Genealogy

This record of families which we call genealogy, is termed in Hebrew Sepher Toledoth; or the book of generations. The Jews were particular to an excess, to record their families; no doubt, with an eye to Christ.

γενεολογια, signifies a list of a person’s ancestors. The common Hebrew expression for it is Sepher-Toledoth, “the Book of Generations.” No nation was ever more careful to preserve their genealogies than the Jews. The sacred writings contain genealogies extended three thousand five hundred years backward. The genealogy of our Saviour is deduced by the evangelists from Adam to Joseph and Mary, through a space of four thousand years and upward. The Jewish priests were obliged to produce an exact genealogy of their families, before they were admitted to exercise their function. Wherever placed, the Jews were particularly careful not to marry below themselves; and to prevent this, they kept tables of genealogy in their several families, the originals of which were lodged at Jerusalem, to be occasionally consulted. These authentic monuments, during all their wars and persecutions, were taken great care of, and from time to time renewed. But, since the last destruction of their city, and the dispersion of the people, their ancient genealogies are lost. But to this the Jews reply, that either Elias, or some other inspired priest or prophet, shall come, and restore their genealogical tables before the Messiah’s appearance; a tradition, which they ground on a passage in Neh 7:64-65, to this effect: the genealogical register of the families of certain priests being lost, they were not able to make out their lineal descent from Aaron; and therefore, “as polluted, were put from the priesthood;” the “Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.” From hence the Jews conclude, that such a priest will stand up, and restore and complete the genealogies of their families: though others suppose these words to import, that they should never exercise their priesthood any more; and that, “till there shall stand up a priest with Urim and Thummim,” amounts to the same as the Roman proverb, ad Graecas calendas, [never,] since the Urim and Thummim were now absolutely and for ever lost.

Genealogy signifies a list of ancestors set down both in their direct and collateral order.

We read of no nation which was more careful to frame and preserve its genealogical tables than Israel. Their sacred writings contain genealogies which extend through a period of more than 3500 years, from the creation of Adam to the captivity of Judah. Indeed, we find from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that the same carefulness in this matter was observed after the captivity; for in Ezr 2:62 it is expressly stated that some who had come up from Babylon had sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but were not found; therefore were they, as polluted, removed from the priesthood. The division of the whole Hebrew nation into tribes, and the allotment to each tribe of a specified portion of the land of Canaan as an inalienable possession, rendered it indispensable that they should keep genealogical tables. God had, however, a still higher object than that of giving stability to property in Israel, in leading successive generations of His people thus to keep an accurate list of their ancestry. That they should do this was especially required from the moment that the voice of prophecy declared that the promised Messiah should be of the seed of Abraham, of the posterity of Isaac, of the sons of Jacob, of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David.

The Rabbins affirm that after the Captivity the Jews were most careful in keeping their pedigrees (Babyl. Gemar. Gloss, fol. xiv. 2). Josephus (De Vita sua, p. 998, D) states that he traced his own descent from the tribe of Levi by public registers. And he informs us that, however dispersed and depressed his nation were, they never neglected to have exact genealogical tables prepared from the authentic documents which were kept at Jerusalem; and that in all their sufferings they were particularly careful to preserve those tables, and to have them renewed from time to time. Since, however, the period of their destruction as a nation by the Romans, all their tables of descent seem to be lost, and now they are utterly unable to trace the pedigree of any one Israelite who might lay claim to be their promised, and still expected, Messiah. Hence Christians assert, with a force that no reasonable and candid Jew can resist, that Shiloh must have come.

We find traces of the existence of the public tables of descent, to which Josephus refers, in the New Testament: the taxation spoken of by St. Luke (Luk 2:2-3) would clearly indicate this; for how could each one be able to go to his own city, unless he knew the specific tribe to which he belonged? Hence it was, we think, that St. Paul was able with confidence to appeal to the Hebrews concerning the lineage of Christ; ’for it is evident,’ says he, ’that our Lord sprung out of Judah’ (Heb 7:14; 2Ti 2:8). To evince this beyond reasonable doubt, it pleased God to give us by his inspired servants, St. Matthew and St. Luke, the following genealogies:—

Mat 1:2

1.	Abraham	Solomon	Jechonias, i.e. Jehoiachin	1.
2.	Isaac	Roboam	Salathiel	2.
3.	Jacob	Abia	Zorobabel	3.
4.	Judas	Asa	Abiud	4.
5.	Phares	Josaphat	Eliakim	5.
6.	Esrom	Joram	Azor	6.
7.	Aram	Ozias	Sadoc	7.
8.	Amindab	Joatham	Achim	8.
9.	Naasson	Achaz	Eliud	9.
10.	Salmon	Ezekias	Eleazar	10.
11.	Booz	Manasses	Matthan	11.
12.	Obed	Amon	Jacob	12.
13.	Jesse	Josias	Joseph	13.
14.	David	Jechonias i.e. Jehoiakim or Eliakim	Jesus	14.

Luk 3:23

God

1.	Adam	Thara	Eliakim	Joanna	1.
2.	Seth	Abraham	Jonan	Juda	2.
3.	Enos	Isaac	Joseph	Joseph	3.
4.	Cainan	Jacob	Juda	Semei	4.
5.	Maleleel	Juda	Phares	Mattathias	5.
6.	Jared	Phares	Esrom	Maath	6.
7.	Enoch	Esrom	Matthat	Nagge	7.
8.	Mathusala	Aram	Jorim	Esli	8.
9.	Lamech	Aminadab	Eliezer	Naum	9.
10.	Noe	Naasson	Jose	Amos	10.
11.	Sem	Salmon	Er	Mattathias	11.
12.	Arphaxad	Booz	Elmodan	Joseph	12.
13.	Cainan	Obed	Cosam	Janna	13.
14.	Sala	Jesse	Addi	Melchi	14.
15.	Heber	David	Melchi	Levi	15.
16.	Phalec	Nathan	Neri	Matthat	16.
17.	Ragau	Mattatha	Salathiel	Heli	17.
18.	Saruch	Menan	Zorobabel	Joseph	18.
19.	Nachor	Melea	Rhesa	Jesus	19.

We do not find that there was any objection made to these genealogies, either by Jew or Gentile, during the first century. Had any difficulty on this head existed, we may reasonably suppose that the Jews, of all others, would have been but too ready to detect and expose it. We may therefore fairly conclude that, whatever difficulty meets us now in harmonizing our Lord’s pedigree as given by the two Evangelists, it could have had no place in the first age of the Christian church. In subsequent ages, however, objections were and still are made to the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

The chief ground of objection is the alleged inconsistency of the Evangelists with each other. The first solution of their apparent discrepancies is that of Africanus, which, he informs us, he received from the relatives of our Lord. It is to the effect that Matthan, the third in the list from Joseph, in Matthew’s genealogy, and Melchi, the third in Luke’s list, married successively the same woman, by whom the former begat Jacob, and the latter Heli, Heli dying without issue, his maternal brother took his widow to wife, by whom he had Joseph, who, according to law (Deu 25:6), was registered by Luke as the son of Heli, though naturally the son of Jacob, as Matthew records him. This is the explanation which was generally admitted by Eusebius, Nazianzen, and others for ages.

Grotius, however, availing himself of the tradition that Heli and Jacob were both sons of the same mother, but of different fathers (Matthan and Melchi), supposes that Luke traces the natural pedigree of Christ, and Matthew the legal. This he argues on two grounds. First, that Salathiel could not have been the natural son of Jechonias, who was childless—according to the declaration of God by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 22)—and was, therefore, as Luke states, the son, properly so called, of Neri, of Nathan’s line; and, secondly, that the Levirate law imposed no necessity on Jacob to marry Heli’s widow, they being only uterine brothers. But both the reasons assigned by Grotius for differing from the solution of Africanus would seem to be founded on a petitio principii. It does not appear an ascertained fact that Salathiel was not the natural son of Jechonias, nor yet that the law which obliged a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother might be departed from when they were only maternal brethren; for even in cases of distant relationship the law seemed obligatory, as we see in the case of Boaz marrying Ruth, the widow of his distant kinsman.

Dr. Barrett objects to the above theory as given by Africanus and altered by Grotius, on the ground principally, that it refers entirely to the descent of Joseph from David, without attempting to prove that the son of Mary was the son of David. Dr. Barrett then states his own hypothesis, viz., that Matthew relates the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. He supposes a sufficient reason, that after Matthew had given his genealogical table another should be added by St. Luke, fully to prove that Christ, according to the flesh, derived his descent from David, not only by his supposed father Joseph, but also by his real mother Mary.

In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Num 26:33; Num 27:4-7). On this principle Joseph, begotten by Jacob, marries Mary, the daughter of Heli; and in the genealogical register of his wife’s family, is counted for Heli’s son. Salathiel, begotten by Jeconiah, marries the daughter of Neri, and, in like manner, is accounted his son: in Zorobabel, the offspring of Salathiel and Neri’s daughter, the lines of Solomon and Nathan coalesce; Joseph and Mary are of the same tribe and family; they are both descendants of David in the line of Solomon; they have in them both the blood of Nathan, David’s son. Joseph deduces his descent from Abiud (Mat 1:13), Mary from Rhesa (Luk 3:27), sons of Zorobabel. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke are parts of one perfect whole, and each of them is essential to the explanation of the other. By Matthew’s table we prove the descent of Mary, as well as Joseph, from Solomon; by Luke’s we see the descent of Joseph, as well as Mary, from Nathan.

