upon the kingdom of God is circumstantially narrated. The 
 author of the Chronicle gives only a short narrative of the main 
 events of the struggle; but, notwithstanding its brevity, sup- 
 plies us with several not unessential additions to these detailed 
 accounts. After stating that Sennacherib invaded Judah with 
 the design of conquering the kingdom for himself (ver. 1), the 
 author of the Chronicle describes the preparations which Heze- 
 kiah made for the defence of the capital in case it should be 
 besieged (vers. 2-8). Then we have an account of Sennacherib's 
 attempts to get Jerusalem into his power, by sending his generals, 
 who sought to induce the people to submit by boastful speeches, 
 and by writing threatening letters to Hezekiah (vers. 9-19) ; 
 and, finally, of Hezekiah's prayer to God for help, and the 
 answer to his prayer the wonderful annihilation of the Assyrian 
 army (vers. 20-23). The purpose of the chronicler in narrating 
 these events was a didactic one : he wishes to show how God the 
 Lord helped the pious King Hezekiah in this danger to his
 
 CHAP. XXXII. 1-8. 473 
 
 kingdom, and humbled the presumption of Sennacherib confid- 
 ing in the might of his powerful army. For this purpose, a 
 brief rhetorical summary of the main events of the struggle and 
 its issues was sufficient. As to the facts, see the commentary on 
 2 Kings xviii. f. and Isa. xxxvi. f. 
 
 Ver. 1. The didactic and rhetorical character of the narra- 
 tive is manifest in the very form of the introductory statement. 
 Instead of the chronological statement of 2 Kings xviii. 13, we 
 find the loose formula of connection : After these events and this 
 fidelity (cf. xxxi. 20), Sennacherib came (S3) and entered into 
 Judah (rninu ^'1), and besieged the fenced cities, and thought 
 (~iN}) to break (conquer) them for himself. He had already 
 taken a number of them, and had advanced as far as Lachish in 
 the south-west of Judah, when he made the attempt to get Jeru- 
 salem into his power ; cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13 f. 
 
 Vers. 2-8. Preparations of Hezekiah for the strengthening and 
 defending of Jerusalem. We find an account of this neither in 
 2 Kings xviii. nor in Isa. xxxvi. ; but the fact is confirmed both 
 by Isa. xxii. 8-11, and by the remark 2 Kings xx. 20 (cf. 
 ver. 30 of our chapter). Ver. 2 ff. When Hezekiah saw that 
 Sennacherib advanced, and his face was to war against Jeru- 
 salem, i.e. that he purposed to capture Jerusalem, he consulted 
 with his princes and his valiant men to cover the waters of the 
 springs which were outside the city ; and they helped him, 
 brought much people together, and covered all the springs, and 
 the brook which ran through the midst of the land. DrjD does 
 not denote to obstruct, but only to hide by covering and con- 
 ducting the water into subterranean channels. The brook which 
 flowed through the midst of the land is the Gihon, which was 
 formed by the waters flowing from the springs, and was dried 
 up by these springs being covered and the water diverted. For 
 further information, see on ver. 30. The object of this measure 
 is stated in the words which follow : Why should the kings of 
 Assyria come and find 1 much water ? i.e., why should we provide 
 them with much water, when they advance against the city and 
 besiege it? The plural, kings of Assyria, is rhetorical, as in 
 xxviii. 16. Ver. 5. The fortification of Jerusalem. P.^n^ he 
 showed himself strong, courageous, as in xv. 8, xxiii. 1. And 
 he built the whole wall which was broken, i.e. he strengthened it 
 by building up the breaches and defective places ; cf. Isa. xxii. 
 9 f. The words nW3Brr?JJ TJM are obscure, since the translation
 
 474 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 " he mounted on the towers" has no meaning. But if ?JP be taken 
 as a Hiph., " he caused to ascend upon the towers," the object is 
 wanting ; and if we supply walls, it is arbitrary, for we might 
 just as well suppose it to be machines which he caused to be 
 carried to the top of the towers for defence against the enemy 
 (xxvi. 15). The LXX. have wholly omitted the words, and the 
 translation of the Vulg., et exstruxit turres desuper, appears to 
 be only a guess, but is yet perhaps correct, and presupposes the 
 reading niinao \) vJ? '^?> " and brought up upon it towers," in 
 favour of which Ewald also decides. This conjecture is in any 
 case simpler than Bertheau's, that $>y i>jn is a false transcription 
 of flvJN : " he built the whole wall, and towers upon it, and outside 
 was the other wall," and is therefore to be preferred to it. The 
 " other wall " enclosed the lower city (Acra). This, too, was 
 not first built by Hezekiah ; he only fortified it anew, for Isa. 
 xxii. 11 already speaks of two walls, between which a body of 
 water had been introduced : see on ver. 30. He fortified also 
 the Millo of the city of David (see on 1 Chron. xi. 8), and sup- 
 plied the fortifications with weapons (IW, a weapon of defence ; 
 see on Joel ii. 8) in multitude, and with shields ; cf. xxvi. 14. 
 Ver. 6. And, moreover, he set captains of war over the people, 
 i.e. the populace of Jerusalem, assembled them in the open space 
 at the city gate (which gate is not stated ; cf. Neh. viii. 1, 16), 
 and addressed them in encouraging words ; cf . xxx. 22. On ver. 
 7a, cf. xx. 15, Deut. xxxi. 6, etc. u For with us is more than 
 with him." 3"i, quite general, the closer definition following in 
 ver. 8 : " With him is an arm of flesh ; but with us is Jahve, 
 our God, to help us." An arm of flesh = frail human power ; 
 cf. Isa. xxi. 3 : their (the Egyptians') horses are flesh, not spirit ; 
 Jer. xvii. 5, Ps. Ivi. 5. " And the people leaned themselves 
 on (i.e. trusted in) the words of Hezekiah." These statements 
 are not inconsistent with the account in 2 Kings xviii. 14-16, 
 that Hezekiah began to negotiate with the Assyrian king Sen- 
 nacherib when he had begun to take the fenced cities of the land 
 unto Lachish, promised to pay him tribute, and actually paid the 
 sum demanded, employing for that purpose even the sheet gold 
 on the temple doors. These negotiations are passed over, not 
 only in our narrative, but also in Isa. xxxvi., because they had no 
 influence upon the after course and the issue of the war. Sen- 
 nacherib was not induced to withdraw by the payment of the 
 sum demanded, and soon after the receipt of it he sent a detach-
 
 CHAP. XXXII. 9-19. 475 
 
 ment from Lachish against Jerusalem, to summon the city to 
 surrender. The fortification of Jerusalem which the Chronicle 
 records began before these negotiations, and was continued while 
 they were in progress. 
 
 Vers. 9-19. The advance of an Assyrian army against Jeru- 
 salem, and the attempts of Sennacherib's generals to induce the 
 population of the capital to submit by persuasive and threatening 
 speeches, are very briefly narrated, in comparison with 2 Kings 
 xviii. 17-36. In ver. 9, neither the names of the Assyrian 
 generals, nor the names of Hezekiah's ambassadors with whom 
 they treated, are given ; nor is the place where the negotiation 
 was carried on mentioned. l^ay his servants, Sennacherib's 
 
 t t 
 
 generals. 'aP'Py wni, while he himself lay near (or against) 
 Lachish, and all the army of his kingdom with him. 1n?B>, his 
 dominion, i.e. army of his kingdom ; cf. Jer. xxxiv. 1. Ver. 
 10 ff. Only the main ideas contained in the speech of these 
 generals are reported ; in vers. 10-12 we have the attempt to 
 shake the trust of the people in Hezekiah and in God (Kings, vers. 
 19-22). E^ii"! is a continuation of the question, In what do ye 
 trust, and why sit ye in the distress, in Jerusalem ? IVDO as in 
 2 Kings xviii. 32 : Hezekiah seduces you, to give you over to 
 death by hunger and thirst. This thought is much more coarsely 
 expressed in 2 Kings xviii. 27. On ver. 12, cf. 2 Kings xviii. 
 22. THN nntp is the one altar of burnt-offering in the temple. 
 Ver. 13 f. The description of Sennacherib's all-conquering 
 power : cf. 2 Kings xviii. 35 ; Isa. xxxvi. 20, and xxxvii. 11-13. 
 tf Who is there among all the gods of these peoples, whom my 
 fathers utterly destroyed, who could have delivered his people 
 out of my hand, that your God should save you ? " The idea is, 
 that since the gods of the other peoples, which were mightier 
 than your God, have not been able to save their peoples, how 
 should your God be in a position to rescue you from my power ? 
 This idea is again repeated in ver. 15, as a foundation for the 
 exhortation not to let themselves be deceived and misled by 
 Hezekiah, and not to believe his words, and that in an assertative 
 form : " for not one god of any nation or kingdom was able to 
 deliver his people, . . . much less then (""2 *|S) your gods : they 
 will not save you ;" and this is done in order to emphasize strongly 
 the blasphemy of the Assyrian generals against the Almighty 
 God of Israel. To communicate more of these blasphemous 
 speeches would in the chronicler's view be useless, and he there-
 
 476 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 fore only remarks, in ver. 16, "And yet more spake his (Sen- 
 nacherib's) servants against God Jahve, and against His servant 
 Hezekiah ;" and then, in ver. 17, that Sennacherib also wrote a 
 letter of similar purport, and (ver. 18) that his servants called with 
 a loud voice in the Jews' speech to the people of Jerusalem upon 
 the wall, to throw them into fear and terrify them, that they 
 might take the city. What they called to the people is not 
 stated, but by the infinit. af^m BN"!$ it is hinted, and thence 
 we may gather that it was to the same effect as the blasphemous 
 speeches above quoted ( D "]^, inf. Pi., as in Neh. vi. 19). On 
 comparing 2 Kings xviii. and xix., it is clear that Sennacherib 
 only sent the letter to Hezekiah after his general Rabshakeh had 
 informed him of the fruitlessness of his efforts to induce the 
 people of Jerusalem to submit by speeches, and the news of the 
 advance of the Cushite king Tirhakah had arrived ; while the 
 calling aloud in the Jews' language to the people standing on 
 the wall, on the part of his generals, took place in the first nego- 
 tiation with the ambassadors of Hezekiah. The author of the 
 Chronicle has arranged his narrative rhetorically, so as to make 
 the various events form a climax : first, the speeches of the ser- 
 vants of Sennacherib ; then the king's letter to Hezekiah to in- 
 duce him and his counsellors to submit ; and finally, the attempt 
 to terrify the people in language intelligible to them. The 
 conclusion is the statement, ver. 19 : "They spake of the God 
 of Jerusalem as of the gods of the peoples of the earth, the work 
 of the hands of man ; " cf. 2 Kings xix. 18. 
 
 Vers. 20-23. Prayer of King Hezekiah and of the propJiet 
 Isaiah for the help of the Lord. Ver. 20. The main contents of 
 Hezekiah's prayer are communicated in 2 Kings xix. 14-19 and 
 Isa. xxxvii. 1519. There it is not expressly said that Isaiah 
 also prayed, but it may be inferred from the statement in 2 
 Kings xix. 2 ff. and Isa. xxxvii. 2 ff. that Hezekiah sent a depu- 
 tation to the prophet with the request that he would pray for the 
 people. In answer Isaiah promised the ambassadors deliverance, 
 as the word of the Lord. riNt ?V, on account of this, i.e. on ac- 
 count of the contempt shown for the God of Israel, which was 
 emphatically dwelt upon both in the prayer of Hezekiah (2 
 Kings xix. 16) and in the word of Isaiah, ver. 22 ff. Ver. 21. 
 The deliverance : cf. 2 Kings xix. 35 ff. ; Isa. xxxvii. 36 ff. The 
 number of Assyrians smitten by the angel of the Lord is not 
 stated, as it was not of importance, the main fact being that the
 
 CHAP. XXXII. 21-26. 477 
 
 \vholo Assyrian host was annihilated, so that Sennacherib had to 
 return with disgrace into his own land. This is what is signified 
 by the rhetorical phrase : The angel of Jahve destroyed all the 
 valiant warriors, and the leaders and princes of the king of 
 Assyria, and he returned with shame of face (cf. Ezra ix. 7 ; 
 Ps. xliv. 16) to his land, where his sons slew him in the temple. 
 In regard to the facts, see on 2 Kings xix. 37 and Isa. xxxvii. 38. 
 The Keth. 1NTD is an orthographical error for WVn, a contraction 
 of JO and ^"iP from fc^y}, a passive formation with intransitive 
 signification : some of those who went forth from his own bowels, 
 i.e. some of his sons ; cf. the similar formation "'ly 1 *?, 1 Chron. 
 xx. 4. Ver. 22. Conclusion of this event. So the Lord helped, 
 etc., <>3""TJ?, and out of the hand of all, sc. his enemies ; but we 
 need not on that account, with some manuscripts, bring YPk into 
 the text. B?L!?'!!, and protected them round about, ?, to lead, 
 guide, with the additional idea of care and protection (Ps. xxxi. 
 4 ; Isa. xlix. 10, li. 18) ; and consequently here, protect, defend. 
 There is therefore no need of the conjecture on? nj^ which 
 Berth, holds to be the original reading, without considering that, 
 though S'QBO rnjl is a current phrase with the chronicler (cf. xiv. 
 6, xv. 15, xx. 30 ; 1 Chron. xxii. 18), the supposition that these 
 words became 'DD D?nyi by an orthographical error is not at all 
 probable. Ver. 23. Many brought gifts to the Lord to Jeru- 
 salem, and presents to King Hezekiah. D^l is not to be restricted 
 to Israelites, but probably denotes chiefly neighbouring peoples, 
 who by the destruction of the Assyrian army were also freed 
 from this dreaded enemy. They, too, might feel impelled to 
 show their reverence for the God of Israel, who had so wonder- 
 fully delivered His people by their gifts. 
 
 Vers. 24-26. Hezekialis sickness and recovery ; his pride and 
 his humiliation. Ver. 24. As to the sickness of Hezekiah, and 
 the miraculous sign by which the prophet Isaiah assured him of 
 recovery, see the account in 2 Kings xx. 1-11 and Isa. xxxviii. 
 The Chronicle has only given us hints on this matter. ">ON S 1 
 and fro refer to the same subject God. Hezekiah prayed, and 
 in consequence of his prayer God spake to him, sc. by the mouth 
 of the prophet, and gave him a miraculous sign. Ver. 25. 
 " But Hezekiah rendered not according to the benefit unto him, 
 
 O ' 
 
 for his heart was proud." In his sickness he had promised to 
 walk in humility all his days (Isa. xxxviii. 15) : yet he became 
 proud after his recovery ; and his pride showed itself especially
 
 478 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 in his showing all his treasures to the Babylonian embassy, in 
 idle trust in them and in the resources at his command (cf. 2 
 Kings xx. 1215; Isa. xxxix. 1-4). "And there was wrath 
 upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem," which participated 
 in the king's sentiments (cf. xix. 10 ; 1 Chron. xxvii. 24). Isaiah 
 proclaimed this wrath to him in the prophecy that all the treasures 
 of the king would be carried away to Babylon, and that some of 
 his sons should become courtiers of the king of Babylon (2 Kings 
 xx. 1618 ; Isa. xxxix. 5-7), to which we should perhaps also 
 reckon the threatening prophecy in Mic. iii. 12. Ver. 26. Then 
 Hezekiah humbled himself in his pride, and the wrath came not 
 upon them in the days of Hezekiah (cf. Isa. xxxix. 8). The 
 threatened judgment was postponed because of this humiliation, 
 and broke over the royal house and the whole kingdom only at a 
 later time in the Chaldean invasion. 
 