A record of one’s ancestors, either the line of natural descent from father to son, or the line in which, by the laws, the inheritance descended, or that preserved in the public records. Never was a nation more careful to preserve their genealogies than the Hebrews, for on them rested the distinction of tribes, the ownership of lands, and the right to the highest offices and privileges, 1Ch 5:1,17 9:1 2Ch 12:15 Ezr 2:62 . Hence their public tables of genealogies were kept secure amid all vicissitudes. We find in the Bible a record carried on for more than 3,500 years, 1Ch 1:1-54 3:1-24 6:1-81; and thus were guarded the proofs that Christ was born according to prophecy of the seed of Abraham, and heir to the throne of his father David, Luk 1:32 2Ti 2:8 Heb 7:14 . In the evangelists we have the genealogy of Christ for 4,000 years. The two accounts in Mt 1.1-25 and Luk 3:1-38, differ from each other; one giving probably the genealogy of Christ’s reputed father Joseph, and the other that of his mother Mary. The two lines descend from Solomon and Nathan, David’s sons; they unite in Salathiel, and again in Christ. Joseph was the legal father of Christ, and of the same family connections with Mary; so that the Messiah was a descendant of David both by law and "according to the flesh." The discrepancies between the various genealogies may be reconciled in accordance with peculiar Jewish laws. The public records, which Josephus says were scrupulously kept down to his day, perished with the ruin of the Jews as a nation. It is now, therefore, impossible for any pretended Messiah to prove his descent from David.\par Melchizedek was "without descent," Heb 7:3, as regards the Jewish race. No sacred records proved his right to be numbered among that people of God. His priesthood was of a different kind from that of Aaron and his sons. Compare Ezr 2:62 .\par

Genealogy. In Hebrew, the term for genealogy or pedigree is "the book of the generations"; and because the oldest histories were usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the expression often extended to the whole history, as is the case with the Gospel of St. Matthew, where "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ" includes the whole history contained in that Gospel.

The promise of the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob successively, and the separation of the Israelites from the Gentile world; the expectation of Messiah as to spring from the tribe of Judah; the exclusively hereditary priesthood of Aaron with its dignity and emoluments; the long succession of kings in the line of David; and the whole division and occupations of the land upon genealogical principles by the tribes, occupation of the land upon genealogical principles by the tribes, families and houses of fathers, gave a deeper importance to the science of genealogy among the Jews than perhaps any other nation.

When Zerubbabel brought back the captivity from Babylon, one of his first cares seems to have been to take a census of those that returned, and to settle them according to their genealogies. Passing on to the time of the birth of Christ, we have a striking incidental proof of the continuance of the Jewish genealogical economy in the fact that when Augustus ordered the census of the empire to be taken, the Jews in the province of Syria immediately went each one to his own city. The Jewish genealogical records continued to be kept till near the destruction of Jerusalem. But there can be little doubt that the registers of the Jewish tribes and families perished at the destruction of Jerusalem, and not before.

It remains to be said that just notions of the nature of the Jewish genealogical records are of great importance with a view to the right interpretation of Scripture. Let it only be remembered that these records have respect to political and territorial divisions as much as to strictly genealogical descent, and it will at once be seen how erroneous a conclusion it may be that all who are called "sons" of such or such a patriarch or chief father must necessarily be his very children. Of any one family or house became extinct, some other would succeed to its place, called after its own chief father. Hence of course a census of any tribe drawn up at a later period would exhibit different divisions from one drawn up at an earlier. The same principle must be borne in mind in interpreting any particular genealogy.

Again, when a pedigree was abbreviated, it would naturally specify such generations as would indicates from what chief houses the person descended. Females are named in genealogies when there is anything remarkable about them, or when any right or property is transmitted through them. See Gen 11:29; Gen 22:23; Gen 25:1-4; Gen 35:22-26; Exo 6:23; Num 26:33.

Hebrew "the book of the GENERATIONS," ceepher toledowt (See ADOPTION; GENERATION). Fuller (Pisgah Sight of Palestine, 1650) says on Act 17:26; "we may see Divinity, the queen, Waited on by three of her principal ladies of honor, namely:

(1) skill in GENEALOGIES, ’of one blood all nations,’

(2) CHRONOLOGY, in the exact computation of ’the times appointed,’

(3) GEOGRAPHY, measuring out to the nations ’the bounds of their habitation.’" History, in ancient times, being based on genealogies, the phrase became a title for a history; so Gen 2:4, "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth"; as the history of a man’s family is "the book of his generations," so that of the world’s productions is "the generations (not the creation, which had been previously described) of the heavens and the earth." "Generations" is the heading of every chief section of Genesis (probably they were original family memoirs preserved and used by Moses under inspiration in writing Genesis).

So Gen 5:1, "the book of the generations of Adam," wherein his descendants are traced down to Noah; Gen 6:9, "the generations of Noah," the history of Noah and his sons; Gen 10:1, "the generations of the sons of Noah," Shem, Ham, and Japhet, the oldest and most precious existing ethnological record; Gen 11:10-26 "the generations of Shem," Gen 11:27 "the generations of Terah," Abram’s father; Gen 25:12 "the generations of Ishmael," Gen 25:19 "the generations of Isaac"; Gen 36:1, "the generations of Esau"; Gen 37:2, "the generations of Jacob"; Gen 35:22-26, "the sons of Jacob," etc., repeated Exo 1:1-5; also Exo 46:8, a genealogical census of Israel when Jacob came down to Egypt; repeated in Exo 6:16, etc., probably transcribed from a document, for the first part concerning Reuben and Simeon is quoted though Levi is the only tribe in question.

The promise of Canaan, Israel’s separation from the Gentiles, the prophecy of Messiah’s descent from Judah, the hereditary priesthood in Aaron’s family, and the limitation of ministerial offices to Levi, the promises to David’s seed, and the division of Canaan by tribes and families, all combined to make Israel more careful of genealogies than: any other nation. Israel’s census was taken early in the wilderness 40 years sojourn, the second month of the second year, "by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers" (Num 1:2; Num 1:20, etc., Numbers 2-3). Again, 38 years later, in the plains of Moab, the names of the families being added (Numbers 26). According to their genealogical divisions they encamped, marched, made offerings, and selected the spies; hereby Achan was detected, and Saul chosen as king; hereby Canaan was allotted.

At the same time we must remember many became incorporated in a tribe or family by marriage, service, or friendship, besides those belonging to it by birth. See BECHER; CALEB, and 1Ch 3:21, for instances. The genealogies refer often to political and territorial divisions, and not strictly to natural descent, so that "sons" of a patriarch are not necessarily restricted to those so by birth. So Manasseh and Ephraim were numbered among Jacob’s "sons," though only grandsons (Gen 48:5). Bela (whose two sons Naaman and Ard are called "sons of Benjamin," Num 26:40-41) and Benjamin respecting Genesis 46; Numbers 26; Exo 6:24 enumerates Assir’s son and grandson as heads, with their father, of the Korhites. (See BENJAMIN; BELA.)

In the list (Genesis 46) grandsons (e.g. all Benjamin’s ten sons) and great grandson’s of Jacob (Hezron and Hamul, grandsons of Judah) are named, born afterward in Egypt and who came into that country in the loins of their fathers, and who there became founders of mishpachowt, i.e. independent families, and were therefore counted grandsons of Jacob as regards the national organization. By comprising Jacob himself with all the founders of tribes and families, the significant number 70 results; seven (expressing God’s covenant relation to Israel, made up of three the divine number and four the worldwide extension number) multiplied by ten the seal of completeness; implying that these 70 comprised the whole nation of God (Exo 1:5; Deu 10:22). Levi alone was free front foreign admixture. Iddo the seer wrote a book "concerning genealogies" (2Ch 12:15).

Hezekiah took a census of priests and Levites according to genealogies, and apparently from 1Ch 4:41; 1Ch 9:1, a census also of the nation by genealogies; he had a staff of scribes for such purposes (Pro 25:1). Genealogies were need in reckoning Reuben and Gad, "in the days of Jotham king of: Judah (perhaps in connection with his wars against Ammon, 2Ch 27:5), and of Jeroboam king of Israel" (1Ch 5:17). Zerubbabel, on the return from Babylon, made it a first care to settle the people according to genealogy. Nehemiah did the same as an essential to his great work, the restoration of the national polity (1Ch 3:19; 1Ch 3:21-24; 1Ch 3:9; compare Neh 7:5; Neh 7:11; Neh 12:1-26), which shows that the genealogical system was continued afterward.

Ezra 2 contains an abstract of the post-captivity census. In New Testament times, when Augustus ordered the registration for taxing, the Jews went severally to the town of their tribe, family, and father; and so Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, the town of their forefather David (Luke 2). Further traces of genealogies being preserved still appear in the mention of Zacharias as of "the course of Abra," Elizabeth as "of the daughters of Aaron," Anna, daughter of Phanuel, as "of the tribe of Aser." Josephus traces his own descent to the first of the 24 courses of priests, adding "as I have found it recorded in the public tables." He says (c. Apion, 1:7) the priests had to verify the descent of their intended wives from the archives at Jerusalem, and to make new genealogical tables after every war, in order to ascertain what women had been made captives, as such were excluded from marrying priests; the list of high priests for 2,000 years backward was preserved in the archives in his day.

The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome must have involved the loss of these registers, except such partial records of genealogy as remained in a few of the priestly families after the last dispersion. Benjamin of Tudela says that the princes still professed to trace their descent up to David. The present impossibility of verifying the genealogies of the Jews’ tribes and families is a divine indication that Christ the antitypical High Priest and the Heir of David’s throne having come supersedes the polity of typical priests and kings, which, in ancient times, required the careful preservation of pedigrees. Paul therefore condemns the study of "endless genealogies" (1Ti 1:4), though probably he aims also at Gnostic genealogies of spirits.

In interpreting a genealogy it is to be remembered that the list may represent the succession to an inheritance or headship of tribe or family, rather than natural descent. In an Assyrian inscription similarly "Jehu," successor of Omri’s race, is called "son of Omri." Again pedigrees are abbreviated so as to specify the generations alone which show from what leading houses the person sprang. The register of Levi in Exo 6:16-20 gives only two links between Levi and Moses, namely, Kohath and Amram; which has been made an argument for Israel’s sojourn in Egypt only half the 430 years specified (Exo 12:40). But the Kohathites (Num 3:27) in Moses’ time were divided into four families, Amramites, Jehezarites, Hebronites, and Ussielites, 8,600 men and boys independent of women; the fourth would be Amramites.

Now Moses had only two sons; therefore if Amram his father were the Amram Kohath’s father, Moses must have had 2,147 brothers and brothers’ sons, which is impossible; therefore between the two Amrams a number of generations must have dropped out. So in Ezra’s genealogy (Ezr 7:1-5, compare 1Ch 6:4-15) five descents are omitted between Azariah Meraloth’s son and Azariah Johanan’s son; and several between Ezra himself and Seraiah, put to death 150 years before Ezra by Nebuchadnezzar. In Exodus 6 the sons of three of Kohath’s sons are given, but not of Hebron (though in 2 Chronicles 23 four sons are assigned to him), probably because no family sprang from him as the head.

The object of genealogies was not chronology, but to mark ramifications of tribal and family relationship. Thus, the genealogy of Rth 4:18-22 makes but four intervening links between Nahshon at the Exodus (Num 1:7) and David, namely, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse; whereas the genealogy of Levi has double that number in the same period, seven between Phinehas and Zadok, and more in Gershon’s line (1 Chronicles 6). Therefore some names must have been omitted of David’s genealogy. Genealogies are clear measures of time only when complete; and the marks of completeness are, when the mother as well as the father is named, or when historical facts define the relationship, or when a genealogy is confirmed by one or more besides, giving the same number of generations within the same bounds.

Early marriage will in the case of some, as princes, make 30 years too long for a generation. In the descending form of genealogy, when direct heirs failed collateral ones were inserted, and the heir would put his name next after his predecessor though not his father (Rth 4:18; Rth 4:1 Chronicles 3). The ascending form appears 1Ch 6:33-43; Ezr 7:1-5. Females were reckoned when rights or possessions were transmitted through them. Corruptions of the text are frequent in genealogies. Christ’s descent through David, from Abraham and Adam, is given in an unbroken line of genealogy.

(Γενεαλογία), literally the act or art of the γενεαλογός, i.e., of him who treats of birth and family, and reckons descents and generations. Hence, by an easy transition, it is often (like ἱστορία) used of the document itself in which such series of generations is set down. In Hebrew the term for a genealogy or pedigree is סֵפֶר הִיִּחִשׂ, or סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדוֹת"the book of the generations ;" and because the oldest histories were usually drawn up on a genealogical basis, the expression is often extended to the whole history, as in the case of the Gospel of Matthew, where "the book of the generations of Jesus Christ" includes the whole history contained in that gospel. So Gen 2:4, "These are the generoatiens of the heavens and of the earth," seams to be the title of the history which follows. Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9; Gen 10:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 11:27; Gen 25:12; Gen 25:19; Gen 36:1; Gen 36:9; Gen 37:2, are other examples of the same usage, and these passages seem to mark the existence of separate histories from which the book of Genesis was compiled. Nor is this genealogical form of history peculiar to the Hebrews or the Shemitic races. The earliest Greek histories were also genealogies. Thus the histories of Acusilaus of Argos and of Hecataeus of Miletus were entitled Γενεαλογίαι, and the fragments remaining of Xalsithus, Charon of Lampsacus and Hellanicus are strongly tinged with the same genealogical element (comp. Josephus, Apion, 1:3), which is not lost even in the pages of Herodotus. The frequent use of the patronymic in Greek, the stories of particular races, as Heraslides, Alemasonidse, etc., the lists of priests, and kings, and conquerors at the games, preserced at Ellis, Spaita, Olympia, and elsewhere; the hereditary monarchies and priesthoods, as of the Branchidae, Eumolpidae, etc., in so many cities in Greece and Greek Asia; the division, as old as Homer, into tribes, fratriae, ane γένη and the existence of the tribe, the gens, and the familia among the Romans; the Celtic clans, the Saxon families using a common patranymic, and their royal genealogies running back to the Teutonic gods, these are among the many instances that may be cited to prove the strong family and genealogical instinct of the ancient world. Coming nearer to the Israelites, it will be enough to allude to the hereditary principle, and the vast genealogical records of the Egyptians, as regards their kings and priests, and to the passion for genealogies among the Arabs, mentioned by Layard and others, in order to show that the attention paid by the Jews to genealogies is in entire accordance with the manners are tendencies of their contemporaries. In their case, however, it was heightened by several peculiar circumnstances. The promise of the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob successively, and the separation of the Israelites from the Gentile world; the expectation of the Messiah as to spring from the tribe of Judah; the exclusively hereditary priesthood of Aaron with its dignity and emoluments; the long succession of kings in the line of David; and the whole division and occupation of the land upon genealogical principles by the tribes, families, and houses of fathers, gave a deeper importance to the science of genealogy among the Jews than perhaps in any other nation. We have already noted the evidence of the existence of family memoirs even before the flood, to which wee are probably indebted for the genealogies in Genesis 4, 5; and Genesis 10, 11, etc., indicate the continsuance of the same system in the times between the flood and Abraham. But with Jacob, the founder of the nation, the system of reckoning by genealogies הַתְיִחֵשׂor in the languase of Moses, Num 1:18, הַתְיִלֵּדwas much further developed. In Gen 35:22-26, we have a formal account of the sons of Jacob, the patriarchs of the nation, repeated in Exo 1:1-5. In Genesis 46 we have an exact genealogical census of the house of Israel about the time of Jacob’s demise in Egypt. The way in which the former part of this census, relating to Reuben and Simeon, is quoted in Exodus 6, where the census of the tribe of Levi is all that was wanted, seems to show that it was transcribed from an existing document. When the Israelites were in the wilderness of Sinai, in the second month of the second year of the Exoadms, their number was taken by divine command, "after their families, by the house of their fathers," tribe by tribe, and the number of each tribe is given "by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, by their polls" (Numbers 1, 3). This census was repeated 38 years afterwards, and the names of the families added, as we find in Numbers 26. According to these genealogical divisions they pitched their tents, and marched, and offered their gifts and offerings, and chose the spies. According to the same they cast the lots by which the troubler of Israel, Achan, was discovered, as later those by which Saul was called to the throne. Above all, according to these divisions, the whole land of Canaan was parceled out amongst them. But now of necessity that took place which always has taken place with respect to such genealogical arrangements, viz. that by marriage, or servitude, or incorporation as friends and allies, persons not strictly belonging by birth to such or such a family or tribe, were yet reckoned in the census as belonging to them, when they had acquired property within their borders and were liable to the various services in peace or war which were performed under the heads of such tribes and families. Nobody supposes that all the Cornelbi, or all the Campbells, sprang from one ancestor, and it is in the teeth of direct evidence from Scripture, as well as of probability, to suppose that the Jewish tribes contained absolutely none but such as were descended from the twelve patriarchs. (Jul. Africanus, in his Ep. to Aristides, expressly mentions that the ancient genealogical records at Jerusalem included those who were descended from proselytes and γειώραι, as well as those who sprang from the patriarchs. The registers in Ezra and Nehemiah include the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon’s servants.) The tribe of Levite as probably the only one which had no admixture of foreign blood. In many of the Scripture genealogies, as e.g. those of Caleb, Joala, Segub, and the sons of Rephaiah, etc., in (1Ch 3:21, it is quite clear that birth was not the ground of their incorporation into their respective tribes. SEE BECHER; SEE CALEB.

However, birth was, and continued to be throughout their cehole national course, the foundation of all the Jewish organization, and the reigns of the more active and able kings and rulers were marked by attention to genealogical operations. When David established the Temple services on the footing which continued till the time of Christ, he divided the priests and Levites into courses and companies, each under the family chief. The singers, the porters, the trumpeters, the players on instruments, were all thus genealogically distributed. Ins the active stirring reign of Rehoboam, we have the work of Iddo concerning genealogies (2Ch 12:15). When Hezekiah reopened the Temple, and restored the Temple services which had fallen into disuse, he reckoned the whole nation by genealogies. This appears from the fact of many of the genealogies in Chronicles terminating in Hezekiah’s reign, from the expression, "So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies" (1Ch 9:1), immediately following genealogies which do so terminate, and from the narrative in 2Ch 31:16-19, proving that, as regards the priests and Levites, such a complete census was taken by Hezekiah. It is indicated also in 1Ch 4:41. We learn, too, incidentally from Proverbs 25, that Hezekiah had a staff of scribes, who would be equally useful in transcribing genealogical registers as in copying out Proverbs. So also in the reign of Jotham, king of Judah, who, among other great works, built the higher gate of the house of the Lord (2Ki 15:3-5), and was an energetic as well as a good king, we find a genealogical reckoning of the Reubenites (1Ch 5:17), probably in connection with Jotham’s wars against the Ammonites (2Ch 27:5). When Zerubbabel brought back the captivity from Babylon, one of his first cares seems to have been to take a census of those that returned, and to settle them according to their genealogies. The evidence of this is found in 1 Chronicles 9, and the duplicate passage Nahum 11; in 1 Chronicles 3:19; and yet more distinctly in Neh 7:5; Neh 7:12. In like manner, Nehemiah, as an essential part of that national restoration which he labored so zealously to promote, gathered "together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy" (Neh 7:5; Neh 12:26). The abstract of this census is preserved in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, and a partion of it in 1Ch 3:21-24. That this system was continued after their times, as far at least as the priests and Levites were concerned, we learn from Neh 12:22; and we have incidental evidence of the continued care of the Jews still later to preserve their genealogies in such passages of the apocryphal books as 1Ma 2:1-5; 1Ma 8:17; 1Ma 14:29, and perhaps Jdt 8:1; Tob 1:1, etc. Passing on to the time of the birth of Christ, we have a striking incidental proof of the continuance of the Jewish genealogical economy in the fact that when Augustus ordered the census of the empire to be taken, thee Jews in the province of Syria immediately went each one to his own city, i.e., (as is clear from Joseph going to Bethlehem, the city of David), to the city to which his tribe, family, and father’s house belonged. Thus the return, if completed, doubtless exhibited the form of the old censuses taken by the kings of Israel and Judah.