 Vers. 27-33. Hezekialis riches; concluding estimate of his 
 reign; his death and burial. Ver. 27. Like Jehoshaphat (xvii. 5, 
 xviii. 1), Solomon (i. 12), and David (1 Chron. xxix. 28), Heze- 
 kiah attained to riches and glory, and made unto himself treasure- 
 chambers for silver, gold, precious stones, and spices, shields, and 
 all manner of splendid furniture. The D'33O are named instead 
 of weapons in general. The collection of them brings to recol- 
 lection the vfe 1V3 (2 Kings xx. 13 and Isa. xxxix. 2). Ver. 28. 
 Storehouses also (magazines) for the agricultural produce, and 
 stalls for all manner of cattle, and stalls for the herds, like David 
 (1 Chron. xxvii. 25 ff.) and Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 10). niJ3DD 
 is a transposition of rriD33D 5 storehouses, from D33 ? to heap up. 
 " Cattle and cattle " = all kinds of cattle. flV^j synonymous 
 with n^"|S (ix. 5), stables or stalls for cattle. The word ni"\i, 
 which occurs only here, must have the same signification, and be 
 held to be a transposed form of that word. Ver. 29. And cities 
 (?) made (procured) he for himself. D^y cannot in this connec- 
 tion denote the usual cities ; it must mean either watch-towers 
 (from "iiy, to watch) or dwelling-places for herds and cattle, since 
 T'y, according to 2 Kings xvii. 9, is used of any enclosed place, 
 from a watch-tower to a fenced city. ^3"!, as in xxxi. 3, of pos- 
 sessions in herds. Ver. 30. The same Hezekiah covered the 
 upper outlet of the water Gihon, and brought it down westwards 
 to the city of David, i.e. by a subterranean channel into the city 
 of David (see on ver. 3). The form Dlt^M is Piel B 1 ?.^ ; the 
 Keri is the same con jug., only contracted into cnt^i, as P??} for
 
 CHAP. XSXIII. 1-20. 479 
 
 K : 2"l, the 1 of the third person having amalgamated with the first 
 radical, under the influence of the 1 consec. With the last clause 
 in ver. 30 cf. xxxi. 21, 1 Chron. xxix. 23. Ver. 31. " And so 
 (i.e. accordingly) in the case of the ambassadors of the princes of 
 Babylon, . . . God left him." $} does not denote attamen ; it 
 never has an adversative meaning. Bertheau rightly translates, 
 " and accordingly," with the further remark, that by }3l the 
 account of Hezekiah's treatment of the Babylonian ambassadors, 
 which could not be reckoned among his fortunate deeds, is brought 
 into harmony with the remark that he prospered in all his under- 
 takings. It was permitted by God that Hezekiah should on this 
 occasion be lifted up, and should commit an iniquity which could 
 not but bring misfortune with it ; not in order that He might 
 plunge him into misfortune, but to try him, and to humble him 
 (cf. ver. 26). Ver. 32. onon, pious deeds, as in vi. 42. '& tfrn 
 is the book of Isaiah's prophecies ; see the Introduction, p. 30. 
 Ver. 33. Hezekiah was buried " on the height of the graves of 
 the sons of David," perhaps because there was no longer room 
 in the hereditary burying-place of the kings ; so that for Heze- 
 kiah and the succeeding kings special graves had to be prepared 
 in a higher place of the graves of the kings. " They did him 
 honour in his death," by the burning of many spices, as we may 
 conjecture (cf. xvi. 14, xxi. 19). 
 
 CHAP. XXXIII. THE REIGNS OF MANASSEH AND AMON. 
 CF. 2 KINGS XXI. 
 
 Vers. 1-20. The reign of Manasseh ; cf. 2 Kings xxi. 1-18. 
 The characteristics of this king's reign, and of the idolatry which 
 he again introduced, and increased in a measure surpassing all 
 his predecessors (vers. 1-9), agrees almost verbally with 2 Kings 
 xxi. 1-9. Here and there an expression is rhetorically general- 
 ized and intensified, e.g. by the plurals Dvjf2& and nitK'N (ver. 3) 
 instead of the sing. !?V^ and rnete (Kings), and VJ3 (ver. 6) in- 
 stead of iJ2 (see on xxviii. 3) ; by the addition of *|Bfcn to crm }3iy, 
 and of the name the Vale of Hinnom, ver. 6 (see on Josh. xv. 
 18, ^ for N\3) ; by heaping up words for the law and its com- 
 mandments (ver. 8) ; and other small deviations, of which ^D3 
 ?osn (ver. 7) instead of nn^xn 7D3 (Kings) is the most im- 
 portant. The word ?D, sculpture or statue, is derived from 
 Deut. iv. 16, but has perhaps been taken by the author of the
 
 480 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 Chronicle from Ezek. viii. 3, where p probably denotes the 
 statue of Asherah. The form Di^V for B?iy (ver. 7) is not else- 
 where met with. At ver. 10, the account in the Chronicle 
 diverges from that in 2 Kings. In 2 Kings xxi. 10-16 it is 
 related how the Lord caused it to be proclaimed by the prophets, 
 that in punishment of Manasseh's sins Jerusalem would be 
 destroyed, and the people given into the power of their enemies, 
 and how Manasseh filled Jerusalem with the shedding of inno- 
 cent blood. Instead of this, in ver. 10 of the Chronicle it is 
 only briefly said that the Lord spake to Manasseh and to his 
 people, but they would not hearken; and then in vers. 11-17 
 it is narrated that Manasseh was led aw r ay to Babylon by the 
 king of Assyria's captains of the host ; in his trouble turned to 
 the Lord his God, and prayed ; was thereupon brought by God 
 back to Jerusalem ; after his return, fortified Jerusalem with a 
 new wall ; set commanders over all the fenced cities of Judah : 
 abolished the idolatry in the temple and the city, and restored 
 the worship of Jahve. Ver. 11. As Manasseh would not hear 
 the words of the prophets, the Lord brought upon him the 
 captains of the host of the king of Assyria. These " took him 
 with hooks, and bound him with double chains of brass, and 
 
 L 
 
 brought him to Babylon." D^nini 113^ signifies neither, they 
 took him prisoner in thorns (hid in the thorns), nor in a place 
 called Chochim (which is not elsewhere found), but they took 
 him with hooks, nin denotes the hook or ring which was drawn 
 through the gills of large fish when taken (Job xl. 26), and is 
 synonymous with nn (2 Kings xix. 28 ; Ezek. xix. 4), a ring 
 which was passed through the noses of wild beasts to subdue and 
 lead them. The expression is figurative, as in the passages 
 quoted from the prophets. Manasseh is represented as an 
 unmanageable beast, which the Assyrian generals took and 
 subdued by a ring in the nose. The figurative expression is 
 explained by the succeeding clause : they bound him with double 
 chains. DW'm are double fetters of brass, with w r hich the feet 
 of prisoners were bound (2 Sam. iii. 34 ; Judg. xvi. 21 ; 2 Chron. 
 xxxvi. 6, etc.). Ver. 12. & nyPO} = & isn njn*, xxviii. 22. In 
 this his affliction he bowed himself before the Lord God of his 
 fathers, and besought Him ; and the Lord was entreated of him, 
 and brought him again to Jerusalem, into his kingdom. The 
 prayer which Manasseh prayed in his need was contained, accord- 
 ing to ver. 18 f., in the histories of the kings of Israel, and in the
 
 CHAP. XXXIII. 1-20. 481 
 
 sayings of the prophet Hozai, but has not come down to our day. 
 The " prayer of Manasseh " given by the LXX. is an apocryphal 
 production, composed in Greek ; cf. my Introduction to the Old 
 Testament, 247. Ver. 14. After his return, Manasseh took 
 measures to secure his kingdom, and especially the capital, against 
 hostile attacks. " He built an outer wall of the city of David 
 westward towards Gihon in the valley, and in the direction of the 
 fish-gate ; and he surrounded the Ophel, and made it very high." 
 The words rm^n noin (without the article) point to the building 
 of a new Avail. But since it has been already recorded of Heze- 
 kiah, in xxxii. 5, that he built "the other wall without," all 
 modern expositors, even Arnold in Herz.'s Realenc. xviii. S. 634, 
 assume the identity of the two walls, and understand }2>1 of the 
 completion and heightening of that " other wall " of which it is 
 said 1KB HiT?.??}, and which shut in Zion from the lower city to the 
 north. In that case, of course, we must make the correction noinrr. 
 The words tl westward towards Gihon in the valley, and '2 NUx, 
 in the direction to (towards) the fish-gate," are then to be taken 
 as describing the course of this wall from its centre, first towards 
 the west, and then towards the east. For the valley of Gihon lay, 
 in all probability, outside of the western city gate, which occu- 
 pied the place of the present Jaffa gate. But the fish-gate was, 
 according to Neh. iii. 3, at the east end of this wall, at no great 
 distance from the tower on the north-east corner. The valley 
 
 * ** 
 
 (pnsn) is a hollow between the upper city (Zion) and the lower 
 (Acra), probably the beginning of the valley, which at its south- 
 eastern opening, between Zion and Moriah, is called Tyropoion 
 in Josephus. The words, "he surrounded the Ophel," sc. with a 
 wall, are not to be connected with the preceding clauses, as Berth, 
 connects them, translating, " he carried the wall from the north- 
 east corner farther to the south, and then round the Ophel ;" for 
 " between the north-east corner and the Ophel wall lay the whole 
 east wall of the city, as far as to the south-east corner of the 
 temple area, which yet cannot be regarded as a continuation of 
 the wall to the Ophel wall" (Arnold, loc. cit.}. Jotham had 
 already built a great deal at the Ophel wall (xxvii. 3). Manasseh 
 must therefore only have strengthened it, and increased its 
 height. On the words 'fc> Di^l, cf. xxxii. 6 and xvii. 2. Vers. 
 15-17. And he also removed the idols and the statues from the 
 house of the Lord, i.e. out of the two courts of the temple (ver. 5), 
 and caused the idolatrous altars which he had built upon the 
 
 2 II
 
 482 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 temple hill and in Jerusalem to be cast forth from the city. 
 In ver. 16, instead of the Keth. Jim, he built (restored) the altar 
 of Jahve, many manuscripts and ancient editions read p'M, he 
 prepared the altar of Jahve. This variation has perhaps ori- 
 ginated in an orthographical error, and it is difficult to decide 
 which reading is the original. The Vulg. translates p" 1 restauravit. 
 That Manasseh first removed the altar of Jahve from the court, 
 and then restored it, as Ewald thinks, is not very probable ; for 
 in that case its removal would certainly have been mentioned in 
 ver. 3 ff. Upon the altar thus restored Manasseh then offered 
 thank-offerings and peace-offerings, and also commanded his sub- 
 jects to worship Jahve the God of Israel. But the people still 
 sacrificed on the high places, yet unto Jahve their God. 
 
 " As to the carrying away of Manasseh," says Bertheau, " we 
 have no further information in the Old Testament, which is not 
 surprising, seeing that in the books of Kings there is only a very 
 short notice as to the long period embraced by Manasseh's reign 
 and that of Amon." He therefore, with Ew., Mov., Then., and 
 others, does not scruple to recognise this fact as historical, and to 
 place his captivity in the time of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon. 
 He however believes, with Ew. and Mov., that the statements as 
 to the removal of idols and altars from the temple and Jerusalem 
 (ver. 15) is inconsistent with the older account in 2 Kings xxiii. 
 6 and 12, the clear statements of which, moreover, our historian 
 does not communicate in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 3 f. For even if the 
 Astarte removed by Josiah need not have been the tasn of our 
 chapter, yet it is expressly said that only by Josiah were the 
 altars built by Manasseh broken down ; yet we would scarcely be 
 justified in supposing that Manasseh removed them, perhaps only 
 laid them aside, that Amon again set them up in the courts, and 
 that Josiah at length destroyed them. It does not thence follow, 
 of course, that the narrative of the repentance and conversion of 
 Manasseh rests upon no historic foundation ; rather it is just such 
 a narrative as would be supplemented by accounts of the destruc- 
 tion of the idolatrous altars and the statue of Astarte : for that 
 might be regarded as the necessary result of the conversion, with- 
 out any definite statement being made. 1 Against this we have the 
 
 1 From this supposed contradiction, E. H. Graf, " die Gefangenschaft u. 
 Bekehrung Manasse's, 2 Chron. xxxiii.," in the Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 
 1859, iii. S. 467 ff., and in the book, die gescJiichtl. Literatur A. Test. 1866, 
 2 AbhdL, following Gramberg, and with the -concurrence of H. Nbldeke,
 
 CHAP. XXXIII. 1-20. 483 
 
 following objections to make : Can AVC well imagine repentance 
 and conversion on Manasseh's part without the removal of the 
 abominations of idolatry, at least from the temple of the Lord ? 
 And why should we not suppose that Manasseh removed the 
 idol altars from the temple and Jerusalem, but that Amon, who 
 did evil as did his father Manasseh, and sacrificed to all the 
 images which he had made (2 Kings xxi. 21 f. ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 
 22), again set them up in the courts of the temple, and placed 
 the statue again in the temple, and that only by Josiah were 
 they destroyed ? In 2 Kings xxiii. 6 it is indeed said, Josiah 
 removed the Asherah from the house of Jahve, took it forth 
 from Jerusalem, and burnt it, and ground it to dust in the 
 valley of Kidron ; and in ver. 12, that Josiah beat down and 
 brake the altars which Manasseh had made in both courts of the 
 house of Jahve, and threw the dust of them into Kidron. But 
 where do we find it written in the Chronicle that Manasseh, 
 after his return from Babylon, beat down, and brake, and 
 ground to powder the ?!?D in the house of Jahve, and the altars 
 on the temple mount and in Jerusalem? In 2 Chron. xxxiii. 15 
 
 we only find it stated that he cast these things forth from the 
 
 L L 
 
 city (T'y? n^n $?^). Is casting out of the city identical with 
 
 breaking down and crushing, as Bertheau and others assume? 
 The author of the Chronicle, at least, can distinguish between 
 removing ("Vpn) and breaking down and crushing. Cf. xv. 16, 
 where "Vpn is sharply distinguished from rro and P^n ; further, 
 chap. xxxi. 1 and xxxiv. 4, where the verbs "I3E>, JTia, and Pin 
 are used of the breaking in pieces and destroying of images 
 and altars by Hezekiah and Josiah. He uses none of these 
 verbs of the removal of the images and altars by Manasseh, but 
 only and V$ nn -fe (ver. 15). If we take the words 
 exactly as they stand in the text of the Bible, every appearance 
 of contradiction disappears. 1 From what is said in the Chronicle 
 
 die alttesll. Lileratur in einer Reihe von Aufsiitzen dargestellt (1868), S. 59 f., 
 has drawn the conclusion that the accounts given in the Chronicle, not only 
 of Manasseh's conversion, but also of his being led captive to Babylon, are 
 merely fictions, or inventions poetical popular myths. On the other hand, 
 E. Gerlach, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, iii. S. 503 ff., has shown the 
 superficiality of Graf's essay, and defended effectively the historical cha- 
 racter of both narratives. 
 