Another proof is the existence of our Lord’s genealogy in two forms, as given by Matthew and Luke. (See below.) The mention of Zacharias as "of the course of Abia," of Elizabeth as "of the daughters of Aaron," and of Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, as "of the tribe of Aser," are further indications of the same thing (Luk 1:51; Luk 2:36). This conclusion is also expressly confirmed by the testimony of Josephus in the opening of his Life, § 1. There, after deducing his own descent, "not only from that race which is considered the noblest among the Jews, that of the priests, but from the first of the twenty-four courses" (the course of Jehoiarib), and on the mother’s side from the Asmonaean sovereigns, he adds, "I have thus traced my genealogy as I have found it recorded in the public sables" (ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις άναγεγραμμένην); and again, contr. Apion, 1:7, he states that the priests were obliged to verify the descent of their intended wives lay’ reference to the archives kept at Jerusalem; adding that it was the duty of the priests, after every war (and he specifies the wars of Antiochus Epiph., Pompea, and Q. Varus), to make new genealogical tables from the old ones, and to ascertain what women among the priestly families had been made prisoners, as all such were deemed improper to be wives of priests. As a proof of the care of the Jews in such matters, he further mentions that in his day the list of successive high-priests preserved in the public records extended through a period of 2000 years. From all this it is abundantly manifest that the Jewish genealogical records continued to be kept till near the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence we are constrained to disbelieve the story told by Africanus concerning the destruction of all the Jewish genealogies by Herod the Great, in order to conceal the ignobleness of his own origin. His statement isn, theat up to that time the Hebrew genealogies had been preserved entire, and the different families were traced up either to the patriarchs, or the γειώραι or mixed people; but that on Herod’s causing these genealogies to be burnt, only a few of the more illustrious Jews who had private pedigrees of their owne, or who could supply the lost genealogies fronc memory, or from the books of chronicles, were able to retain any account of their own lineage — among whom, he says, were the Desposyni, or brethren of our Lord, froes whom was said to be derived the scheme (given by Africanus) for reconciling the two genealogies of Christ. But there can be little doubt that the registers of the Jewish tribes and families perished at the destruction of Jerusalems, and not before. Some partial records may, however, have survived that event, as it is probable, and indeed seems to be implied in Josephus’s statement, that at least the priestly families of the dispersion had records of their own genealogy. We learn, too, from Benjamin of Tudela, that in his day the princes of the captivity professed to trace their descent to David, and he also names others, e.g. R. Calonymos, "a descendant of the house of David, as proved by his pedigree" (Itin. ed. Asher, 1:32), and R. Eleazar ben-Tsemach, "who possesses a pedigree of his descent from the prophet Samuel, and knows the melodies which were sung in the Temple during its existence" (ib. page 100, etc.). He also mentions descendants of the tribes of Dans, Zabulon, and Napthali, among the mnountains of Khasamin, whose prince was of the tribe of Levi. The patriarchsi of Jerusalemn, so called from the Hebrew ראֹשׁ ָֹאבוֹת, claimed descent fromn Hillel, the Babylonian, of whom it is said that a genealogy, found at Jerusalem, declared his descent from David and Abital. Others, however, taraced his descent from Benjamin, and from David only through a daughter of Shephatiah (Wolf, B. H. 4:380). B

ut, however tradition may have preserved for a while true genealogies, or imagination and pride have coined fibtitious ones after the destruction of Jerusalem, it may be safely affirmed that the Jewish genealogical system then came to an end. Essentially connected as it was with the tenure of the land on the one hand, and with the peculiar privileges of the houses of David and Levi on the other, it naturally failed when the land was takers away from the Jewish race, and when the promise to David was fulfilled, and the priesthood of Aaron superseded by the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God. The remains of the genealogical spirit among the later Jews (which might, of course, be much more fully illustrated from Rabbinical literature) has only been glanced at to show how deeply it had penetrated into the Jewish national mind. It remains to be said that just notions of the nature of the Jeemish genealogical records are of great importance with a view to the right interpretation of Scripture. Let it only be remembered that these records have respect to political and territorial divisions, as much as to strictly genealogical descent, and it will at once be seen how erroneous a conclusion it may be, that all who are called "sons" of such or such a patriarch, or chief father, must necessarily be his very children. Just as in the very first division into tribes Maanasseh and Ephraim were numbered with their uncles, as if they had been sons instead of grandsons (Gen 48:5) of Jacob, so afterwards the names of persons belonging to different generations would often stand side by side as heads of families or houses, and be called the sons of their common ancestor. For example, Gen 46:21 contains grandsons as well as sons of Benjamin SEE BELAH, and Exo 6:24 probably enumerates the son and grandson of Assir as heads, with their father, of the families of the Korhites; and so in innumerable other instances. If any one family or house became extinct, some other would succeed to its place, called after its own chief father. Hence, of course, a census of any tribe drawn up at a later period would exhibit different divisions from one drawn cup at an earlier. Compare, e.g., the list of courses of priests in Zerubbabel’s time (Nehemiah 12) with that of those in David’s time (1 Chronicles 24). The same principle must he borne in mind in interpreting any particular genealogy. The sequence of generations may represent the succession to such or such an inheritance or headship of tribe or family rather than the relationship of father and son. Again, where a pedigree was abbreviated, it would naturally specify such generations as would indicate from what chief houses the person descended. Im cases where a name was common the father’s name would be added for distinction only. These reasons would be well unsderstood at the time, though it masy be difficult now to ascertain them positively. Thus, in the pedigree of Ezra, (Ezr 7:1-5), it would seem that both Seraiah and Azariah were heads of houses (Neh 10:2); them are both therefore named. Hilkiah is named as having been high-priest, and his identity is established by the addition "the son of Shallum" (1Ch 10:13); the next named is Zadok, the priest in David’s time, who was chief of the sixteen courses sprung froes Eleazar, and then follows a complete pedigree from this Zadok to Aaron. But then, as regards the chronological use of the Scripture genealogies, it follows from the above view that great caution is necessary in using them as measures of time, though they are invaluable for this purpose whenever we can be sure that they are complete. What seems necessary to make them trustworthy measures of time is, either that they should have special internal marks of being complete, such as where the mother as well as the father is named, or some historical circumstance defines the several relationships, or that there should be several genealogies, all giving the same number of generations within the same termini. When these conditions are found, it is difficult to overrate the value of genealogies for chronology. In determining, however, the relation of generatieons to time, some allowance must be made for the station in life of the persons in question. From the early marriages of the princes, the average of even thirty years to a generation will probably be found too bong for the kings.

Another feature in the Scripture genealogies which it is worth while to notice is the recurrence of the s.ine name, or modification of the same name, such as Tobias, Tobit, Nathan, Mattatha, and even of names of the same signification, in the same family. This is an indication of the carefulness with which the Jews kept their pedigrees (as otherwise they could not have known the names of their remote ancestors); it also gives a clew by which to judge of obscure or doubtful genealogies. In some cases, however, this repetition seems to have resulted from erroneous transcription.

The Jewish genealogies have two forms, one giving the generations in an ascending, the other in an ascending scale. Examples of the descending form may be seen in Rth 4:18-22, or 1 Chronicles 3. Of the ascending, 1Ch 6:33-43; Ezr 7:1-5. The descending form is expressed by the formula A begat B, and B begat C, etc.; or, the sons of A, B his son, C his son, etc.; or, the sons of A, B, C, D; and the sons of B, C, D, E; and the sons of C, E, F, G, etc. The ascending is always expressed in the same way. Of the two, it is obvious that the descending scale is the one in which we are most likely to find collateral descents, inasmuch as it implies that the object is to enumerate the heirs of the person at the head of the stem; and if direct heirs failed at any point, collateral ones would have to be inserted. In all cases, too, where the original document was preserved, when the direct line failed, the heir would naturally place his own name next to his predecessor, though that predecessor was not his father, but only his kinsman; whereas in the ascending scale there can be no failure in the nature of things. But neither form is in itself more or less fit than the other to express either proper or imputed filiation.

Females are named in genealogies when there is anything remarkable about them, or when any right or property is transmitted through them. See Gen 11:29; Gen 22:23; Gen 25:1-4; Gen 35:22-26; Exodus vii 23; Num 26:33; 1Ch 2:4; 1Ch 2:19; 1Ch 2:35; 1Ch 2:50, etc.

The genealogical lists of names are peculiarly liable to corruptions of the text, and there are many such in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, etc. Jerome speaks of these corruptions having risen to a fearful height in the Septuagint (Praefat. in Paraleip.). In like manner, the lists of high-priests in Josephus are so corrupt, that the names are scarcely recognizable. This must be borne in mind in dealing with the genealogies.

The Bible genealogies give an unbroken descent of the house of David from the creation to the time of Christ. The registers at Jerusalem must have supplied the same to the priestly and many other families. They also inform us of the origin of most of the nations of the earth, and carry the genealogy of the Edomitish sovereigns down to about the time of Saul. Viewed as a whole, it is a genealogical collection of surpassing interest and accuracy (Rawlinson, Herodot. volume 1, chapter 2; Burrington, General. Tables of the Old and New Testaments, London, 1836; Selden’s Works, passim).

Genealogy. Genealogical lists are found all through the historical books of the Old Testament. One great object in the preservation of these genealogical lists was to note Christ’s descent. The first biblical genealogy is that of Cain’s descendants, Gen 4:16-24; then that of Seth. The tenth and eleventh chapters of Genesis are regarded by ethnologists as invaluable, since they contain a history of the dispersion of the nations in prehistoric times. The first eight chapters of 1 Chronicles are devoted to genealogical accounts, beginning with Adam, because, as it is stated, "all Israel were reckoned by genealogies." 1Ch 9:1.

Genealogy of Jesus Christ.—Mat 1:1-17; Luk 3:23-38. This is the only genealogy given us in the New Testament We have two lists of the human ancestors of Christ: Matthew, writing for Jewish Christians, begins with Abraham; Luke, writing for Gentile Christians, goes back to Adam, the father of all men. Joh 1:1-18, begins his gospel by setting forth Christ’s divine genealogy. The explanation of the differences in these two lists is, 1. One, or perhaps two, levirate marriages in the family of Joseph—i.e., a marriage of a man to the childless widow of his elder brother, the children of the second marriage being reckoned as the legal descendants of the first husband. 2. That Matthew gives the legal or royal genealogy of Joseph, Luke the private line of Joseph. 3. That Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, Luke the genealogy of Mary. The Davidic descent of Jesus is a mark of the Messiah, and is clearly taught in the prophecy, and also in Rom 1:3; 2Ti 2:8; Heb 7:14; Joh 7:42; Act 13:23.

By: Emil G. Hirsch

—Biblical Data:

A list, in the order of succession, of ancestors and their descendants. The Pentateuchal equivalent for "genealogies" is "toledot" (generations), the verb being in the "ḳal" and "hif'il" forms. The later form is (Neh. vii. 5), and the verb "hityaḥes" (to enroll oneself or be enrolled by genealogy). In later Hebrew, as in Aramaic, the term and its derivatives "yiḥus" and "yuḥasin" recur with the implication of legitimacy or nobility of birth.

The following genealogical lists are given as far as possible in the order in which they occur in the Hebrew canon:

1. Adamites (with historical glosses): Adam; Cain; Enoch; Irad; Mehujael; Methusael; Lamech—seven generations, becoming, with the eighth, two parallel streams, (1) Jabal and his brother Jubal, (2) their half-brother Tubal-cain and his sister Naamah (Gen. iv. 1-24: Cainites).

2. Adamites (with chronological details): Adam: Seth; Enos; Cainan; Mahalaleel; Jared; Enoch; Methuselah; Lamech; Noah—ten generations, the eleventh comprising (1) Shem, (2) Ham, (3) Japheth (Sethites).

3. The Noahites, divided into (1) Shemites, (2) Hamites, (3) Japhethites—the "ethnic table," or "list of nations" (Gen. x. 1-31).

4. Abraham's pedigree, from Shem downward, enumerating ten generations (Gen. xi. 10-26).

5. Rebekah's pedigree, from Nahor through Milcah, with mention of collateral line through his father's concubine Reumah (Gen. xxii. 20-24).

6. Abrahamites through Keturah (Gen. xxv. 1-4).

7. Abrahamites through the line of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 12-18: Ishmaelites).

8. Abrahamites through Isaac and Esau = Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 1-43).

9. Jacob's (= Israel's) descendants (Gen. xxxv. 23-27, xlvi. 8-28: seventy souls).

10. The pedigree of Moses, enumerating the "heads of their fathers' houses" of the sons of Reuben, the sons of Simeon, the sons of Levi: (1) Gershon, (2) Kohath, (3) Merari. Out of Kohath came Amram, from whom came (a) Moses and (b) Aaron; the pedigree continues the chain of descent, after mentioning side lines, through Aaron's son Eleazar to Phinehas (Ex. vi. 14-25).

11. A register of the Israelites as a nation—in which Levi, however, is omitted—grouped under the heads: "generations" (), "family" or "clan" (), and "fathers' house" (: Num. i. 1-47). This is, strictly speaking, a censusroll.

12. The tribal list (Num. ii. 1-33), also a census-roll.

13. The genealogy of the Aaronites (Num. iii. 1-5).

14. The genealogy of the Levites (Num. iii. 17-39), with data concerning their respective assignments to service in the sanctuary.

15. A list of the Israelites, with reference to division and occupation of territory (Num. xxvi. 1-51).

16. The families of the Levites (Num. xxvi. 57-61), with details concerning the births of Aaron, Moses, and Miriam, and the names and fate of Aaron's sons.

17. The "genealogy of those that went up with me [Ezra] from Babylon" (Ezra viii. 1-14; the list of "the children of the province that went up out of the Captivity" [Ezra ii. 1 et seq.] is in reality not a genealogy, but is of importance as bearing upon the standing of their descendants in the congregation of Israel.)

18. Ezra's own pedigree (Ezra vii. 1-6).

19. A list with genealogical notes concerning priests that had taken strange wives, and of Levites, and, moreover, of Israelites (Ezra x. 18 et seq.).

20. Genealogies of certain of the descendants of Judah and Benjamin (Neh. xi. 4 et seq.).

21. List of priests and Levites (Neh. xii. 1-26).

22. The pedigree of Adamites from Adam to Noah (I Chron. i. 1-3), continued through the Noahites, with details of the genealogical descent of the Hamites and Japhethites (2-23), and non-Israelitish Shemites down to the kings of Edom (23-54).

23. Genealogy of the sons of Israel (I Chron. ii. 1-33) down to Jerahmeel, continued (1) in the part Egyptian line of Sheshan through his daughter's marriage to Jarha the Egyptian (34-41); and (2) in the family of Caleb (42-55), coming down to David.

24. David's pedigree (Ruth iv. 18-22).

25. The descendants of David (II Sam. iii. 3-5, v. 14-16; I Chron. iii. 1-9; compare xiv. 4-7), of Solomon, of Jehoiakim (verse 16), of the sons of Jeconiah, of Pedaiah, of Zerubbabel, and of Hananiah (I Chron. iii. 10-21).

26. Genealogy of Judah and Simeon (I Chron. iv.).

27. Genealogy of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe Manasseh (I Chron. v.).

28. The genealogy of the Levites, according to families (I Chron. vi.), of Issachar, Benjamin, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Asher (vii.), and of the Benjamites (viii.) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem (ix.).E. G. H.

Genealogies of Priests. —In Rabbinical Literature:

Rabbinical sources show that with the dominance of Ezra's influence and ideas importance came to be attached to genealogies. Ezra would not leave Babylon until he had succeeded in establishing the genealogical relations of the new Israel to a degree of fineness resembling that of the finest flower (Ḳid. 69b). His own pedigree, too, he had been careful to verify (B. B. 15a). Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah were in fact regarded as ("scrolls of genealogies"), as (B. B. 15a; Pes. 62). That the Exile and the subsequent vicissitudes had heavily impaired tribal and racial purity was nevertheless recognized (see the discussion between R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel: Yer. Ḳid. iv. 1). But for the priests purity of descent was indispensable. Hence their genealogies were scrupulously kept and, when necessary, minutely investigated. A special officer seems to have been entrusted with these records, and a court of inquiry is mentioned as having been instituted in Jerusalem (Ḳid. 76b). The testimony of Josephus corroborates the fact that a record of the pedigrees of the priests was kept (Josephus, "Contra Ap." i., § 7; "Vita," § 1). A priest was bound to demonstrate the purity of the pedigree of the priestly maiden he desired to wed, even as far back as her great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother. In the case of marriage with a daughter of Levi or of Israel his scrutiny had to extend a degree further (Ḳid. iv. 4). Exemptions depending upon the presumption created in favor of credibility and honorableness by general reputation or public service, were admitted (Ḳid. iv. 5). The very division of Israel into "houses" presupposes among them the existence of well-authenticated genealogies. Such divisions are mentioned in connection with the furnishing of wood (Ta'an. iv. 5: "house of Arak, tribe of Judah"; comp. Ezra ii. 5; Neh. vii. 10; "house of David, tribe of Judah"; comp. Ezra viii. 2; "men of unknown pedigree" are also named). Hillel's pedigree is quoted (Yer. Ta'an. iv. 68a, bottom). Ben 'Azzai also speaks of a ("genealogical record"; Yeb. 49b).

Loss of Genealogies.