 1 In this matter Movers too has gone very superficially to -work, remark- 
 ing in support of the contradiction (bill. Chron. S. 328) : "If Manasseh was 
 so zealous a penitent, it may be asked, Would he not have destroyed all
 
 484 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 of Manasseli's deeds, we cannot conclude that he was fully con- 
 verted to the Lord. That Manasseh prayed to Jahve in his 
 imprisonment, and by his deliverance from it and his restoration 
 to Jerusalem came to see that Jahve was God (DTi^n), who 
 must be worshipped in His temple at Jerusalem, and that he 
 consequently removed the images and the idolatrous altars from 
 the temple and the city, and cast them forth, these facts do not 
 prove a thorough conversion, much less " that he made amends 
 for his sin by repentance and improvement" (Mov.), but merely 
 attest the restoration of the Jahve-worship in the temple, which 
 had previously been completely suspended. But the idolatry in 
 Jerusalem and Judah was not thereby extirpated ; it was only in 
 so far repressed that it could not longer be publicly practised in 
 the temple. Still less was idolatry rooted out of the hearts of 
 the people by the command that the people were to worship 
 Jahve, the God of Israel. There is not a single word of Ma- 
 nasseh's conversion to Jahve, the God of the fathers, with all his 
 heart (D?B> 2?3). Can it then surprise us, that after Manasseli's 
 death, under his son Amon, walking as he did in the sins of his 
 father, these external barriers fell straightway, and idolatry 
 again publicly appeared in all its proportions and extent, and 
 that the images and altars of the idols which had been cast out 
 of Jerusalem were again set up in the temple and its courts ? 
 If even the pious Josiah, with all his efforts for the extirpation 
 of idolatry and the revivification of the legal worship, could not 
 accomplish more than the restoration, during his reign, of the 
 temple service according to the law, while after his death idolatry 
 again prevailed under Jehoiakim, what could Manasseh's half- 
 measures effect ? If this be the true state of the case in regard 
 
 idolatrous images, according to the Mosaic law, as the Chronicle itself, xxxiii. 
 15 (cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 17, xv. 16; 2 Kings xxiii. 12), sufficiently shows? Had 
 idolatry ceased in all Judah in the last year of Manasseh's reign, as is stated 
 in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 17, could it, during the two years' reign of his son Amon, 
 have spread abroad in a manner hitherto unheard of in Jewish history, as it 
 is portrayed under Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii. 4 ff. ?" But where is it stated in 
 the Chronicle that Manasseh was so zealous a penitent as to have destroyed 
 the images according to the Mosaic law ? Not even the restoration of the 
 Jahve-worship according to the provisions of the law is once spoken of, as it 
 is in the case of Hezekiah and of Josiah (cf. 2 Chron. xxx. 5 and 16, xxxiv. 
 21, xxxv. 26) ; and does it follow from the fact that Judah, in consequence of 
 Manasseh's command to serve Jahve, still sacrificed in the high places, yet to 
 Jahve, that under Manasseh idolatry ceased throughout Judah?
 
 CHAP. XXXIII. 1-20. 485 
 
 to Manasseh's conversion, the passages 2 Kings xxiv. 3, xxiii. 26, 
 Jer. xv. 4, where it is said that the Lord had cast out Judah 
 from His presence because of the sins of Manasseh, cease to give 
 any support to the opposite view. Manasseh is here named as 
 the person who by his godlessness made the punishment of 
 Judah and Jerusalem unavoidable, because he so corrupted 
 Judah by his sins, that it could not now thoroughly turn to the 
 Lord, but always fell back into the sins of Manasseh. Similarly, 
 in 2 Kings xvii. 21 and 22, it is said of the ten tribes that the 
 Lord cast them out from His presence because they walked in 
 all the sins of Jeroboam, and departed not from them. 
 
 With the removal of the supposed inconsistency between the 
 statement in the Chronicle as to Manasseh's change of senti- 
 ment, and the account of his godlessness in 2 Kings xxi., every 
 reason for suspecting the account of Manasseh's removal to 
 Babylon as a prisoner disappears ; for even Graf admits that the 
 mere silence of the book of Kings can prove nothing, since the 
 books of Kings do not record many other events which are re- 
 corded in the Chronicle and are proved to be historical. This 
 statement, however, is thoroughly confirmed, both by its own 
 contents and by its connection with other well-attested historical 
 facts. Accordina; to ver. 14, Manasseh fortified Jerusalem still 
 
 o / 
 
 more strongly after his return to the throne by building a new 
 wall. This statement, which has as yet been called in question 
 by no judicious critic, is so intimately connected with the state- 
 ments in the Chronicle as to his being taken prisoner, and the 
 removal of the images from the temple, that by it these latter 
 are attested as historical. From this we learn that the author of 
 the Chronicle had at his command authorities which contained 
 more information as to Manasseh's reign than is to be found in 
 our books of Kings, and so the references to these special autho- 
 rities which follow in vers. 18 and 19 are corroborated. More- 
 over, the fortifying of Jerusalem after his return from his 
 imprisonment presupposes that he had had such an experience 
 as impelled him to take measures to secure himself against a 
 repetition of hostile surprises. To this we must add the state- 
 ment that Manasseh was led away by the generals of the Assy- 
 rian king to Babylon. The Assyrian kings Tiglath-pileser and 
 Shalmaneser (or Sargon) did not carry away the Israelites to 
 Babylon, but to Assyria ; and the arrival of ambassadors from 
 the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan in Jerusalem, in the
 
 486 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 time of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 12 ; Isa. xxxix. 1), shows that at 
 that time Babylon was independent of Assyria. The poetic 
 popular legend would without doubt have made Manasseh also 
 to be carried away to Assyria by the troops of the Assyrian 
 king, not to Babylon. The statement that lie was carried away 
 to Babylon by Assyrian warriors rests upon the certainty that 
 Babylon was then a province of the Assyrian empire ; and 
 this is corroborated by history. According to the accounts of 
 Abydenus and Alexander Polyhistor, borrowed from Berosus, 
 which have been preserved in Euseb. Chron. arm. i. p. 42 f., 
 Sennacherib brought Babylon, the government of which had 
 been usurped by Belibus, again into subjection, and made his 
 son Esarhaddon king over it, as his representative. The subjec- 
 tion of the Babylonians is confirmed by the Assyrian monu- 
 ments, which state that Sennacherib had to march against the 
 rebels in Babylon at the very beginning of his reign ; and then 
 again, in the fourth year of it, that he subdued them, and set 
 over them a new viceroy (see M. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. i. 
 S. 697 f. and 707 f. and ii. S. 592 f., der 3 Aufl.). Afterwards, 
 when Sennacherib met his death at the hand of his sons (2 Kings 
 xix. 37 ; Isa. xxxvii. 38), his oldest son Esarhaddon, the viceroy 
 of Babylon, advanced with his army, pursued the flying parri- 
 cides, and after slaying them ascended the throne of Assyria, 
 680 B.C. 1 Of Esarhaddon, who reigned thirteen years (from 680 
 to 667), we learn from Ezra iv. 2, col. with 2 Kings xxiv. 17, that 
 he brought colonists to Samaria from Babylon, Cutha, and other 
 districts of his kingdom ; and Abydenus relates of him, accord- 
 ing to Berosus (in Euseb. Chron. i. p. 54),' that Axerdis (i.e. with- 
 out doubt Esarhaddon) subdued Lower Syria, i.e. the districts of 
 Syria bordering on the sea, to himself anew. From these we 
 
 1 So Jul. Oppert, "die biblische Chronologie f estgestellt nach den Assy- 
 rischen Keilschriften," in d. Ztschr. der deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. (xxiii. S. 
 134), 1869, S. 144; while Duncker, loc. tit. I S. 709, on the ground of the. 
 divergent statement of Berosus as to the reign of Esarhaddon, and accord- 
 ing to other chronological combinations, gives the year 693 B.C., a date 
 which harmonizes neither with Sennacherib's inscriptions, so far as these 
 have yet been deciphered, nor with the statements of the Kanon Ptol., nor 
 with biblical chronology. It, moreover, makes it necessary to shorten the 
 fifty-five years of Manasseh's reign to thirty-five, which is all the more arbi- 
 trary as the chronological data of the Kanon Ptol. harmonize with the biblical 
 chronology and establish their accuracy, as I have already pointed out in my 
 apolog. Vers. tiber die Chron. S. 429 f.
 
 CHAP. XXXIII. 1-20. 487 
 
 may, I think, conclude that not only the transporting of the 
 colonists into the depopulated kingdom of the ten tribes is con- 
 nected with this expedition against Syria, but that on this occa- 
 sion also Assyrian generals took King Manasseh prisoner, and 
 carried him away to Babylon, as Ewald (Gesch. in. S. 678), 
 and Duncker, S. 715, with older chronologists and expositors 
 (Usher, des Vignoles, Calinet, Kamb., J. D. Mich., and others), 
 suppose. The transport of Babylonian colonists to Samaria is 
 said in Seder Olam rab. p. 67, ed. Meyer, and by D. Kimchi, 
 according to Talmudic tradition, to have taken place in the 
 twenty-second year of Manasseh's reign ; and this statement 
 gains confirmation from the fact as was remarked by Jac. 
 Cappell. and Usher that the period of sixty-five years after 
 which, according to the prophecy in Isa. vii. 8, Ephraim was to 
 be destroyed so that it should no more be a people, came to an 
 end with the twenty-second year of Manasseh, and Ephraim, i.e. 
 Israel of the ten tribes, did indeed cease to be a people only with 
 the immigration of heathen colonists into its land (cf. Del. on 
 Isa. vii. 8). But the twenty-second year of Manasseh corre- 
 sponds to the year 776 B.C. and the fourth year of Esarhaddon. 
 
 By this agreement with extra-biblical narratives in its state- 
 ment of facts and in its chronology, the narrative in the Chronicle 
 of Manasseh's captivity in Babylon is raised above every doubt, 
 and is corroborated even by the Assyrian monuments. " We now 
 know," remarks Duncker (ii. S. 92) in this connection, " that 
 Esarhaddon says in his inscriptions that twenty-two kings of Syria 
 hearkened to him : he numbers among them Minasi (Manasseh 
 of Judah) and the kings of Cyprus." As to the details both of 
 his capture and his liberation, we cannot make even probable 
 conjectures, since we have only a few bare notices of Esarhad- 
 don's reign ; and even his building works, which might have 
 given us some further information, were under the influence of a 
 peculiarly unlucky star, for the palace built by him at Kalah or 
 Nimrod remained unfinished, and was then destroyed by a great 
 fire (cf. Spiegel in Herz.'s Realencykl. xx. S. 225). Yet, from the 
 fact that in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1, as in 2 Kiiio-s xxi. 1, the duration 
 
 7 O ' . 
 
 of Manasseh's reign is stated to have been fifty-five years, with- 
 out any mention being made of an interruption, we may probably 
 draw this conclusion at least, that the captivity did not last long, 
 and that he received his liberty upon a promise to pay tribute, 
 although he appears not to have kept this promise, or only for a
 
 488 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 short period. For that, in the period between Hezekiah and 
 Josiah, Judah must have come into a certain position of de- 
 pendence upon Assyria, cannot be concluded from 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 19 (cf. ver. 15 with xvii. 28) and chap, xxiii. 29, as E. 
 Gerlach thinks. 
 
 Vers. 18-20. Conclusion of Manasseh's history. His other 
 acts, his prayer, and words of the prophets of the Lord against 
 him, were recorded in the history of the kings of Israel ; while 
 special accounts of his prayer, and how it was heard (y"^^, 
 the letting Himself be entreated, i.e. how God heard him), 
 of his sons, and the high places, altars, and images which he 
 erected before his humiliation, were contained in the sayings 
 of Hozai (see the Introduction, p. 30 f.). Ver. 20. Manasseh 
 was buried in his house, or, according to the more exact state- 
 ment in 2 Kings xxi. 18, in the garden of his house in the 
 garden of Uzza ; see on that passage. 
 
 Vers. 21-25. The reign of Amon. Cf. 2 Kings xxi. 19-26. 
 Both accounts agree; only in the Chronicle, as is also the case 
 with Manasseh and Ahaz, the name of his mother is omitted, 
 and the description of his godless deeds is somewhat more brief 
 than in Kings, while the remark is added that he did not humble 
 himself like Manasseh, but increased the guilt. In the account 
 of his death there is nothing said of his funeral, nor is there 
 any reference to the sources of his history. See the commen- 
 tary on 2 Kings xxi. 19 ff. 
 
 CHAP. XXXIV. AND XXXV. REIGN OF JOSIAH. OF. 2 KINGS 
 XXII. AND XXIII. 1-30. 
 
 The account of Josiah in the Chronicle agrees in all essential 
 points with the representation in 2 Kings xxii. and xxiii., but is 
 chronologically more exact, and in many parts more complete 
 than that. In the second book of Kings, the whole reform of 
 the cultus carried out by Josiah is viewed in its connection with 
 the discovery of the book of the law, on the occasion of the 
 temple being repaired ; and the narrative comprehends not only 
 the repair of the temple, the discovery, the reading of the book 
 of the law before the assembled people, and the renewal of the 
 covenant, but also the extirpation of idolatry in Jerusalem and 
 Judah and in all the cities of Israel, and the celebration of the 
 passover in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign; see the intro-
 
 CHAP. XXXIV. 1-7. 489 
 
 cluctory remarks to 2 Kings xxii. In the Chronicle, on the 
 contrary, these events are more kept apart, and described accord- 
 ing to their order in time. As early as in the eighth year of his 
 reign, Josiah, still a youth, began to seek the God of his ancestor 
 David, and in his twelfth year to purge Jerusalem and Judah of 
 idolatry (xxxiv. 3). In the eighteenth year the book of the law 
 was discovered in the temple, brought to the king, and read 
 before him (vers. 8-18) ; whereupon he, deeply moved by the 
 contents of the book which had been read, and by the answer 
 of the prophetess Huldah when inquired of concerning it (vers. 
 19-28), went into the temple with the elders of the people, 
 caused the law to be read to the whole people, and made a 
 covenant before the Lord to obey the law (vers. 29-32). He 
 then caused all the idolatrous abominations which were still to 
 be found in the land of Israel to be removed (ver. 33), and pre- 
 pared to hold the passover, as it had not been held since the 
 days of Solomon (chap. xxxv. 1-19). In other respects the main 
 difference between the two accounts is, that in 2 Kings the 
 suppression of idolatry is narrated with greater minuteness ; the 
 passover, on the contrary, being only briefly noticed ; while in 
 the Chronicle the purification of Jerusalem, Judah, and the 
 kingdom of Israel is shortly summarized (xxxiv. 3-7), but the 
 celebration of the passover is minutely described on its ceremonial 
 side (xxxv. 119). 
 