It is assumed that under Herod I. all genealogical rolls kept in the Temple were destroyed (Sachs, "Beiträge," ii. 157). The loss of official genealogies was deeply deplored as a calamity, more especially because of their importance for the understanding of the books of Chronicles (Pes. 62b; B. B. 109). How prolific these Biblical books were in provoking genealogical conceits is shown by the statement that 900 camel-loads of commentary existed on I Chron. viii. 37 to ix. 44 (Pes. 62b). Much mischief must have been done by this speculation on family origins and pedigrees; at least the provision requiring caution in instruction in genealogy and limiting the hours for it (Pes. 76) would seem to indicate as much. Family pride is rebuked also in the familiar saying that a "mamzer" (bastard), if learned in the Law, outranked an ignorant high priest (Hor. 11); in fact, the priestly insistence upon purity of pedigree was fully counterbalanced by the demand for knowledge, which, through Phariseeism (nobility of learning) as opposed to Sadduceeism (priestly nobility), gradually succeeded in developing a new aristocracy, that of the mind, in the place of the old one (Ẓadoḳite) of blood. Many stories preserve the memory of the struggle for recognition of the one or the other claim to distinction which agitated learned and unlearned Israel in the early Christian centuries (Ḳid. 70a, 71a, b).

Of spurious genealogies, specimens of which Sprenger ("Das Leben und die Lehre Mohammad") adduces, Jewish literature has a goodly number to show (Seder 'Olam Zuṭa; Zunz, "G. V." 2d ed., 1892, pp; 142 et seq. ; Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, Asher's ed., ii. 6 et seq.). Yet this is not proof that all the pedigrees current among Jews were of this class (Zunz, "Analekten," No. 15, p. 46). The tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, according to Midr. R. to Num. xiii., preserved while in Egypt their "yiḥus" (genealogy) to prove the purity and legitimacy of their descent. Upon this yiḥus the Jews have always laid great stress, as have also the Gentiles (Yeb. 62a; Yer. Yeb. ii. 4a). Marriage was invalidated if any deception regarding one's yiḥus was discovered, even if the actual rank was higher than the assumed (Yer. Ḳid. ii. 62c). Silence when taunted with low origin creates the presumption that the person taunted is of high stock (Ḳid. 71b). , the "chain of genealogies," is spoken of (Gen. R. lxxxii.), and the word has passed into literature to designate historical annals.

Bibliography:

Hamburger, R. B. T. ii.

—Critical View:

The genealogical lists of Genesis, as well as those that are meant to account for the origin and subdivisions of the Israelitish tribes, are similar to the tables which were current, first orally and then in written form, among the Arabs. These lists illustrate the theory obtaining in early Semitic civilization, according to which the tribe—the central unit of every institution—was looked upon as the progeny of one common ancestor, assumed, in many cases, as the eponym. Historical, geographical, and ethnological data and reminiscences are spontaneously (not artificially or intentionally) expressed in the terms of this theory. Geographical or racial propinquity is indicated by the degree of relationship ascribed to the component elements. Political supremacy and dependence are reflected in the assumption ofdescent on the one hand in direct line from the first-born, on the other in a collateral line, sometimes traced through a concubine or a second wife, perhaps the bondmaid of the ancestor's legitimate spouse.

Tribal Relations Indicated.

Septs and subdivisions are ranked in the tribal tree according to their numbers or importance, either as branches or as continuing the main trunk. Conversely, the descendants of groups originally not connected with the tribe, but in course of time incorporated into it, are characterized as offshoots, the issue of illegitimate conjugal unions (comp. W. R. Smith, "Marriage and Kinship in Early Arabia," passim; Wellhausen, "Die Ehe bei den Arabern"; see also Government). Concrete illustrations of the foregoing view may be seen in the genealogies of the Hebrew tribes and clans e.g., Benjamin, Dan, and Esau.

The many discrepancies among the various genealogies are not due exclusively to imperfections of memory and the vicissitudes to which tradition is always exposed. Changes in geographical and political relations, as well as in religious views, are often reflected in these variations, the subject of the genealogy or a component part of it appearing at one time as the son or descendant of one person, while at another he is named as a member of some other family. It must be remembered that these genealogies are not all of one age. The institution of the blood covenant, by which are established relationships as close as natural ones (see Brother), may also underlie these variants and discrepancies.

Genealogies in Genesis.

In some of the genealogies of Genesis, however, intentional readjustments of the traditional material come clearly to the surface, as in the twofold genealogy of Noah. He is a Cainite in one; a Sethite in the other. To the Cainites later historiog, raphy and theology ascribe the corruption of the pre-Noachian race (see Enoch; Fall of Angels; Flood, in Rabbinical Literature). This midrashic and pseudepigraphic view represents an ancient popular tradition probably antedating by centuries the written form in the Apocrypha or the Haggadah. To the desire to disconnect Noah from Cain's seed, the second genealogy with its but thinly disguised duplications of the first owes its origin. The so-called "List of Nations" (Gen. x.), while showing in what degree the peoples of which the ancient Hebrews had knowledge were regarded as related to the Israelites, reflects geographical and not ethnological data, the nations being ranged in the main under three great geographical zones. As now preserved, the chapter is not free from indications of being a composite of several ethnic-geographic lists.

That place-names and districts figure in many of the genealogies as individuals is beyond dispute; even arts and musical accomplishments come near being represented as "sons" (Gen. iv. 21). The necessity for keeping accurate genealogical lists in pre-exilic Israel is not apparent. Neither for the regulation of the royal succession nor for the division of inherited property was proof of legitimate descent imperatively needed. By far the greatest number of genealogies of individuals occur in the post-exilic books: elsewhere individual genealogies rarely go back further than one or two generations. No mention is made of any officer appointed to keep the records. Nor was pre-exilic Israel jealous of racial purity (comp. Gen. xxxviii.); sacerdotal preoccupation in this regard is post-exilic (Ezraic). The genealogies of Genesis exhibit a strong realization of the unity of the human race, while framed to assign to Israel a distinct place in the economy of the human family. From Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob a continuous process of selection is posited in the scheme. This is the ethical aspect and value of these genealogies.

The Influence of the Exile.

The Exile stimulated genealogical zeal (Ezek. xiii. 9). The old tribal organization had passed away. A spiritual factor took its place as the uniting and differentiating energy, the congregation gradually but steadily adjusting itself to the tripartite scheme: priest (Zadokite), Levite, and Israel, with Israel as a "holy seed." To this new attitude must be ascribed in the exilic and early post-exilic congregation the rise of many Levitical and other genealogies, constructed on data such as memory could supply and skill could marshal to good effect, some of which are undoubtedly at the basis of the genealogical lists in Ezra-Nehemiah. and Chronicles. These first attempts were not very complex in plan (see, for instance, Ezra ii. 40, iii. 9; Neh. ix. 4; Num. xxvi. 58; see also Levi). But as the Ezraic construction of Israel's past and part came to triumph, the "Levitizing" purpose asserted itself in ever greater measure; and the lists of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah display the overruling passion. That of the high priests (I Chron. vi. 3-15, v. 29-41) is altogether typical of the sacerdotal view-point, in which the Zadokites are exalted. Moreover, it is virtually a duplicate of Ezra's genealogy (Ezra vii. 1; comp. I Esd. viii. 2 and II Esd. i. 7).

Bibliography:

W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1885;

Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 1887, vol. i.;

Guthe, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 1899;

Sellin, Studien zur Enstehungsgesch. der Jüdischen Gemeinde nach dem Babylonischen Exil. 1901;

Eduard Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums, 1896;

Wellhausen, Israelitische und Jüdische Gesch. 5th ed., 1899;

idem, De Gentihus et Familiis quœ in I Chron. ii. 4 Enumerantur, 1870;

Smend, Die Listen der Bücher Ezra und Nehemiah, 1881;

Hastings, Dict. Bible, and Cheyne and Black, Encyc. Bibl. s.v. Genealogies.

GENEALOGY.—The genealogies of the OT fall into two classes, national and individual, though the two are sometimes combined, the genealogy of the Individual passing into that of the nation.

1. National genealogies.—These belong to a well-recognized type, by which the relationship of nations, tribes, and families is explained as due to descent from a common ancestor, who is often an ‘eponymous hero,’ invented to account for the name of the nation. The principle was prevalent in Greece (see Grote, Hist. vol. i. ch. iv. etc. and p. 416); e.g. Hellen is the ‘father’ of Dorus, Æolus, and Xuthus, who is in turn the ‘father’ of Ion and Achæus, the existence of the various branches of the Greek races being thus explained. M‘Lennan (Studies in Ancient History, 2nd series, ix.) gives further examples from Rome (genealogies traced to Numa), Scotland, India, Arabia, and Africa; the Berbers (‘barbarians’) of N. Africa invented an ancestor Berr, and connected him with Noah. The Arabs derived all their subdivisions from Nebaioth or Joktan. The genealogies of Genesis are of the same type. The groundwork of the Priestly narrative (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ) is a series of inter-connected genealogies, each beginning with the formula, ‘These are the generations (toledôth) of …’ (Gen 2:4; Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9 etc.). The gap between Adam and Noah is filled by a genealogy of 10 generations (Gen 5:1-32), and in Gen 10:1-32 the nations of the world, as known to the writer, are traced in a genealogical tree to Noah’s three sons. We find in the list plural or dual names (e.g. Mizraim, Ludim, Anamim), names of places (Tarshish, Zidon, Ophir) or of nations (the Jebusite, Amorite, etc.). An ‘Eber’ appears as the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews. Sometimes the names might in form represent either individuals or nations (Asshur, Moab, Edom), but there can in most cases be little doubt that the ancestor has been invented to account for the nation. In later chapters the same method is followed with regard to tribes more or less closely related to Israel; the connexion is explained by deriving them from an ancestor related to Abraham. In Gen 22:20 the twelve Aramæan tribes are derived from Nahor his brother; in Gen 25:12 twelve N. Arabian tribes, nearer akin, are traced to Ishmael and Hagar; six others, a step farther removed, to Keturah, his second wife, or concubine (Gen 25:1). The Edomites, as most nearly related, are derived from Esau (36). The frequent recurrence of the number 12 in these lists is a sign of artificiality. The same principle is applied to Israel itself. The existence of all the twelve sons of Jacob as individuals is on various grounds improbable; they represent tribes, and in many cases their ‘descendants’ are simply individual names coined to account for cities, clans, and subdivisions of the tribes (Gen 46:8, Num 26:1-65). A good illustration is found in the case of Gilead. In Deu 3:15 we are told that Moses gave Gilead to Machir, son of Manasseh. In Num 26:29 etc. Gilead has become the ‘son’ of Manasseh, and in Jdg 11:1 ‘begets’ Jephthah. So among the ‘sons’ of Caleb we find cities of Judah (Hebron, Tappuah, Ziph, Gibea, etc., 1Ch 2:42 ff.), and Kiriath-jearim and Bethlehem are descendants of Hur (1Ch 2:51). It is indeed obvious that, whether consciously or not, terms of relationship are used in an artificial sense. ‘Father’ often means founder of a city; in Gen 4:20 it stands for the originator of occupations and professions; members of a guild or clan are its ‘sons.’ The towns of a district are its ‘daughters’ (Jdg 1:27 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ).