 Chap, xxxiv. Vers. 1 and 2. Duration and spirit of JosiaJts 
 reign; agreeing with 2 Kings xxii. 1 and 2, only the note as 
 to Josiah's mother being here omitted. Vers. 3-7. Extirpation 
 of idolatry. In the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet a 
 youth, being then only sixteen years old, Josiah began to seek 
 the God of his ancestor David, and in the twelfth year of his 
 reign he commenced to purify Judah and Jerusalem from the 
 high places, Asherim, etc. The cleansing of the land of Judah 
 from the numerous objects of idolatry is summarily described in 
 vers. 4 and 5 ; and thereupon there follows (vers. 6 and 7) the 
 destruction of the idolatrous altars and images in the land of 
 Israel, all that it seemed necessary to say on that subject being 
 thus mentioned at once. For that all this was not accomplished 
 in the twelfth year is clear from the "i^? ?nn, " he commenced to 
 cleanse," and is moreover attested by ver. 33. The description of 
 this destruction of the various objects of idolatry is rhetorically ex- 
 pressed, only carved and cast images being mentioned, besides the
 
 490 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 altars of the high places and the Asherim, without the enumeration 
 of the different kinds of idolatry which we find in 2 Kings xxiii. 
 420. On ver. 4, cf. xxxi. 1. EHji^, they pulled down before him, 
 i.e. under his eye, or his oversight, the altars of the Baals (these 
 are the ni3, ver. 3) ; and the sun-pillars (cf . xiv. 4) which stood 
 upwards, i.e. above, upon the altars, he caused to be hewn away 
 from them (DnvJfl?) ; the Asherim (pillars and trees of Asherah) 
 and the carved and molten images to be broken and ground (P1H, 
 cf. xv. 16), and (the dust of them) to be strewn upon the graves 
 (of those) who had sacrificed to them. B^niin is connected directly 
 with B^i?'?, so that the actions of those buried in them are 
 poetically attributed to the graves. In 2 Kings xxiii. 6 this is 
 said only of the ashes of the Asherah statue which was burnt, 
 while here it is rhetorically generalized. Ver. 5. And he burnt 
 the bones of the priests upon their altars, i.e. he caused the bones 
 of the idolatrous priests to be taken from their graves and burnt 
 on the spot where the destroyed altars had stood, that he might 
 defile the place with the ashes of the dead. In these words is 
 summarized what is stated in 2 Kings xxiii. 13 and 14 as to the 
 defilement of the places of sacrifice built upon the Mount of 
 Olives by the bones of the dead, and in vers. 16-20 as to the 
 burning of the bones of the high priests of Bethel, after they 
 had been taken from their graves, upon their own altars. DVliraiD 
 is an orthographical error for DninaTO. Vers. 6 and 7 form a 
 connected sentence : And in the cities of Manasseh . . . ., in their 
 ruins round about, there he pulled down the altars, etc. The 
 tribe of Simeon is here, as in xv. 9, reckoned among the tribes 
 of the kingdom of Israel, because the Simeonites, although they 
 belonged geographically to the kingdom of Judah, yet in religion 
 remained attached to the worship on the high places practised 
 by the ten tribes ; see on xv. 9. " And unto Naphtali" is added, 
 to designate the kingdom of Israel in its whole extent to the 
 northern frontier of Canaan. The form Dfvrp ""T 1 ? (in the Keth. 
 divided into two words) gives no suitable sense. R. Sal. explains, 
 timentes in planitie hdbitare, sed fixerunt in monte domicilia, ren- 
 dering it " in their mountain-dwellings." This the words cannot 
 mean. 1 The Keri Drmaina "with their swords," is sn fasted by 
 
 V ; ; / / f 
 
 Ezek. xxvi. 9, and is accepted by D. Kimchi, Abu Melech, and 
 
 1 The LXX. translate \v TO/? ToVo/j eevray, expressing merely the DrPflH. 
 The Targ. has jinnVTf JV31.5 liomo ( s - ^ co ) desolationis eorum.
 
 CHAP. XXXIV. 8-18. 491 
 
 others, and understood to denote instruments with which the 
 altars, groves, and images were cut down. But this interpreta- 
 tion also is certainly incorrect. The word is rather to be pointed 
 E^'D-"! 1 ;?, in their wastes (ruins) (cf. Ps. cix. 10), and to be taken 
 as an explanatory apposition to *?.?? : in the cities of Manasseh 
 . . . , namely, in their ruins round about; for the land had been 
 deserted since the times of Shalmaneser, and its cities were in 
 great part in ruins. The statement as to the locality precedes 
 in the form of an absolute sentence, and that which is predicated 
 of it follows in the form of an apodosis with 1 consec. (F*?^). 
 PI?? nj P?, he dashed to pieces to crush ; the form Pin is not a 
 perfect after ?, but an infinitive which has retained the vowel of 
 the perfect ; cf. Ew. 238, d. 
 
 Vers. 818. The cleansing and repairing of the temple, and the 
 finding of the book of the law. Cf. 2 Kings xxii. 310. In the 
 eighteenth year of his reign, when he was purging the land and 
 the house (of God), he sent. ">?? does not indeed signify " after 
 the purging" (De Wette, with the older expositors), but still less 
 is it a statement of the object, " to purge" (Berth.) ; for that is 
 decisively disposed of both by its position at the beginning of the 
 sentence, where no statement of the object would stand, out still 
 more by the fact that a statement of the object follows, '131 P?np. 
 ? used of time denotes " about," and so with the inf., e.g. Jer. 
 xlvi. 13 : at (his) coming = when he came. Shaphan was ">?iD, 
 state secretary, according to 2 Kings xxii. 3. With him the 
 king sent the governor of the city Maaseiah, and the chancellor 
 Joah. These two are not mentioned in 2 Kings xxii. 3, but 
 have not been arbitrarily added by the chronicler, or invented 
 by him, as Then, groundlessly supposes. " To repair the house 
 of Jahve." What these high royal officials had to do with it we 
 learn from what follows. Ver. 9 f. They, together with the 
 high priest, gave the money which had been received for the 
 repair of the temple to the overseers of the building, who then 
 gave it to workmen to procure building materials and for wages, 
 just as was done when the temple was repaired by Joash, chap, 
 xxiv. 11-13. The Keri ^2-?*'- ^ s a correction resulting from a 
 misinterpretation of the Keth. ^"1, " and of the dwellers in 
 Jerusalem." The enumeration, " from the hand of Manasseh, 
 Ephraim," etc., is rhetorical. In Wi-}, ver. 10, the verb of ver. 9 
 is again taken up : they handed it to the overseers of the build- 
 ing, and they to the workmen, 'on ncty is a rare form of the
 
 492 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 plur. 'Bty; see on 1 Chron. xxiii. 24. The overseers of the build- 
 ing (DHpaon ^V) are the subject of the second wri1; and 
 before the following "^y, ?, which stands in 2 Kings, is to be 
 supplied, pn? is a denom. from p^S, and signifies to repair what 
 has been damaged. The statement of ver. 10 is made more 
 definite by ver. 11 : they gave it, namely, to the workers in stone 
 and wood, and to the builders to buy hewn stones and timber for 
 couplings, and for the beams of the houses (^" I i7r ) , to provide with 
 beams; D^rnn are the various buildings of the temple and its 
 courts), which the kings of Judah had allowed to decay (JVn^'n, 
 not of designed destroying, but of ruining by neglect). In ver. 
 12 we have still the remark that the people did the work with 
 fidelity, and the money could consequently be given to them 
 without reckoning, cf. 2 Kings xxii. 7 ; and then the names of 
 the building inspectors follow. Two Levites of the family of 
 Merari, and two of the family of Kohath, were overseers ; nsfJ7j 
 i.e. to lead in the building, to preside over it as upper overseers ; 
 and besides them, the Levites, all who were skilled in instruments 
 of song (cf. 1 Chron. xxv. 6 ff.). As men who by theiu office 
 and their art occupied a conspicuous place among the Levites, 
 the oversight of the workmen in the temple was committed to 
 them, not " that they might incite and cheer the workmen by 
 music and song" (Berth.). Ver. 13a is probably to be taken, 
 along with ver. 126, in the signification, " All the Levites who 
 were skilled in music were over the bearers of burdens, and were 
 overseers of all the workmen in reference to every work." The 
 1 before 'on 71? appears certainly to go against this interpretation, 
 and Berth, would consequently erase it to connect Bv3E>n ;>y with 
 the preceding verse, and begin a new sentence with D'njupi : anc i 
 they led all the workmen." But if we separate E'njBOl from 
 DvziDn 7y } this mention of the bearers of burdens (n^no) comes 
 awkwardly in between the subject and the predicate, or the 
 statement as to the subject. We hold the text to be correct, 
 and make the i before 'on ?y correspond to the \ before DTIVJO, 
 in the signification, et et. The Levites, all who were skilled in 
 instruments of song, were both over the bearers of burdens, and 
 overseeing the workmen, or leading the workmen. Besides, of 
 the Levites were, i.e. still other Levites were, scribes and officers 
 and porters, i.e. were busied about the temple in the discharge of 
 these functions. Ver. 14. In bringing out the money that had 
 been brought into the house of the Lord, the high priest found
 
 CHAP. XXXIV. 19-23. 493 
 
 the book of Moses' law. It is not clearly implied in the words, 
 that he found it in the place where the money was laid up. The 
 book of the law which was found is merely characterized as the 
 book of the Mosaic law by the words n^O'T^ not necessarily as 
 Moses' autograph. The communication of this discovery by the 
 high priest to the state secretary Shaphan, and by him to the 
 king, is narrated in vers. 15-18, just as in 2 Kings xxii. 8-10. 
 The statement, ver. 16, " and Shaphan brought the book to the 
 king," instead of the words, " and Shaphan the "isb came (went) 
 to the king," involves no difference as to the facts ; it rather makes 
 the matter clear. For since in 2 Kings xxii. 10, immediately 
 after the statement that Hilkiah gave him the book, it is said 
 that Shaphan read from it to the king, he must have brought it 
 to the king. With this elucidation, both the omission of ^isnpM 
 (2 Kings xxii. 8), and the insertion of liy after 3^1, ver. 16, is 
 
 connected. The main thing, that which it concerned the author 
 .of the Chronicle to notice, was the fact that the book of the 
 law which had been discovered was immediately brought and 
 read to the king ; while the circumstance that Shaphan, when the 
 book was given him, also opened it and read in it, is omitted, as 
 it had no further results. But since Shaphan did not go to the 
 king merely to bring him the book, but rather, in the first place, 
 to report upon the performance of the commission entrusted to 
 him in respect of the money, this report required to be brought 
 prominently forward by the "riy : He brought the book to the 
 king, and besides, made his report to the king. All that has been 
 committed to thy servants (*^3 }nj), that they do ; they have 
 poured out the money, etc. The a<l 1^ are n t Shaphan and 
 the others mentioned in ver. 8, but in general those who were 
 entrusted with the oversight of the repair of the temple, among 
 whom, indeed, the chief royal officials were not included. After 
 this report there follows in ver. 18 an account of the book which 
 Shaphan had brought, and which, as we were informed in ver. 16, 
 in anticipation of the event, he gave to the king. 
 
 Vers. 19-28. The dismay of the king at the contents of the 
 book ivhich was read to him, and his inquiry of the prophetess 
 Huldah as to the judgments threatened in the law. Compare with 
 this the parallel account in 2 Kings xxii. 11-20, with the com- 
 mentary there given, as both accounts agree with the exception 
 of some unimportant variations in expression. Instead of Abdon 
 ben Micah (ver. 20) we find in 2 Kings Achbor ben Micayahu, 
 
 v
 
 494 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 perhaps the correct reading. In ver. 21, the expression, " and 
 for those that are left in Israel and Judah," i.e. for the remainder 
 of the people who were left in Israel after the destruction of the 
 kingdom, and in Judah after the divine chastisements inflicted, 
 mainly by the Assyrians under Hezekiah and Manasseh, is clearer 
 and more significant than that in 2 Kings xxii. 13, " and for the 
 people, and for all Judah." " 1 ? 3 : 1 ?, to pour itself forth (of anger), 
 is quite as suitable as l " 5 ^^, inflame, kindle itself, in Kings, 
 ver. 13. In ver. 22, those sent with the high priest Hilkiah are 
 briefly designated by the words ?[?Bn ">EW, and whom the king, 
 sell, had sent ; in 2 Kings xxii. 14, on the contrary, the individual 
 names are recorded (Ewald, Gramm. 292, &, would supply ION, 
 after the LXX.). The names of the ancestors of the prophetess 
 Huldah also are somewhat different. 1"INT3 ? as the kin had said 
 
 to him, is omitted in 2 Kings. In ver. 24, niPXrpa, all the 
 curses, is more significant than *32T73, 2 Kings xxii. 16. ^jnrn 
 (ver. 25) is a statement of the result of the <l ?pW: Because they 
 have forsaken me, my anger pours itself forth. In ver. 27, the 
 rhetorical expansion of the words which God had spoken of Jeru- 
 salem in the law, 'W nDB? ^'y., inserted in 2 Kings xxii. 19 as 
 an elucidation, are omitted. After the preceding designation of 
 these words as "the curses written in the law," any further 
 elucidation was superfluous. On the contents of the saying of 
 the prophetess Huldah, see the commentary on 2 Kings xxii. 16 ff. 
 Vers. 29-33. The reading of the book of the law in the temple, 
 and the solemn renewal of the covenant, to which the king 
 assembled the elders of Judah and Jerusalem, with all the 
 people, after the saying of the prophetess Huldah had been 
 reported to him, are recorded in 2 Kings xxiii. 1-3 as they are 
 in the Chronicle, and have been commented upon at the former 
 passage. Only ver. 32, the contents of which correspond to 
 the words, "And the whole people entered into the covenant" 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 3), will need explanation. "TOJW is usually trans- 
 lated, " he caused the people to enter into the covenant " (after 
 2 Kings). This is in substance correct, but exegetically cannot 
 be defended, since IV"}?? does not precede, so as to allow of its 
 here being supplied from the context. lOJM only signifies, he 
 caused all who were in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand, and 
 they did according to the covenant of God ; whence we can easily 
 supply in the first clause, "and to do according to the covenant." 
 The collocation, " in Jerusalem and in Benjamin," is an abbre-
 
 CHAP. xxxv. 1-1?. 495 
 
 viatlon of the complete formula, " in Jerusalem and Judah and 
 Benjamin;" then in the following clause only the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem are named as representatives of the inhabitants of the 
 whole kingdom. Ver. 33. But not only his own subjects did 
 Josiah induce to act towards God in accordance with the cove- 
 nant ; in all the districts of the sons of Israel he removed the 
 idolatrous abominations, and compelled every one in Israel to 
 serve Jahve. The " sons of Israel," as distinguished from the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem and Benjamin (ver. 32), are the rem- 
 nant of the ten tribes in their land, where Josiah, according to 
 ver. G f., had also destroyed the idolatrous places of worship and 
 the images. The statement in our verse, with which the account 
 of Josiah's cultus reform is concluded, refers to that. "I3j?p "J3JM, 
 he made to serve, compelled them to serve. By the abolition of 
 idolatry lie compelled them to worship Jahve. The last words 
 of the verse are accordingly to be interpreted as signifying that 
 Josiah, so long as he lived, allowed no open idolatry, but exter- 
 nally maintained the worship of Jahve. These measures could 
 not effect a real, heartfelt conversion to God, and so the people 
 fell again into open idolatry immediately after Josiah's death ; 
 and Jeremiah continually complains of the defection and corrup- 
 tion of Judali and Israel : cf. chap, xi., xiii., xxv., etc. 
 