With regard to the historical value of these genealogies, two remarks may be made. (a) The records, though in most cases worthless if regarded as referring to individuals, are of the highest importance as evidence of the movements and history of peoples and clans, and of the beliefs entertained about them. Gen 10:1-32 gives geographical and ethnographical information of great value. A good example is found in what we learn of Caleb and the Calebites. In the earliest tradition (Num 32:12, Jos 14:6; Jos 14:14) he is descended from Kenaz, a tribe of Edom, and ‘grandson’ of Esau (Gen 36:11; Gen 36:42); in 1Sa 25:3; 1Sa 30:14 the Calebite territory is still distinct from Judah. But in 1Ch 2:4 ff. Caleb has become a descendant of Judah. We gather that the Calebites (‘dog-tribe’) were a related but alien clan, which entered into friendly relations with Judah at the time of the conquest of Canaan, and perhaps took the lead in the invasion. Ultimately they coalesced with Judah, and were regarded as pure Israelites. So generally, though no uniform interpretation of the genealogies is possible, a marriage will often point to the incorporation of new elements into the tribe, a birth to a fresh subdivision or migration, or an unfruitful marriage to the disappearance of a clan. Contradictory accounts of an individual in documents of different date may tell us of the history of a tribe at successive periods, as in the case of the Calebites.

(b) Though the genealogical names usually represent nations, there is, no doubt, in certain cases a personal element as well. The patriarchs and more prominent figures, such as Ishmael and Esau and Caleb, were no doubt individuals, and their history is not entirely figurative. On this point see Driver, Genesis, pp. liv. ff.; also artt. Abraham, and Tribes. We should note that the distinctive feature of the Greek genealogies, which traced national descent from the gods, is absent from the OT. A trace remains in Gen 6:4 (cf. Luk 3:38).

2. Genealogies of individuals.—Whatever view be taken of the genealogies of our Lord (see next article), their incorporation in the Gospels proves the importance attached to descent in the NT period; they also show that at that time records were kept which made the construction of such tables a possibility. St. Paul was conscious of his pure pedigree (Php 3:5), and in several cases in the NT the name of a person’s tribe is preserved. The hope of being the ancestor of the Messiah, and the natural pride of royal descent, probably caused the records of the house of David to be preserved with great care. In the same way Josephus, in the opening chapter of his Life, sets out his genealogy as vouched for by the public records, though only as far hack as his grandfather Simon. In c. Apion. i. 7, he speaks of the careful preservation of the Priestly genealogies; and the story of Africanus (ap. Eus. HE i. 7, 13), that Herod the Great destroyed the genealogical records of the Jews in order to conceal his own origin, is at least an indication of the existence of such records and of the value attached to them. The Talmud speaks of professional genealogists, and in the present day many Jews, especially among the priests, treasure long and detailed family trees, showing their pure descent (cf., for an earlier period, 1Ma 2:1, Bar 1:1, Tob 1:1).

There can be no doubt that this careful recording of genealogies received its main impetus in the time of Ezra. It was then that the line between the Jews and other nations became sharply drawn, and stress was laid on purity of descent, whether real or fictitious. After the return from Babylon, it was more important to be able to trace descent from the exiles than to be a native of Judah (Ezr 9:1-15). Certain families were excluded from the priesthood for lack of the requisite genealogical records (Ezr 2:61, Neh 7:63). And in fact practically all the detailed genealogies of individuals as preserved in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , Chronicles, and kindred writings, date from this or a later period. No doubt the injunctions of Deu 23:3 and the arrangements for a census (2Sa 24:1-25) imply that there was some sort of registration of families before this, and the stage of civilization reached under the monarchy makes it probable that records were kept of royal and important houses. But the genealogical notes which really date from the earlier period rarely go further back than two or three generations, and the later genealogies bear many traces of their artificiality. The names are in many cases late and post-exilic, and there is no evidence outside the genealogies that they were in use at an earlier period. Of the twenty-four courses of the sons of Aaron in 1Ch 24:1 ff., sixteen names are post-exilic. Names of places and clans appear as individuals (1Ch 2:18-24, 1Ch 7:30-40). Gaps are filled up by the repetition of the same name in several generations (e.g. 1Ch 6:4-14). At a later time it was usual for a child to be named after his father or kinsman (Luk 1:59; Luk 1:61), but there are probably no cases where this is recorded for the pre-exilic period, except in the Chronicler’s lists (see Gray, HPN [Note: PN Hebrew Proper Names.] ). There are numerous discrepancies in the various lists, and there is a strongly marked tendency to ascribe a Levitical descent to all engaged in the service of the sanctuary, e.g. the guilds of singers and porters. So Samuel is made a Levite by the Chronicler (Luk 6:22; Luk 6:33), almost certainly wrongly, as his story shows. In the same way the position of clans, such as Caleb and Jerahmeel, which in the early history appear as alien, is legitimized by artificial genealogies (1Ch 2:1-55). In 1Ch 25:4 the names of the sons of Heman seem to be simply fragments of a hymn or psalm. In 1Ch 6:4 there are, including Aaron, 23 priests from the Exodus to the Captivity—an evidently artificial reconstruction; forty years is a generation, and 40×12 = 480 years to the building of the Temple (1Ki 6:1), the other 11 priests filling up the period till the Exile, which took place in the eleventh generation after Solomon. Such marks of artificiality, combined with lateness of date, forbid us to regard the lists as entirely historical. No doubt in certain cases the genealogist had family records to work upon, but the form in which our material has reached us makes it almost impossible to disentangle these with any degree of certainty. W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 6) gives an interesting parallel to this development of genealogizing activity at a particular period. The Arabian genealogies all date from the reign of Caliph Omar, when circumstances made purity of descent of great importance.

C. W. Emmet.

jē-nē-al´o-ji, jen-ē̇-al´ō̇-ji:

1.    Definition

2.    Biblical References

3.    Importance of Genealogies

4.    Their Historical Value

5.    Principles of Interpretation

6.    Principles of Compilation

7.    Sources

8.    Principal Genealogies and Lists

Literature

1. Definition

The Old Testament translates (once, Neh 7:5) the noun יחשׂ, yaḥas; ספר היּחשׂ, ṣēpher ha-yaḥas, “book of the genealogy”; also translates a denominate verb in Hithpael, יחשׂ, yāḥas, “sprout” “grow” (compare family “tree”); התיחשׂ, hithyaḥēs, “genealogy”; the idea is conveyed in other phrases, as ספת תּולדות, ṣēpher tōl^edhōth, “book of the generations,” or simply תּולדות, tōl^edhōth, “generations.” In the New Testament it transliterates γενεαλογία, genealogı́a, “account of descent,” 1Ti 1:4; Tit 3:9. In Mat 1:1, βίβλος γενέσεως, bı́blos genéseōs, “book of the generation” of Jesus Christ, is rendered in the American Revised Version, margin “the genealogy of Jesus Christ”; a family register, or register of families, as 1Ch 4:33, etc.; the tracing backward or forward of the line of ancestry of individual, family, tribe, or nation; pedigree. In Timothy and Titus refers probably to the Gnostic (or similar) lists of successive emanations from Deity in the development of created existence.

2. Biblical References

According to the Old Testament, the genealogical interest dates back to the beginnings of sacred history. It appears in the early genealogical tables of Gen 5; 10; 46, etc.; in Exo 6:14-27, where the sons of Reuben, Simeon and especially Levi, are given; in Num 1:2; 26:2-51, where the poll of fighting men is made on genealogical principles; in Num 2:2, where the positions on the march and in camp are determined by tribes and families; in David’s division of priests and Levites into courses and companies (1 Ch 6-9); is referred to in the account of Jeroboam’s reign (2Ch 12:15 margin, “the words of Iddo, after the manner of genealogies”); is made prominent in Hezekiah’s reforms when he reckoned the whole nation by genealogies (1Ch 4:41; 2Ch 31:16-19); is seen in Jotham’s reign when the Reubenites and Gadites are reckoned genealogically (1Ch 5:17). Zerubbabel took a census, and settled the returning exiles according to their genealogies (1Ch 3:19-24; 1 Ch 9; Ezr 2; Neh 7; 11; 12). With the rigid exclusion of all foreign intermixtures by the leaders of the Restoration (Ezr 10; Neh 10:30; Neh 13:23-31), the genealogical interest naturally deepened until it reached its climax, perhaps in the time of Christ and up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus, in the opening of his Life, states that his own pedigree was registered in the public records. Many families in Christ’s time clearly possessed such lists (Luk 1:5, etc.). The affirmed, reiterated and unquestioned Davidic descent of Christ in the New Testament, with His explicit genealogies (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-38); Paul’s statement of his own descent; Barnabas’ Levitical descent, are cases in point. Davididae, descendants of David, are found as late as the Roman period. There is a tradition that Herod I destroyed the genealogical lists at Jerusalem to strengthen his own seat, but more probably they persisted until the destruction of Jerusalem.