 Chap. xxxv. Vers. 1-19. The solemnization of the passover. 
 To ratify the renewal of the covenant, and to confirm the people 
 in the communion with the Lord into which it had entered by the 
 making of the covenant, Josiah, immediately after the finding of 
 the book of the law and the renewal of the covenant, appointed 
 a solemn passover to be held at the legal time, which is only 
 briefly mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii. 21-23, but in the Chronicle 
 is minutely described. Ver. 1 contains the superscription-like 
 statement, that Josiah held a passover to the Lord ; and they held 
 the passover in the 14th day of the first month, consequently at 
 the time fixed in the law. It happened otherwise under Heze- 
 kiah (xxx. 2, 13, and 15). With ver. 2 commences the descrip- 
 tion of the festival : and first we have the preparations, the 
 appointment of the priests and Levites to perform the various 
 services connected with the festival (vers. 2-G), and the procur- 
 ing of the necessary beasts for sacrifice (vers. 10-15) ; then the 
 offering of the sacrifices and the preparation of the meals (vers. 
 10-15) ; and finally the characterization of the whole festival 
 (vers. 16-19). Ver. 2. He appointed the priests according to
 
 496 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHROXICLES. 
 
 their guards or posts, i.e. according to the service incumbent upon 
 each division, and " he strengthened them for the service of the 
 house of Jahve," namely, by encouraging speech, and by teaching 
 as to the duties devolving upon them, according to the provisions 
 of the law. Cf. the summons of Hezekiah, xxix. 5 ff. ; and as to 
 the f^n 1 !, Neh. ii. 18. Ver. 3. The Levites are designated " those 
 teaching all Israel, those holy to the Lord," in reference to what 
 is commanded them in the succeeding verses. The Keth. D^UD 
 does not elsewhere occur, and must be regarded as a substantive : 
 the teachers; but it is probably only an orthographical error 
 for &?3Q (Neh. viii. 7), as the Keri demands here also. As to 
 the fact, cf. xvii. 8 f. The Levites had to teach the people in 
 the law. Josiah said to them, " Set the ark in the house which 
 Solomon did build ; not is to you to bear upon the shoulder ;" i.e., 
 ye have not any longer to bear it on your shoulders, as formerly 
 on the journey through the wilderness, and indeed till the build- 
 ing of the temple, when the ark and the tabernacle had not yet 
 any fixed resting-place (1 Chron. xvii. 5). The summons ^fl 
 'ill ji~)N~riK is variously interpreted. Several Rabbins regard it as 
 a command to remove the ark from its place in the most holy 
 place into some subterranean chamber of the temple, so as to 
 secure its safety in the event of the threatened destruction of 
 the temple taking place. But this hypothesis needs no refuta- 
 tion, since it in no way corresponds to the words used. Most 
 ancient and modern commentators, on the other hand, suppose 
 that the holy ark had, during the reigns of the godless Manasseh 
 and Amon, either been removed by them from its place, or taken 
 away from the most holy place, from a desire to protect it from 
 profanation, and hidden somewhere ; and that Josiah calls upon 
 the Levites to bring it back again to its place. Certainly this 
 idea is favoured by the circumstance that, just as the book of 
 the law, which should have been preserved in the ark of the 
 covenant, had been lost, and was only recovered when the temple 
 was being repaired, so the ark also may have been removed from 
 its place. But even in that case the sacred ark would have been 
 brought back to its place, according to the law, at the completion 
 of the purification of the temple, before the king and people made 
 the covenant with Jahve, after the law had been read to them in 
 the temple, and could not have remained in its hiding-place until 
 the passover. Still less probable is Bertheau's conjecture, " that 
 the Levites bore the just reconsecrated ark upon their shoulders
 
 CHAP. XXXV. 1-13. 497 
 
 at the celebration of the passover, under the idea that they were 
 bound by the law to do so ; but Josiah taught them that the 
 temple built by Solomon had caused an alteration in that respect. 
 They were no longer bearers of the ark ; they might set it in 
 its place, and undertake other duties." For the idea that the 
 Levites bore the ark at the celebration of the passover is utterly 
 inconsistent with the context, since vers. 3-6 do not treat of what 
 was done at the passover, but merely of that which was to be 
 done. But even if we were to alter "they bare" into "they 
 wished to bear," yet there is no historic ground for the idea 
 attributed by Bertheau to the Levites, that at the celebration of 
 the passover the ark was to be brought forth from the most holy 
 place, and carried in procession in the temple courts or else- 
 where. Finally, the reasons stated for the call, 'W ^fy cannot be 
 made to harmonize with the two views above mentioned. If it 
 was only the bringing back of the ark to its ancient place in the 
 most holy place which is here spoken of, why are the words 
 "which Solomon built" added after JV33; and why is the com- 
 mand based upon the statement, " Ye have not to carry it any 
 more upon your shoulders, but are to serve the Lord your God 
 and His people in another way"? Both the additional clause 
 and these reasons for the command show clearly that Josiah, in 
 the words 'W ^n, did not command something which they were 
 to do at the approaching passover, but merely introduces there- 
 with the summons : " Serve now the Lord," etc. K. Sal. saw 
 this, and has given the sense of the verse thus : quum non occu- 
 pemini amplius ullo labore vasa sacra portandi, Deo servite et 
 populo ejus mactando et excoriando agnos paschales ver. 4 sqq. 
 It therefore only remains to ascertain how this signification is 
 consistent with the words 7V22 'pn }i~iN~nx wn. The exhortation, 
 " Set the ark in the house," must certainly not be understood to 
 mean, " Leave it in the place where it has hitherto stood," nor, 
 " Bring the sacred ark back into the house;" for |ri3 with 3 does 
 not mean to bring back, but only to place anywhere, set ; and is 
 here used not of material placing, but of mental. <c Set the ark 
 in the house " is equivalent to, " Overlook, leave it in the temple ; 
 you have not any longer, since Solomon built a house for it, 
 to bear it upon your shoulders ;" i.e., Think not on that which 
 formerly, before the building of the temple, belonged to your 
 service, but serve the Lord and His people now in the manner 
 described in ver. 4 ff. The interpretation of the words as denot- 
 
 2 I
 
 498 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 f i 
 
 ing a material setting or removing of the ark, is completely 
 excluded by the facts, (1) that in the description of what the 
 Levites did at the passover, " according to the command of the 
 king," which follows (vers. 10-15), not a word is said of the 
 ark ; and (2) that the bearing of the ark into the most holy place 
 was not the duty of the Levites, but of the priests. The duty 
 of the Levites was merely to bear the ark when it had to be 
 transported for great distances, after the priests had previously 
 wrapped it up in the prescribed manner. In vers. 4-6 the 
 matters in which they are to serve the Lord in the preparation 
 of the passover are more fully stated. The Keth. 1313PI is imper. 
 Niphal, yten, Make yourselves ready according to your fathers'- 
 houses, in your divisions, according to the writing of David. 2 in 
 3rD3 ? as in nraO3, xxix. 25 ; but 3fl3 does not = HM?, but is to 
 be understood of writings, in which the arrangements made by 
 David and Solomon in reference to the service of the Levites 
 were recorded. Ver. 5. " Stand in the sanctuary for the divi- 
 sions of the fathers'-houses of your brethren, the people of the 
 nation, and indeed a part of a father's-house of the Levites;" 
 Le.j Serve your brethren the laymen, according to their fathers'- 
 houses, in the court of the temple, in such fashion that a division 
 of the Levites shall fall to each father's-house of the laymen ; 
 cf. 12. So Bertheau correctly ; but he would erase the 1 before 
 np/Ti without sufficient reason. Older commentators have sun- 
 
 ""** ~" L L 
 
 plied the preposition ? before flinlpn : Stand, according to the divi- 
 sions of the fathers'-houses, and according to the division of a 
 father's-house of the Levites ; which gives the same sense, but 
 can hardly be justified grammatically. Ver. 6. Kill the pass- 
 over, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare it (the passover) for 
 your brethren (the laymen), doing according to the word of the 
 Lord by Moses (i.e. according to the law of Moses). The sancti- 
 fication mentioned between the killing and the preparation of the 
 passover probably consisted only in this, that the Levites, after 
 they had slain the lamb, had to wash themselves before they gave 
 the blood to the priest to sprinkle upon the altar (cf. ver. 11 and 
 xxx. 16). As to the slaying of the lamb by the Levites, cf. the 
 remarks on xxx. 16. 
 
 Vers. 7-9. The bestowal of beasts for sacrifice on the part 
 of the king and his princes. Ver. 7. The king gave (D"^ as 
 in xxx. 24) to the sons of the people small cattle, viz. lambs 
 and young goats, all for the passover-offerings, for all that
 
 CHAP. XXXV. 10-15. 499 
 
 were present, to the number of 30,000 (head), and 3000 bul- 
 locks from the possession of the king (cf. xxxi. 3, xxxii. 29). 
 MS&fTTTa is all the people who were present, who had come to 
 the feast from Jerusalem and the rest of Judah without having 
 brought lambs for sacrifice. Ver. 8. And his princes (the king's 
 princes, i.e. the princes of the kingdom) presented for a free-will 
 offering to the people, the priests, and the Levites. '"97?^ is not 
 to be taken adverbially, as Berth, thinks : according to goodwill, 
 but corresponds to the D'Hpap, i.e. for free-will offerings, Lev. 
 vii. 16. The number of these gifts is not stated. From the 
 princes of the king we must distinguish the prefects of 'the 
 house of God and the princes of the Levites, who are mentioned 
 by name in vers. Sb and 9. Of these the first presented sheep 
 and cattle for passover-sacrifices to the priests, the latter to the 
 Levites. Of the three OT- 1 ? of the house of God named in ver. 
 8&, Hilkiah is the high priest (xxxiv. 9), Zechariah perhaps 
 the next to him (nrfD jnr, 2 Kings xxv. 18, Jer. lii. 24), and 
 Jehiel is probably, as Berth, conjectures, the chief of the line of 
 Ithamar, which continued to exist even after the exile (Ezra 
 viii. 2). Of the Levite princes (ver. 9) six names are mentioned, 
 three of which, Conaniah, Shemaiah, and Jozabad, are met with 
 under Hezekiah in xxxi. 12-15, since in the priestly and Levitic 
 families the same names recur in different generations. The 
 Conaniah in Hezekiah's time was chief overseer of the temple 
 revenues; the t\\o others were under overseers. Besides the 
 D^riDB for which the king and the princes of the priests and of 
 the Levites gave JNV, i.e. lambs and young goats, "iiJ3, oxen, in 
 considerable numbers, are mentioned as presents ; 3000 from the 
 king, 300 from the princes of the priests, and 500 from the 
 princes of the Levites. Nothing is said as to the purpose of 
 these, but from ver. 13 we learn that the flesh of them was 
 cooked in pots and caldrons, and consequently that they were 
 intended for the sacrificial meals during the seven days of the 
 Mazzoth-feast ; see on vers. 12 and 13. 
 
 Vers. 10-15. The preparation of the paschal sacrifice and the 
 paschal meals. Ver. 10 leads on to the carrying out of the 
 arrangements. "So the service was prepared;" the preparation 
 for the festival mentioned in vers. 3-9 was carried out. The 
 priests stood at their posts (cf. xxx. 16), and the Levites accord- 
 ing to their courses, according to the command of the king (in 
 vers. 4 and 5). Ver. 11. And they (the Levites, cf. ver. 6)
 
 500 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 slew the passover (the lambs and young goats presented for the 
 passover meal), and the priests sprinkled (the blood of the paschal 
 lambs) from their hand (i.e. which the Levites gave them), while 
 the Levites flayed them; as also under Hezekiah, xxx. 17. 
 Ver. 12. " And they took away the burnt-offerings, to give them 
 to the divisions of the fathers'-houses of the sons of the people, 
 to offer unto the Lord, as it is written in the book of Moses ; and 
 so also in regard to the oxen." "Vpn signifies the taking off or 
 separating of the pieces intended to be burnt upon the altar 
 from the beasts slain for sacrifice, as in Lev. iii. 9 f., iv. 31. 
 "6'jn, in this connection, can only signify the parts of the paschal 
 lamb which were to be burnt upon the altar, viz. the same parts 
 which were separated from sheep and goats when they were 
 brought as thank-offerings and burnt upon the altar (Lev. iii. 
 6-16). These pieces are here called "?ty) because they not only 
 were wholly burnt like the burnt-offering, but also were burnt 
 upon the flesh of the evening burnt-offering to God, for a savour 
 of good pleasure; cf. Lev. iii. 11, 16, with Lev. i. 13. They 
 cannot have been special burnt-offerings, which were burnt along 
 with or at the same time with the fat of the paschal lambs; for 
 there were no special festal burnt-offerings, besides the daily 
 evening sacrifice, prescribed for the passover on the evening of 
 the 14th Nisan ; and the oxen given by the king and the princes 
 for the passover are specially mentioned in the concluding clause 
 of the verse, IPS; 1 pi, so that they cannot have been included in 
 
 t, f 
 
 rpyn. The suffix in Bfinp might be referred to npart : to give the 
 paschal lambs, after the n?y had been separated from them, to the 
 divisions of the people. But the following Wlv a'npnp does not 
 harmonize with that interpretation ; and the statement in ver. 13, 
 that the Levites gave the roasted and boiled flesh to the sons of 
 the people, is still more inconsistent with it. We must conse- 
 quently refer Bfifl? to the immediately preceding noun, n?yn : to 
 give the parts separated from the paschal lambs to be burnt upon 
 the altar to the divisions of the people, that they might offer 
 them to the Lord. This can only mean that each division of 
 the fathers'-houses of the people approached the altar in turn to 
 give the portions set apart for the n?y to the priests, who then 
 offered them on the fire of the altar to the Lord. On 'D3 mnsa 
 Gusset, has already rightly remarked : Lex Mosis hie allegatur 
 non quasi omnia ilia qua prcecedunt, exprimerentur in ipsa, sed 
 respective sett respectu eorum quce mandata erant; quibus salvis
 
 CHAI'. XXXV. 10-15. 501 
 
 adjungi potuenint quidam modi agendi innocui et commodi ad legis 
 jussa exsequenda. "IJ53? }31, and so was it done also with the oxen, 
 which consequently were not offered as burnt-offerings, but as 
 thank-offerings, only the fat being burnt upon the altar, and the 
 flesh being used for sacrificial meals. Ver. 13. The passover, i.e. 
 the flesh of the paschal lamb, they roasted (^3 ^3, to make 
 ready upon the fire, i.e. roast ; see on Ex. xii. 9), according to 
 the ordinance (as the law appointed) ; and " the sanctified (as 
 they called the slaughtered oxen, cf. xxix. 33) they sod (W3, sc. 
 D ^?, cf. Ex. xii. 9) in pots, caldrons, and pans, and brought it 
 speedily to the sons of the people," i.e. the laymen. From this 
 Bertheau draws the conclusion, " that with the paschal lambs the 
 oxen were also offered as thank-offerings ; and the sacrificial meal 
 consisted not merely of the paschal lamb, but also of the flesh of 
 the thank-offerings : for these must have been consumed on the 
 same day as they were offered, though the eating of them on the 
 following day was not strictly forbidden, Lev. vii. 15-18." But 
 this conclusion is shown to be incorrect even by this fact, that 
 there is no word to hint that the roasting of the paschal lambs 
 and the cooking of the flesh of the oxen which were offered as 
 thank-offerings took place simultaneously on the evening of the 
 14th Nisan. This is implied neither in the ">iJ37 i?l, nor in the 
 statement in ver. 14, that the priests were busied until night 
 in offering the H7'y and the B^n. According to ver. 17, the 
 Israelites held on that day, not only the passover, but also the 
 Mazzoth-feast, seven days. The description of the offering and 
 preparation of the sacrifices, partly for the altar and partly for 
 the meal, vers. 13-15, refers, therefore, not only to the passover 
 in its more restricted sense, but also to the seven days' Mazzoth 
 festival, without its being expressly stated; because both from 
 the law and from the practice it was sufficiently well known 
 that at the HD3 meal only j&& (lambs or goats) were roasted and 
 eaten ; while on the seven following days of the Mazzoth, be- 
 sides the daily burnt-offering, thank-offerings were brought and 
 sacrificial meals were held ; see on Deut. xvi. 1-8. The con- 
 necting, or rather the mingling, of the sacrificial meal prepared 
 from the roasted lambs with the eating of the sodden flesh of 
 oxen, would have been too great an offence against the legal 
 prescriptions for the paschal meal, to be attributed either to King 
 Josiah, to the priesthood, or to the author of the Chronicle, 
 since the latter expressly remarks that the celebration was carried
 
 502 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 out according to the prescription of the law of Moses, and ac- 
 cording to the " right." Ver. 14. And afterwards (">nx } postea, 
 after the passover had been prepared for the laymen in the way 
 described) the Levites prepared it for themselves and for the 
 priests ; for the latter, however, only because they were busied 
 with the offering of the !"6y and the B^rj till night. Most 
 expositors understand by n?y the fat of the paschal lambs, which 
 was burnt upon the altar, as in ver. 12 ; and &??n t the fat of 
 oxen, which was likewise burnt upon the altar, u but was not, as it 
 seems, designated by the expression n ^" (Berth.). This inter- 
 pretation certainly at first sight seems likely ; only one cannot 
 see why only the fat of the oxen, and not that of the paschal 
 lambs also, should be called D^n, since in the law the parts 
 of all thank-offerings (oxen, sheep, and goats) which were burnt 
 upon the altar are called n^n. We will therefore be more 
 correct if we take E^nrh to be a more exact definition of rp'yn : 
 the burnt-offering, viz. the fat which was offered as a burnt- 
 offering ; or we may take np'yn here to denote the evening burnt- 
 offering, and B^nn the fat of the paschal lambs. But even if 
 the first-mentioned interpretation were the only correct one, yet 
 it could not thence be concluded that on the passover evening 
 (the 14th Nisan) the fat not only of the 37,600 lambs and goats, 
 but also of the 3800 oxen, were offered upon the altar; the 
 words, that the priests were busied until night with the offering 
 of the rby and the D'oi'n, are rather used of the sacrificing gene- 
 rally during the whole of the seven days' festival. For the com- 
 pressed character of the description appears in ver. 15, where 
 it is remarked that neither the singers nor the porters needed to 
 leave their posts, because their brethren the Levites prepared 
 (the meal) for them. With the words, " according to the com- 
 mand of David," etc., cf. 1 Chron. xxv. 1 and 6. 
 
 Vers. 16-19. The character of the passover and Mazzoth 
 festivals. Ver. 16. "So all the service of the Lord was pre- 
 pared the same day, in regard to the preparing of the passover, 
 and the offering of the burnt-offerings upon the altar, according 
 to the command of the king." This statement, like that in 
 ver. 10, summarizes all that precedes, and forms the transition 
 to the concluding remarks on the whole festival. N^nn Di'2 is 
 not to be limited to the one afternoon and evening of the four- 
 teenth day of the month, but refers to the whole time of the 
 festival, just as Di 11 in Gen. ii. 4 embraces the seven days of crea-
 
 CHAP. XXXV. 16-19. 503 
 
 tion. "nfry are the nVy and the D'ata (ver. 14)" (Berth.); but 
 it by no means follows from that, that " at the passover, besides 
 the regular burnt-offering (Num. xxviii. 4), no burnt-offering 
 would seem to have been offered," but rather that the words 
 have a more general signification, and denote the sacrifices at 
 the passover and Mazzoth festivals. Ver. 17. The duration of 
 the festival. The Israelites who had come kept the passover " at 
 that time (that is, according to ver. 1, on the fourteenth day of 
 the first month), and the Mazzoth seven days," i.e. from the 
 15th to the 21st of the same month. Ver. 18 contains the 
 remark that the Israelites had not held such a passover since 
 the days of the prophet Samuel and all the kings ; cf . 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 22, where, instead of the days of Samuel, the days of the 
 judges are mentioned. On the points which distinguished this 
 passover above others, see the remarks on 2 Kings xxiii. 22. In 
 the concluding clause we have a rhetorical enumeration of those 
 who participated in the festival, beginning with the king and 
 ending with the inhabitants of Jerusalem. NVpsn 78TiB^ are the 
 remnant of the kingdom of the ten tribes who had come to the 
 festival; cf. xxxiv. 33. In ver. 19 the year of this passover is 
 mentioned in conclusion. The statement, " in the eighteenth 
 year of the reign of Josiah," refers back to the same date at the 
 beginning of the account of the cultus reform (xxxiv. 8 and 
 2 Kings xxii. 3), and indicates that Josiah's cultus reform cul- 
 minated in this passover. Now since the passover fell in the 
 middle of the first month of the year, and, according to chap, 
 xxxiv. and 2 Kings xxii., the book of the law was also found in 
 the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign, many commentators have 
 imagined that the eighteenth year of the king is dated from the 
 autumn ; so that all that is narrated in 2 Chronicles, from xxxiv. 
 8-xxxv. 19, happened within a period of six months and a half. 
 This might possibly be the case; since the purification and 
 repair of the temple may have been near their completion when 
 the book of the law was found, so that they might hold the pass- 
 over six months afterwards. But our passage does not require 
 that the years of the king's reign should be dated from the 
 autumn, and there are not sufficient grounds for believing that 
 such was the case. Neither in our narrative, nor in 2 Kings 
 xxii. and xxiii., is it said that the passover was resolved upon or 
 arranged in consequence of the finding of the book of the law. 
 Josiah may therefore have thought of closing and ratifying the
 
 504 THE SECOND COOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 restoration of the Jahve- worship by a solemn passover festival, 
 even before the finding of the book ; and the two events need 
 not be widely separated from each other. But from the way in 
 which the account in 2 Kings xxii. and xxiii. is arranged, it is 
 not improbable that the finding of the book of the law may have 
 occurred before the beginning of the eighteenth year of Josiah's 
 reign, and that date may have been placed at the beginning and 
 end of the narrative, because the cultus reform was completed 
 with the celebration of the passover in his eighteenth year. 1 
 
 Vers. 20-27. The end of Josiatis reign; his death in battle 
 against Pharaoh Necho. Of. 2 Kings xxiii. 25-30. The cata- 
 strophe in which the pious king found his death is in 2 Kings 
 introduced by the remark, that although Josiah returned unto the 
 Lord with all his heart and all his soul and all his strength, and 
 walked altogether according to the law, so that there was no king 
 before him, and none arose after him, who was like him, yet the 
 Lord did not turn away from the fierceness of His great wrath 
 against Judah, and resolved to remove Judah also out of His 
 sight, because of the sins of Manasseh. This didactic connect- 
 ing of the tragical end of the pious king with the task of his 
 reign, which he followed out so zealously, viz. to lead his people 
 back to the Lord, and so turn away the threatened destruction, 
 is not found in the Chronicle. Here the war with Necho, in 
 which Josiah fell, is introduced by the simple formula : After all 
 this, that Josiah had prepared the house, i.e. had restored and 
 ordered the temple worship, Necho the king of Egypt came up 
 to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah went out 
 against him. For further information as to Necho and his cam- 
 paign, see on 2 Kings xxiii. 29. Ver. 21. Then he (Pharaoh 
 Necho) sent messengers to him, saying, " What have I to do with 
 thee, thou king of Judah ? Not against thee, thee, (do I come) 
 to-day (now), but against my hereditary enemy ; and God has said 
 that I must make haste : cease from God, who is with me, that 
 I destroy thee not." "i\7\ 7 r flp, see Judg. xi. 12, 2 Sam. xvi. 10. 
 
 1 The addition of the LXX. to 2 Kings xxii. 3, "in the eighth month," 
 to which Thenius and Berth, attach some weight, as a proof that the years 
 of Josiah's reign are dated from autumn, is utterly useless for that purpose. 
 For even were that addition more than a worthless gloss, it would only prove 
 the contrary, since the eighth month of the civil year, which is reckoned from 
 autumn, corresponds to the second month of the ecclesiastical year, and would 
 consequently carry us beyond the time of the passover.
 
 CHAP. XXXV. 20-27. 505 
 
 nriK is an emphatic repetition of the pronominal suffix ; cf. Gesen. 
 Gr. 121. 3. Din, this day, that is, at present. Vippte JV3 does 
 not signify, my warlike house, but, the house of my war, i.e. the 
 family with which I wage war, equivalent to " my natural enemy 
 in war, my hereditary enemy." This signification is clear from 
 1 Chron. xviii. 10 and 2 Sam. viii. 10, where "man of the war of 
 Tou" denotes, the man who waged war with Tou. 1 The God who 
 had commanded Pharaoh to make haste, and whom Josiah was not 
 to go against, is not an Egyptian god, as the Targ. and many 
 commentators think, referring to Herod, ii. 158, but the true 
 God, as is clear from ver. 22. Yet we need not suppose, with 
 the older commentators, that God had sive per somnium sive per 
 prophetam aliquem ad ipsum e Judcea missum spoken to Pharaoh, 
 and commanded him to advance quickly to the Euphrates. For 
 even had Pharaoh said so in so many words, we could not here 
 think of a divine message made known to him by a prophet, 
 because God is neither called mrp nor D^X_n, but merely O^K, 
 and so it is only the Godhead in general which is spoken of ; and 
 Pharaoh only characterizes his resolution as coming from Gdd, 
 or only says : It was God's will that Josiah should not hinder 
 him, and strive against him. This Pharaoh might say without 
 having received any special divine revelation, and after the warn- 
 ing had been confirmed by the unfortunate result for Josiah of 
 his war against Necho ; the biblical historian also might repre- 
 sent Necho's words as come from God, or " from the mouth of 
 God." Ver. 22. But Josiah turned not his face from him, i.e. 
 did not abandon his design, "but to make war against him he 
 disguised himself." t^Sfnn denotes elsewhere to disguise by cloth- 
 ing, to clothe oneself falsely (xviii. 29 ; 1 Kings xx. 38, xxii. 30), 
 
 1 When Bertheau, on the contrary, denies this signification, referring to 
 1 Chron. xviii. 10 for support, he would seem not to have looked narrowly 
 at the passage cited ; and the conjecture, based upon 3 Esr. i. 25, which he, 
 following 0. F. Fritzsche, brings forward, "fllpnta mB'ta, " on the Euphrates 
 is my war," gains no support from the passage quoted. For the author of 
 this apocryphal book, which was written on the model of the LXX., has not 
 translated the text he uses, but only paraphrased it: ov%\ ^po; as t^etviffTx^. 
 ftxi, viro xvptov rov sot/, tvl yxp TQV TLvtppeiTOV o irfasftoi ftov sen, x.a.1 xvpio; 
 ftsr ipov ffitrTretiuv forty. Neither the LXX. nor Vulg. have read and 
 translated rH3 in their original text ; for they run as follows : ovx. siri at r,na 
 (taking nr\X for riDS) aypipov irohiftov ^ro/sjo-a/, x.<x,l 6 Qfo; ilvrtv x.a.Tcto'xtvaeti 
 pi. Vulg. : Non advcrsus te Jiodle venio, sed contra aliam pugno domum, ad 
 quam me Deus festinato ireprxcepit.
 
 506 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 and to disfigure oneself (Job xxx. 18). This signification is 
 suitable here also, where the word is transferred to the mental 
 domain: to disfigure oneself, i.e. to undertake anything which 
 contradicts one's character. During his whole reign, Josiah had 
 endeavoured to carry out the will of God ; while in his action 
 against Pharaoh, on the contrary, he had acted in a different 
 way, going into battle against the will of God. 1 As to the 
 motive which induced Josiah, notwithstanding Necho's warning, 
 to oppose him by force of arms, see the remark on 2 Kings xxiii. 
 29 f. The author of the Chronicle judges the matter from the 
 religious point of view, from which the undertaking is seen to 
 have been against the will of God, and therefore to have ended 
 in Josiah's destruction, and does not further reflect on the work- 
 ing of divine providence, exhibited in the fact that the pious 
 king was taken away before the judgment, the destruction of the 
 kingdom of Judah, broke over the sinful people. For further 
 information as to the Valley of Megiddo, the place where the 
 battle was fought, and on the death of Josiah, see 2 Kings xxiii. 
 29 f. The WWJp, bring me forth (ver. 23), is explained in 
 ver. 24 : his servants took him, mortally wounded by an arrow, 
 from the war-chariot, and placed him in a second chariot which 
 belonged to him, and probably was more comfortable for a 
 wounded man. Ver. 25. The death of the pious king was 
 deeply lamented by his people. The prophet Jeremiah com- 
 posed a lamentation for Josiah ; " and all the singing-men and 
 singing-women spake in their lamentations of Josiah unto this 
 day ; " i.e., in the lamentation which they were wont to sing on 
 certain fixed days, they sung also the lamentation for Josiah. 
 "And they made them (these lamentations) an ordinance (a 
 standing custom) in Israel, and they are written in the lamenta- 
 tions," i.e. in a collection of lamentations, in which, among others, 
 that composed by Jeremiah on the death of Josiah was contained. 
 This collection is, however, not to be identified with the Lamenta- 
 
 1 Bertheau would alter Esnnn into pJHrin, because the LXX., and pro- 
 bably also the Vulg., Syr., 3 Esr. i. 16, and perhaps also Josephus, have so 
 
 read. But only the LXX. have fKparotiaSn, Vulg. prasparavit, 3 Esr. firi 
 so that for pjnnn only the LXX. remain, -whose translation gives no sufficient 
 ground for an alteration of the text, pjnnn, to show oneself strong, or 
 courageous, is not at all suitable; for the author of the Chronicle is not 
 wont to regard enterprises undertaken against God's will, and unfortunate in 
 their results, as proofs of physical or spiritual strength.
 
 CHAP. XXXVI. 1-8. 507 
 
 tions of Jeremiah over the destruction of Jerusalem and the 
 kingdom of Judah, contained in our canon. On ver. 26 f. cf. 
 2 Kings xxiii. 28. vnpn as in xxxii. 32. 'ni 31T133, according 
 to that which is written in the law of Moses, cf. xxxi. 3. ^?"? 
 is the continuation of ^.^ ")JV (ver. 26). 
 
 CHAP. XXXVI. THE EAST KINGS OF JUDAH; THE DESTRUC- 
 TION OF JERUSALEM ; JUDAH LED AWAY CAPTIVE ; AND 
 THE BABYLONIAN EXILE. 
 
 As the kingdom of Judah after Josiah's death advanced with 
 swift steps to its destruction by the Chaldeans, so the author of 
 the Chronicle goes quickly over the reigns of the last kings of 
 Judah, who by their godless conduct hastened the ruin of the 
 kingdom. As to the four kings who reigned between Josiah's 
 death and the destruction of Jerusalem, he gives, besides their 
 ages at their respective accessions, only a short characterization 
 of their conduct towards God, and a statement of the main 
 events which step by step brought about the ruin of the king 
 and the burning of Jerusalem and the temple. 
 
 Vers. 1-4. The reign of Jehoahaz. Cf . 2 Kings xxiii. 305-35. 
 After Josiah's death, the people of the land raised his son 
 Jehoahaz (Joahaz), who was then twenty-three years old, to the 
 throne ; but he had been king in Jerusalem only three months 
 when the Egyptian king (Necho) deposed him, imposed upon 
 the land a fine of 100 talents of silver and one talent of gold, 
 made his brother Eliakim king under the name Jehoiakim, and 
 carried Jehoahaz, who had been taken prisoner, away captive to 
 Egypt. For further information as to the capture and carrying 
 away of Jehoahaz, and the appointment of Eliakim to be king, 
 see on 2 Kings xxiii. 31-35. 
 
 Vers. 5-8. The reign of Jehoiakim. Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 36- 
 xxiv. 7. Jehoiakim was at his accession twenty-five years of 
 age, reigned eleven years, and did that which was evil in the 
 eyes of Jahve his God. Ver. 6 f. " Against him came Nebu- 
 chadnezzar (in inscriptions, Nabucudurriusur, i.e. Nebo coronam 
 servat; see on Dan. S. 56) the king of Babylon, and bound him 
 with brazen double fetters to carry him to Babylon." This 
 campaign, Nebuchadnezzar's first against Judah, is spoken of 
 also in 2 Kings xxiv. and Dan. i. 1, 2. The capture of Jeru- 
 salem, at which Jehoiakim was put in fetters, occurred, as we
 
 508 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 learn from Dan. i. 1, col. c. Jer. xlvi. 2 and xxxvi. 7, in the 
 fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, i.e. in the year 606 B.C. ; and 
 with it commence the seventy years of the Chaldean servitude 
 of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar did not carry out his purpose of 
 deporting the captured king Jehoiakim to Babylon, but allowed 
 him to continue to reign at Jerusalem as his servant (vassal). 
 To alter the infin. fayirp into the perf., or to translate as the 
 perf., is quite arbitrary, as is also the supplying of the words, 
 " and he carried him away to Babylon." That the author of the 
 Chronicle does not mention the actual carrying away, but rather 
 assumes the contrary, namely, that Jehoiakim continued to reign 
 in Jerusalem until his death, as well known, is manifest from 
 the way in which, in ver. 8, he records his son's accession to the 
 throne. He uses the same formula which he has used in the 
 case of all the kings whom at their death their sons succeeded, 
 according to established custom. Had Nebuchadnezzar de- 
 throned Jehoiakim, as Necho deposed Jehoahaz, the author of 
 the Chronicle would not have left the installation of Jehoiachin 
 by the Chaldean king unmentioned. For the defence of this 
 view against opposing opinions, see the commentary on 2 Kings 
 xxiv. 1 and Dan. i. 1 ; and in regard to ver. 7, see on Dan. i. 2. 
 The Chronicle narrates nothing further as to Jehoiakim's reign, 
 but refers, ver. 8, for his other deeds, and especially his abomina- 
 tions, to the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, whence the 
 most important things have been excerpted and incorporated 
 in 2 Kings xxiv. 1-4. nfe^ "WK vriiajrtn Bertheau interprets of 
 images which he caused to be prepared, and V7JJ Ki'osn of his 
 evil deeds; but in both he is incorrect. The passages which 
 Bertheau cites for his interpretation of the first words, Jer. vii. 
 9 f . and Ezek. viii. 17, prove the contrary ; for Jeremiah men- 
 tions as rrinjnn of the people, murder, adultery, false swearing, 
 offering incense to Baal, and going after other gods ; and Ezekiel, 
 loc. cit., uses ntoyin nit?J? of the idolatry of the people indeed, but 
 not of the making of images only of the worship of idols, the 
 practice of idol-worship. The abominations, consequently, which 
 Jehoiakim committed are both his evil deeds and crimes, e.g. the 
 shedding of innocent blood (2 Kings xxiv. 4), as well as the 
 idolatry which he had practised, l^y NVO??, " what was found 
 upon him," is a comprehensive designation of his whole moral 
 and religious conduct and attitude; cf. xix. 3. Jehoiakim's revolt 
 from Nebuchadnezzar after three years' servitude (2 Kings
 
 CHAP. XXXVI. 9, 10. 509 
 
 xxiv. 1) is passed over by the author of the Chronicle, because 
 the punishment of this crime influenced the fate of the kingdom 
 of Judah only after his death. The punishment fell upon 
 Jehoiachin ; for the detachments of Arameans, Moabites, and 
 Ammonites, which were sent by Nebuchadnezzar to punish the 
 rebels, did not accomplish much. 
 
 Vers. 9 and 10. TJie reign of Jehoiachin. Cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 
 8-17. Jehoiachin's age at his accession is here given as eight 
 years, while in 2 Kings xxiv. 8 it is eighteen. It is so also in 
 the LXX. and Vulg. ; but a few Hebr. codd., Syr., and Arab., 
 and many manuscripts of the LXX., have eighteen years in the 
 Chronicle also. The number eight is clearly an orthographical 
 error, as Thenius also acknowledges. Bertheau, on the contrary, 
 regards the eight of our text as the original, and the number 
 eighteen in 2 Kings as an alteration occasioned by the idea that 
 eighteen years appeared a more fitting age for a king than eight 
 years, and gives as his reason, " that the king's mother is named 
 along with him, and manifestly with design, 2 Kings xxiv. 12, 
 15, and Jer. xxii. 26, whence we must conclude that she had 
 the guardianship of the young king." A perfectly worthless 
 reason. In the books of Kings the name of the mother is given 
 in the case of all the kings after their accession has been men- 
 tioned, without any reference to the age of the kings, because 
 the queen-mother occupied a conspicuous position in the kingdom. 
 It is so in the case of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, 2 Kings xxiii. 
 36 and xxiv. 8. On account of her high position, the queen- 
 mother is mentioned in 2 Kings xxiv. 12 and 15, and in Jere- 
 miah, among those who submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and were 
 carried away to Babylon. The correctness of the number 
 eighteen is, however, placed beyond doubt by Ezek. xix. 5-9, 
 where the prophet portrays Jehoiachin as a young lion, which 
 devoured men, and knew widows, and wasted cities. The know- 
 ing of widows cannot apply to a boy of eight, but might well be 
 said of a young man of eighteen. Jehoiachin ruled only three 
 months and ten days in Jerusalem, and did evil in the eyes of 
 Jahve. At the turn of the year, i.e. in spring, when campaigns 
 were usually opened .(cf. 1 Kings xx. 22 ; 2 Sam. xi. 1), Nebu- 
 chadnezzar sent his generals (2 Kings xxiv. 10), and brought 
 him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of Jahve, 
 and made his (father's) brother Zedekiah king in Judah. In 
 these few words the end of Jehoiachin's short reign is recorded.
 
 510 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHBONICLES. 
 
 From 2 Kings xxiv. 10-16 we learn more as to this second 
 campaign of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, and its issues 
 for Judah ; see the commentary on that passage. Zidkiyah 
 (Zedekiah) was, according to 2 Kings xxiv. 17, not a brother, 
 but in, uncle or father's brother, of Jehoiachin, and was called 
 Mattaniah, a son of Josiah and Hamutal, like Jehoahaz (2 
 Kings xxiv. 18, cf. xxiii. 31), and is consequently his full 
 brother, and a step-brother of Jehoiakim. At his appointment 
 to the kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar he received the name 
 Zidkiyah (Zedekiah). VHN, in ver. 10, is accordingly to be taken 
 in its wider signification of blood-relation. 
 
 Vers. 11-21. The reign of Zedekiah ; the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, and Judah carried away into exile. Cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 18 
 xxv. 21. Zedekiah, made king at the age of twenty-one years, 
 reigned eleven years, and filled up the measure of sins, so that 
 the Lord was compelled to give the kingdom of Judah up to 
 destruction by the Chaldeans. To that Zedekiah brought it by 
 the two main sins of his evil reign, namely, by not humbling 
 himself before the prophet Jeremiah, from the mouth of Jahve (ver. 
 12) ; and by rebelling against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had 
 caused him to swear by God, and by so hardening his neck (being 
 stiff-necked), and making stout his heart, that he did not return 
 to Jahve the God -of Israel. Zedekiah's stiffness of neck and 
 hardness of heart showed itself in his refusing to hearken to the 
 words which Jeremiah spoke to him from the mouth of God, 
 and his breaking the oath he had sworn to Nebuchadnezzar by 
 God. The words, u he humbled himself not before Jeremiah," 
 recall Jer. xxxvii. 2, and the events narrated in Jer. xxxvii. and 
 xxxviii., and xxi. 4-xxii. 9, which show how the chief of the 
 people ill-treated the prophet because of his prophecies, while 
 Zedekiah was too weak and languid to protect him against them. 
 The rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar, to whom he had sworn a 
 vassal's oath of fidelity, is mentioned in 2 Kings xxiv. 30, and 
 Ezek. xvii. 13 ff. also, as a great crime on the part of Zede- 
 kiah and the chief of the people ; see the commentary on both 
 passages. In consequence of this rebellion, Nebuchadnezzar 
 marched against Judah with a powerful army; and after the 
 capture of the fenced cities of the land, he advanced to the 
 siege of Jerusalem, which ended in its capture and destruction, 
 2 Kings xxv. 110. Without further noticing these results of 
 this breach of faith, the author of the Chronicle proceeds to
 
 CHAP. XXXVI. 11-21. 511 
 
 depict the sins of the king and of the people. In the first place, 
 he again brings forward, in ver. 136, the stiffness of neck and 
 obduracy of the king, which manifested itself in the acts just 
 mentioned: he made hard his neck, etc. Bertheau would in- 
 terpret the words 'til B'i?, according to Deut. ii. 30, thus : " Then 
 did God make him stiff-necked and hardened his heart ; so that 
 he did not return to Jahve the God of Israel, notwithstanding 
 
 ' O 
 
 the exhortations of the prophets." But although hardening is 
 not seldom represented as inflicted by God, there is here no 
 ground for supposing that with t?i?*l the subject is changed, 
 while the bringing forward of the hardening as an act of God 
 does not at all suit the context. And, moreover, *pi> ""^i??, mak- 
 ing hard the neck, is nowhere ascribed to God, it is only said of 
 men ; cf. 2 Kings xvii. 14, Deut. x. 16, Jer. xix. 15, etc. To 
 God only ^'DX nppn or nvrntf is attributed, Ex. vii. 3, Deut. 
 ii. 30. Ver. 14. " And all princes of the priests and the people 
 increased faithless transgressions, like to all the abominations of 
 the heathen, and defiled the house of the Lord which He had 
 consecrated in Jerusalem." Bertheau would refer this censure 
 of their idolatry and the profanation of the temple to the guilt 
 incurred by the whole people, especially in the time of Manasseh, 
 because, from all we know from the book of Jeremiah, the re- 
 proach of idolatry did not at all, or at least did not specially, 
 attach to the princes of the priests and the people in the time of 
 Zedekiah. But this reason is neither tenable nor correct ; for 
 from Ezek. viii. it is perfectly manifest that under Zedekiah, not 
 only the people, but also the priesthood, were deeply sunk in 
 idolatry, and that even the courts of the temple were defiled by 
 it. And even though that idolatry did not take its rise under 
 Zedekiah, but had been much practised under Jehoiakim, and 
 was merely a revival and continuation of the idolatrous conduct 
 of Manasseh and Amon, yet the reference of our verse to the 
 time of Manasseh is excluded by the context ; for here only that 
 which was done under Zedekiah is spoken of, without any 
 reference to earlier times. 
 
 Meanwhile God did not leave them without exhortation, 
 warning, arid threatening. Ver. 15 f. Jahve sent to them by 
 His messengers, from early morning onwards continually, for 
 He spared His people and His dwelling-place ; but they mocked 
 the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His 
 prophets. T3 rw ? to send a message by any one, to make a
 
 512 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 sending. The object is to be supplied from the verb, nwi Dsa>'n 
 exactly as in Jer. xxvi. 5, xxix. 19. For He spared His people, 
 etc., viz. by this, that He, in long-suffering, again and again 
 called upon the people by prophets to repent and return, and 
 was not willing at once to destroy His people and His holy place. 
 B^JY*? is air. Xe7 >? in Syr. it signifies subsannavit ; the Hithp. also, 
 D'j/nyriip (from JWfl), occurs only here as an intensive : to launch 
 out in mockery. The distinction drawn between B^?x? (mes- 
 sengers) and 0^23 (prophets) is rhetorical, for by the messengers 
 of God it is chiefly prophets who are meant ; but the expression 
 is not 'to be confined to prophets in the narrower sense of the 
 word, for it embraces all the men of God who, by word and 
 deed, censured and punished the godless conduct of the idolaters. 
 The statement in these two verses is certainly so very general, 
 that it may apply to all the times of gradually increasing defec- 
 tion of the people from the Lord their God ; but the author of 
 the Chronicle had primarily in view only the time of Zedekiah, 
 in which the defection reached its highest point. It should 
 scarcely be objected that in the time of Zedekiah only Jeremiah 
 is known as a prophet of the Lord, since Ezekiel lived and 
 wrought among the exiles. For, in the first place, it does not 
 hence certainly follow that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were the only 
 prophets of that time ; then, secondly, Jeremiah does not speak 
 as an individual prophet, but holds up to the people the witness 
 of all the earlier prophets (cf. e.g. xxvi. 4, 5), so that by him all 
 the former prophets of God spoke to the people*; and consequently 
 the plural, His messengers, His prophets, is perfectly true even 
 for the time of Zedekiab, if we always keep in mind the rhetorical 
 character of the style, 'til rr6j? "W, until the anger of Jahve 
 rose upon His people, so that there was no healing (deliver- 
 ance) more. 
 
 Ver. 17 ff. When the moral corruption had reached this 
 height, judgment broke upon the incorrigible race. As in vers. 
 12-16 the transgressions of the king and people are not de- 
 scribed according to their historical progression, but are por- 
 trayed in rhetorical gradation ; so, too, in vers. 17-21 the judg- 
 ment upon the sinful people and kingdom is not represented in 
 its historical details, but only rhetorically in its great general 
 outlines. " Then brought He upon them the king of the Chal- 
 deans, who slew their young men with the sword in their sanc- 
 tuary, and spared not the youth and the maiden, the old man
 
 CHAP. XXXVI. 17-21. 513 
 
 and the grey-headed ; he gave everything into his hand." Pro- 
 phetic utterances form the basis of this description of the fearful 
 judgment, e.g. Jer. xv. 1-9, xxxii. 3 f., Ezek. ix. 6 ; and these, 
 again, rest upon Deut. xxxii. 25. The subject in the first and 
 last clause of the verse is Jahve. Bertheau therefore assumes 
 that He is also the subject of the intermediate sentence : " and 
 God slew their young men in the sanctuary ;" but this can 
 hardly be correct. As in the expansion of the last clause, <{ he 
 gave everything into his hand," which follows in ver. 18, not 
 Jahve but the king of Babylon is the subject; so also in the 
 expansion of the first clause, which 'W i'l^H introduces, the king 
 of the Chaldeans is the subject, as most commentators have 
 rightly recognised. By BB^jpJp rp33 the judgment is brought 
 into definite relationship to the crime: because they had pro- 
 faned the sanctuary by idolatry (ver. 14), they themselves were 
 slain in the sanctuary. On '3 }n3 jan, cf. Jer. xxvii. 6, xxxii. 
 3, 4. P3H includes things and persons, and is specialized in 
 vers. 18-20. Ver. 18. All the vessels of the house of God, the 
 treasures of the temple, and of the palace of the king and of 
 the princes, all he brought to Babylon. Ver.' 19. They burnt 
 the house of God ; they pulled down the walls of Jerusalem, 
 and burnt all the palaces of the city with fire, and all the costly 
 vessels were devoted to destruction. On JVnE'n?, cf. xii. 12. 
 Ver. 20. He who remained from the sword, i.e. who had not 
 been slain by the sword, had not fallen and died in war, 
 Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon into captivity ; so 
 that they became servants to him and to his sons, as Jeremiah 
 (xxvii. 7) prophesied, until the rise of the kingdom of the 
 Persians. These last words also are an historical interpreta- 
 tion of the prophecy, Jer. xxvii. 7. All this was done (ver. 21) 
 to fulfil (K&g instead of *&, as in 1 Chron. xxix. 5), that the 
 word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, 
 he having prophesied (xxv. 11 f., xxix. 10) the seventy years' 
 duration of Judah's desolation and the Babylonian captivity, 
 while the king and people had not regarded his words (ver. 12). 
 This period, which according to ver. 20 came to an end with 
 the rise of the kingdom of the Persians, is characterized by the 
 clause 'W fiJjNn "W as a time of expiation of the wrong which had 
 been done the land by the non-observance of the sabbath-years, 
 upon the basis of the threatening (Lev. xxvi. 34), in which the 
 wasting of the land during the dispersion of the unrepentant 
 
 2 K
 
 514 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 people among the heathen was represented as a compensation 
 for the neglected sabbaths. From this passage in the law the 
 words are taken, to show how the Lord had inflicted the punish- 
 ment with which the disobedient people had been threatened as 
 early as in the time of Moses, nrfin 1% is not to be translated, 
 " until the land had made up its years of rest ;" that signification 
 n^n has not ; but, u until the land had enjoyed its sabbath-years," 
 i.e. until it had enjoyed the rest of which it had been deprived 
 by the non-observance of the sabbaths and the sabbath-years, 
 contrary to the will of its Creator ; see on Lev. xxvi. 34. That 
 this is the thought is placed beyond doubt by the succeeding 
 circumstantial clause, taken word for word from Lev. xxvi. 34 : 
 " all days (i.e. the whole time) of its desolation did it hold it " 
 (nrntJ^ it kept sabbath). "To make full the seventy years;" 
 which Jeremiah, II. cc., had prophesied. 
 
 This connecting of Jeremiah's prophecy with the declaration 
 in Lev. xxvi. 34 does not justify us in supposing that the cele- 
 bration of the sabbath-year had been neglected seventy times, 
 or that for a period of 490 years the sabbath-year had not been 
 observed. JBertheau, holding this view, fixes upon 1000 B.C., i.e. 
 the time of Solomon, or, as we cannot expect any very great 
 chronological exactitude, the beginning of the kingly govern- 
 ment in Israel, as the period after which the rest-years ceased 
 to be regarded. He is further of opinion that chap. xxxv. 18 
 harmonizes with this view; according to which passage the pass- 
 over was not celebrated in accordance with the prescription of 
 the law until the end of the period of the judges. According to 
 this chronological calculation, the beginning of this neglect of 
 the observance of the sabbath-year would fall in the beginning 
 of the judgeship of Samuel. 1 But this is itself unlikely; and 
 still more unlikely is it, that in the time of the judges the 
 sabbath-year had been regularly observed until Samuel ; and 
 that during the reigns of the kings David, Solomon, Jehosha- 
 phat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, this celebration remained wholly in 
 abeyance. But even apart from that, the words, that the land, 
 to make full the seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah, kept the 
 
 1 The seventy years' exile began in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e. in 
 the year 606 B.C., or 369 years after the division of the kingdom; see the 
 Chronol. Tables at 1 Kings xii. (ii. 3, S. 141), to which the eighty years of 
 the reigns of David and Solomon, and the times of Saul and Samuel, must be 
 added to make up the 490 years (see the comment, on Judges).
 
 CHAP. XXXVI. 22, 23. 515 
 
 whole time of the desolation holy, or enjoyed a sabbath rest 
 such as Moses had proclaimed in Lev. xxvi. 34, do not neces- 
 sarily involve that the land had been deprived of its sabbath 
 rest seventy times in succession, or during a period of 490 years, 
 by the sin of the people. The connection between the prophecy 
 of Jeremiah and the provision of the law is to be understood 
 theologically, and does not purport to be calculated chronologi- 
 cally. The thought is this : By the infliction of the punishment 
 threatened against the transgressors of the law by the carrying 
 of the people away captive into Babylon, the land will obtain the 
 rest which the sinful people had deprived it of by their neglect 
 of the sabbath observance commanded them. By causing it to 
 remain uncultivated for seventy years, God gave to the land a 
 time of rest and refreshment, which its inhabitants, so long as 
 they possessed it, had not given it. But that does not mean 
 that the time for which this rest was granted corresponded to 
 the number of the sabbath-years which had not been observed. 
 From these theological reflections we cannot calculate how often 
 in the course of the centuries, from the time of Joshua onwards 
 till the exile, the sabbath-year had not been observed ; and .still 
 less the time after which the observation of the sabbath-year 
 was continuously neglected. The passage xxxv. 8 has no bear- 
 ing on this question, because it neither states that the passover 
 had been held according to the precepts of the law till towards 
 the end of the time of the judges, nor that it was no longer 
 celebrated in accordance with the precept from that time until 
 Josiah ; it only contains the thought that such a passover as that 
 in Josiah's reign had not been held since the time of the judges : 
 see on the passage. 
 
 Vers. 22 and 23. To point out still further how exactly God 
 had fulfilled His word by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, 
 it is in conclusion briefly mentioned that God, in the first year of 
 Coresh king of Persia, stirred up the spirit of this king to cause 
 a command to go forth in all his kingdom, that Jahve, the God 
 of heaven, who had given him all the kingdoms of the earth, had 
 commanded him to build again His temple in Jerusalem, and 
 that whoever belonged to the people of God might go up to 
 Jerusalem. With this comforting prospect for the future, the 
 author of the Chronicle closes his consideration of the prae-exilic 
 history of the people of God without completely communicating 
 the contents of the royal edict of Cyrus, since he purposed to
 
 516 THE SECOND BOOK OF CHRONICLES. 
 
 narrate the history of the restoration of Judah to their own land 
 in a separate work. This we have in the book of Ezra, which 
 commences by giving us the whole of the edict of Cyrus the 
 king of the Persians (Ezra i. 1-3), and then narrates the return 
 of a great part of the people to Jerusalem and Judah, the re- 
 building of the temple, and the re-settlement in the land of their 
 fathers of those who had returned. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, 
 PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 JPoretgn Bebottonal ilibrarg. 
 
 Just puUislitd, Second Edition, in crown 8vo, price 7s. 6</., 
 
 DAVID, THE KING OF ISRAEL: 
 
 A PORTRAIT DRAWN FROM BIBLE HISTORY AND THE BOOK 
 OF PSALMS. 
 
 By F. W. KRUMMACHER, D.D., 
 Author of ' Elijah, the Tishbite.' 
 
 ' Dr. Krummacher's work 011 David's life resembles that of his " Elijah '' in rls eloquence, 
 its graphic description, its devout and earnest spirit, and will be widely welcomed.' 
 Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 At the close of two articles reviewing this work, the Christian Observer says: 'Our 
 space will not permit us to consider more at large this very interesting work, but we 
 cannot do less than cordially commend it to the attention of our readers. It affords 
 such an insight into King David's character as is nowhere else to be met with ; it is 
 therefore most instructive. 
 
 ' This will be a pleasant household reading-book for many people.' Literary Church- 
 man. 
 
 4 We have a lifelike picture of the prophet-king and of his times. The truths brought 
 out are applied with marvellous skill and deep spiritual insight to the Christian state, 
 so that every page is luminous with gospel lessons. The character of David is nobly 
 drawn ; and he stands before us as one of the greatest men and greatest saints of the 
 Old Testament. We trust its venerable author will be rewarded by the abundant 
 popularity of his picturesque aud charming volume.* Evangelical Christendom. 
 
 4 From the author of " Elijah, the Tishbite " we were entitled to expect no ordinary 
 treat, when he proposed to lead us over a life fraught with such variegated interest as 
 that of "David, the King of Israel." In such a field Dr. Krummacher's well-known 
 powers of description, his chaste fancy, his well-balanced judgment, and enlightened 
 piety, were sure to find full scope ; nor have our anticipations been disappointed. Time 
 has not blunted the keen perception of the theologian ; and though it may have sobered 
 the exuberance, it has not withered the power of the writer. In these pages David 
 passes before us in the various phases of his character as shepherd, psalmist, warrior, 
 and monarch. There is no attempt at originality of view, no prosy solution of diffi- 
 culties, no controversial sparring ; the narrative flows on like a well-told story ; and the 
 art of the writer lies in the apt selection of salient points, and in the naturalness of his 
 reflections. A tone of spirituality is imparted to the narrative by linking it to the book 
 of Psalms.' British and Foreign Erangelical Review. 
 
 ' We would recommend this volume to the clergy as a storehouse of hints for pulpit 
 use, and also as a valuable addition to our devotional literature.' Clerical Journal. 
 
 'The volume is, on the whole, a very happy specimen of the style for which Dr. 
 Krummacher is best known at once vivid, imaginative, and experimental; and it 
 exhibits more of the intellectual and robust than his earlier work. Should it direct the 
 attention of ministers and students to the devout and practical study of the Old Testa- 
 ment narrative as themes for pulpit exposition, it will confer a great boon on both 
 preachers and hearers.' Freeman. 
 
 4 The various scenes in the life of the psalmist-king are so graphically portrayed, 
 his character is so keenly analyzed and so truthfully delineated, and the whole history 
 of his times narrated with such fidelity and vividness, that the reader is led on delighted, 
 from chapter to chapter, till he closes the book with regret.' Belfast Witness. 
 
 NEW WORK BY DR. VAN OOSTERZEE. 
 
 In the Press, 
 
 LIFE OF MOS E.S. 
 
 By J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE.
 
 T. and T. Claries Publications. 
 
 jForeigu Bebottonal 
 
 In crown 8ro, price Is. Qd., 
 
 THE FOOTSTEPS OF CHRIST. 
 
 Translated from the German of A, GASPERS, 
 
 PART I. CHEIST FOE US Christ is born to die for us Of the honour which God 
 the Son hath bestowed on us through His incarnation Of Christ's holy birth 
 The temptation of Christ Christ was made under the Law The obedience of 
 Jesus Christ Jesus has on earth prayed for us Christ's death for us Christ's 
 death is the death of sin and the life of the sinner Of the resurrection of Christ 
 By His own blood He eutered in once into the holy place Christ our High 
 Priest He is King of kings and Lord of lords God haih exalted Jesus, and given 
 Him a name which is above every name In Christ all the prophecies are Yea 
 and" Amen There is one Mediator betwefn God and Man It is finished He 
 hath called us with a holy calling Turn Thou me, Lord, and I shall be turned 
 By the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification 
 Te must be born again For this is the will of God : your sanctification ' Christ 
 for us ' in the Word of God. 
 
 PAET IL CHRIST IN US Of the celebration of Christ's birth within us Of the 
 union of the soul with God in Christ Of the adornment of a Christian Of the 
 witness of the Holy Ghost Of the soul's intercourse with God in prayer Of 
 pure joy in God Of our conversation in heaven Of divine solitude Of 
 Christian liberty Of constancy in the life of faith Of the peace of God in the 
 soul The invitation of Christ The soul's invitation to Christ The believing 
 soul gives pleasure to Jesus Of the depths of the human heart Of divine 
 chastisement Of inward temptations Of spiritual watchfulness Of the help 
 of the Holy Gho^t Of the strengthening of the soul Of the spiritual brotherhood 
 How God reveals His attributes to us inwardly Of hoine-sickness. 
 
 PART III. CHEIST BEFOEE US The life of Jesus our example The death of 
 Christ teaches us to die Jesus as an example of love Jesus Christ our law 
 The self-denial of Jesus demands ours Jesus Christ the truth Christ the way 
 Christ the life Christ our righteousness Jesus Christ our redemption Jesus 
 Christ's prayer our example of prayer Jesus toward His friends Jesus toward 
 His foes The care of Jesus a lesson for all men Jesus' adoration of the Father : 
 Jesus Christ the adored. 
 
 PART IV. CHEIST THEOUGH US The Christian is scorned by the world, but 
 esteemed by God The Christian perceives nature in its traiisitoriness A 
 thanksgiving. 
 
 1 It is a book of solid thought and solid learning, and should find a considerable publicity 
 in its English dress.' Nonconformist. 
 
 'A very interesting and instructive book. Its style is quaint and antithetic; it 
 abounds in bright thoughts, presents striking views of Scripture facts and doctrines, 
 and is altogether eminently fitted to refra-h and edify believers.' Family Treasury. 
 
 'Eminently evangelical, and distinguished also bj great originality and terseness.' 
 Baptist Magazine. 
 
 * The style is of English Puritan pithiness. . . . The sentences are short and anti- 
 thetical, and the translation is so good and idiomatic, that you never have occasion in 
 reading to remember that it is a translation at all. The papers are short, but not too 
 short for a profitable devout meditation in the closet. They are admirably fitted for 
 that purpose ; indeed that is their sole aim and end. We close by simply recommending 
 any and every reader who may be in quest of a really fresh devotional volume, to stop 
 here at this one.' Weekly Review. 
 
 ' There is much deeply experimental truth and precious spiritual love in Gaspers' book. 
 I do not always agree with bis theology, but I own myself much profited by his devout 
 utterances.' Eev. C. H. SPURGEON.
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 jForeign Debottonal 
 
 Just published, m Two Vols., large crown 8yo, price 15s., 
 
 THE YEAR OF SALVATION. 
 
 WORDS OF LIFE FOR EVERY DAY, 
 A BOOK OF HOUSEHOLD DEVOTION, 
 
 Br J. J. VAX OOSTERZEE, D.D. 
 
 A work of great value aud interest. To the clergy these readings will be found full 
 of suggestive hints for sermons and lectures; while for family reading or for private 
 meditation they are most excellent. The whole tone of the work is thoroughly practical, 
 and never becomes controversial.' Church Bells. 
 
 ' The text is illustrated by apposite and thoughtful remarks, which will be found both 
 convenient and profitable, not only in the family circle, but also for private meditation.' 
 Christian Observer. 
 
 ' The very best religious exposition for every-day use that has ever fallen in our way.' 
 
 B'U's Weekly Messenger. 
 
 ' The author's mind is deeply imbued with Scripture principles, and overflows with 
 words, rich, warm, and devotional in their character.' Ecclesiastical Gazette. 
 
 'This charming and practical book of household devotion will be welcomed on account 
 of its rare intrinsic value, as one of the most practical devotional books ever published.' 
 Standard. 
 
 ' Massive of thought, persuasive, earnest, and eloquent.' Literary Churchman. 
 
 'Simple, terse, and practical; and will, we are sure, be read with profit and pleasure 
 by many.' Leeds Mercury. 
 
 ' Characterized by evangelical fervour, and by a beautiful spirit of peacefulness.' 
 Nonconformist. 
 
 1 This is a book for all sections of the Christian Church. ... It is sure to be prized 
 both for its eloquence and the freshness with which it meditates upon familiar and 
 precious truths.' - R-fonned Presbyterian Magazine. 
 
 'It is one of the best books of its class, that we know of, for devotional reading. The 
 meditations are brief and devout, thoroughly evangelical, and frequently suggestive.' 
 Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 'As might have been expected from so clear and vigorous a thinker, every passage 
 in this book is valuable either as an exposition or a suggestion.' Christian Union. 
 
 ' The conceptions are rich, full, and free, and beautifully expressed.' Primitive 
 
 Methodist Magazine. 
 
 ' Every page breathes a spirit of deep piety and earnest faith.' Scotsman.
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 jFomgn Bebottonal Uttratg, 
 
 In crown 8vo, Eighth Edition, price 7s. 6</., 
 
 THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR; 
 
 OR. MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF THE 
 SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST. 
 
 BY F. W. KRUMMACHER, D.D. 
 
 'We give it preference to everything hitherto produced by the gifted and devoted 
 author. It is divinity of the most thoroughly evangelical description. Truth and 
 tenderness have seldom been so successfully combined. Its popularity with the people 
 of God of every evangelical communion, we are confident, will grow with time. A book 
 of the heart, to that it appeals in every page, with a force which it will be difficult to 
 resist.' Christian Witness. 
 
 ' A book which has reached its eighth edition needs no introduction to the reading 
 public. And yet the very circumstance of its repeated publication entitles it to 
 popularity. There is a richness in these meditations which wins and warms the heart. 
 Nonconformist. 
 
 1 The volume is, in truth, a treasure. The meditations are tender and rarely beautiful. 
 They have been well translated, and form a valuable addition to our devotional literature.' 
 Literary Churchman. 
 
 ' A book of inestimable value.' John Bull. 
 
 ' It would perhaps be difficult to mention any single volume in which the last sufferings 
 of our blessed Lord are more impressively set forth than in the very interesting work 
 which we now introduce to our readers. Some of the sketches drawn by the hand of the 
 author are so touching, that we should pity the man who could read them without tears. 
 The tendency of every page of the work is to draw poor sinners to the Saviour, and 
 to enhance His matchless excellence to those who have found rest and peace by sur- 
 rendering their hearts to His service.' Evangelical Magazine. 
 
 ' The work bears throughout the stamp of an enlightened intellect, under the teaching 
 of the Holy Spirit, and of a profound study of the word of God.' Record. 
 
 ' The reflections are of a pointed and practical character, and are eminently calculated 
 to inform the mind and improve the heart. To the devout and earnest Christian the 
 volume will be a treasure indeed.' Wetleyan Times. 
 
 'The work will be prized by experienced Christians throughout the world; and is 
 destined, we trust, to as wide a circulation and as long a life as the gifted author's 
 " Elijah." ' English Presbyterian Messenger. 
 
 ' Having already spoken of it in terms the most cordial and admiring, we have only 
 to repeat our testimony to its peculiar excellence.' Church of England Magazine.
 
 :r"ERsiTY or 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 A 000122956 6
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 -. . - 
 
 . 
 
 .