3. Importance of Genealogies

Genealogical accuracy, always of interest both to primitive and more highly civilized peoples, was made especially important by the facts that the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, that the priesthood was exclusively hereditary, that the royal succession of Judah lay in the Davidic house, that the division and occupation of the land was according to tribes, families and fathers’ houses; and for the Davididae, at least, that the Messiah was to be of the house of David. The exile and return, which fixed indelibly in the Jewish mind the ideas of monotheism, and of the selection and sacred mission of Israel, also fixed and deepened the genealogical idea, prominently so in the various assignments by families, and in the rejection in various ways of those who could not prove their genealogies. But it seems extreme to date, as with many modern critics, its real cultivation from this time. In the importance attached to genealogies the Hebrew resembles many other ancient literatures, notably the Egyptian Greek, and Arabic, but also including Romans, Kelts, Saxons, the earliest history naturally being drawn upon genealogical as well as on annalie lines. A modern tendency to overestimate the likeness and underestimate the unlikeness of the Scripture to its undoubtedly cognate literatures finds in the voluminous artificial genealogical material, which grew up in Arabia after the time of the caliph Omar, an almost exact analogue to the genealogical interest at the time of the return. This, however, is on the assumption of the late date of most of the genealogical material in the older New Testament books, and rests in turn on the assumption that the progress of religious thought and life in Israel was essentially the same as in all other countries; an evolutionary development, practically, if not theoretically, purely naturalistic in its genesis and progress.

4. Their Historical Value

The direct historical value of the Scripture genealogies is variously estimated. The critically reconstructive school finds them chiefly in the late (priestly) strata of the early books, and dates Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (our fullest sources) about 300 bc, holding it to be a priestly reconstruction of the national history wrought with great freedom by the “Chronicler.” Upon this hypothesis the chief value of the genealogies is as a mirror of the mind and ideas of their authors or recorders, a treasury of reflections on the geographical, ethnological and genealogical status as believed in at their time, and a study of the effect of naïve and exaggerated patriotism dealing with the supposed facts of national life, or else, in the extreme instance, a highly interesting example of bold and inventive juggling with facts by men with a theory, in this particular case a priestly one, as with the “Chronicler.” To more conservative scholars who accept the Old Testament at its face value, the genealogies are a rich mine of historical, personal and ethnographic, as well as religious, information, whose working, however, is much hindered by the inevitable corruption of the text, and by our lack of correlative explanatory information. Much interesting illustrative matter may be looked for from such archaeological explorations as those at Gezer and elsewhere under the Palestine Exploration Society, the names on the pottery throwing light on the name- lists in Chronicles, and the similar discoveries on the supposed site of Ahab’s palace in Samaria, which also illustrate the conflict between Baal and Yahweh worship by the proportion of the proper names compounded by “Baal” or “Jah” (see Macalister, Bible Sidelights from Gezer, 150ff; PEF, 1905, 243, 328; Harvard Theological Review, 1911). In spite of all such illustrative data, however, the genealogies must necessarily continue to present many insoluble problems. A great desideratum is a careful and systematic study of the whole question by some modern conservative scholar endowed with the patience and insight of the late Lord A.C. Hervey, and equipped with the fruits of the latest discoveries. While much curious and suggestive information may be derived from an intensive study of the names and relationships in the genealogies (although here the student needs to watch his theories), their greatest present value lies in the picture they present of the large-hearted cosmopolitanism, or international brotherliness, in the older ones, notably Gen 10, recognizing so clearly that God hath made of one all nations to dwell on the earth; and, as they progress, in the successive selection and narrowing as their lines converge upon the Messiah.

5. Principles of Interpretation

In the evaluation and interpretation of the genealogies, certain facts and principles must be held in mind. (1) Lists of names necessarily suffer more in transmission than other literature, since there is almost no connectional suggestion as to their real form. Divergences in different versions, or in different stages, of the same genealogy are therefore to be looked for, with many tangles hard to unravel, and it is precisely at this point that analytic and constructive criticism needs to proceed most modestly and restrain any possible tendency unduly to theorize. (2) Frequently in the Scriptural lists names of nations, countries, cities, districts or clans are found mingled with the names of individuals. This is natural, either as the personification of the clan or nation under the name of its chief, or chief progenitor, or as the designation of the individual clan, family or nation, from its location, so commo among many nations. Many of the cases where this occurs are so obvious that the rule may not be unsafe to consider all names as probably standing for individuals where the larger geographical or other reference is not unmistakably clear. This is undoubtedly the intent and understanding of those who transmitted and received them. (3) It is not necessary to assume that the ancestors of various tribes or families are eponymous, even though otherwise unknown. The Scriptural explanation of the formation of tribes by the expansion and division of families is not improbable, and is entitled to a certain presumption of correctness. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to establish a stopping-point for the application of the eponymous theory; under its spell the sons of Jacob disappear, and Jacob, Isaac and even Abraham become questionable. (4) The present quite popular similar assumption that personal details in the genealogy stand for details of tribal history, as, for instance, the taking of a concubine means rather an alliance with, or absorption of, an inferior tribe or clan, is a fascinating and far-reaching generalization, but it lacks confirmation, and would make of the Scripture an allegorical enigma in which historical personages and events, personified peoples or countries, and imaginary ancestors are mingled in inextricable confusion. (5) Scriptural genealogies are often given a regular number of generations by omitting various intermediate steps. The genealogies of Jesus, for instance, cover 42 generations, in 3 subdivisions of 14 each. Other instances are found in the Old Testament, where the regularity or symmetry is clearly intentional. Instance Jacob’s 70 descendants, and the 70 nations of Gen 10. This has in modern eyes an artificial look, but by no means necessarily involves violence done to the facts under the genealogist’s purview, and is readily and creditably accounted for by his conceptions and purposes. The theory that in some cases the requisite number has been built up by the insertion of imaginary names (see Curtis, ICC, “Chronicles,” 135) has another aspect, and does not seem necessary to account for the facts, or to have sufficient facts to sustain it. See Gen 21:5, (6) below. It involves a view of the mental and moral equipment and point of view of the Chronicler in particular, which would not seem to leave him many shreds of either historical, or “religious” value, and which a sounder criticism will surely very materially modify. (6) Much perplexity and confusion is avoided by remembering that other modes of entrance into the family, clan, tribe or nation obtained than that by birth: capture, adoption, the substitution of one clan for another just become extinct, marriage. Hence, “son of,” “father of,” “begat,” have broader technical meanings, indicating adoptive or official connection or “descent,” as well as actual consanguinity, nearer or remote, “son” also meaning “grandson,” “great-grandson,” etc. Instance Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, of the tribe of Judah, styled (1Ch 2:18) a descendant of Hezron and son of Hur, but also, in token of his original descent, called the Kenizzite or “son of Kenaz” (Jos 15:17), etc. Similarly, where in an earlier genealogy a clan or individual is assigned to a certain tribe, and in a later to another, it has been “grafted in.” But while these methods of accretion clearly obtained, the nations freely absorbing neighboring or surrounding peoples, families, or persons, families likewise absorbing individuals, as in American Indian, and many other tribes; yet, as in them, the descent and connection by birth constituted the main line, and in any given case has the presumption unless clear facts to the contrary exist. (7) The repetition of the same name in the same genealogy, as in that of the high priests (1Ch 6:1-15), rouses “suspicion” in some minds, but unnecessarily. It is very natural, and not uncommon, to find grandfathers and grandsons, especially among the Hebrews, receiving the same name (Luk 1:59). This would be especially to be expected in a hereditary caste or office like the priesthood. (8) The existence of the same name in different genealogies is not uncommon, and neither implies nor should cause confusion. (9) The omission of one or many links in the succession, often clearly caused by the desire for symmetry, is frequent where the cause is unknown, the writers being careful only to indicate the connection more or less generally, without feeling bound to follow every step. Tribes were divided into families, and families into fathers’ houses; tribe, family and fathers’ house regularly constituting links in a formal genealogy, while between them and the person to be identified any or all links may be omitted. In similar fashion, there is an absence of any care to keep the successive generations absolutely distinct in a formal fashion, son and grandson being designated as alike “son” of the same ancestor. Gen 46:21, for instance, contains grandsons as well as sons of Benjamin, Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Nanman, Ehi, etc. This would be especially true where the son as well as the father became founder of a house. Some confusion is occasionally caused by the lack of rigid attention to precise terminology, a characteristic of the Hebrew mind. Strictly the tribe, שבט, shēbheṭ (in the Priestly Code (P), מטּה, maṭṭeh), is the larger subdivision, then the clan, משׁפחה, mishpāḥāh, “family,” and then the “house” or “fathers’ house,” בּית, bayith, or בּית אב, bēth ’ābh, בּית אבות, bēth ’ābhōth; but sometimes a “fathers’ house” is a tribe (Num 17:6), or a clan (1Ch 24:6). In this connection it is to be remembered again that sequence of generations often has to do with families rather than with individuals, and represents the succession to the inheritance or headship, rather than the actual relationship of father and son. (10) Genealogies are of two forms, the descending, as Gen 10: “The sons of Japheth: Gomer,” etc.; “The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz,” etc.; and the ascending, Ezr 7:1: “Ezra, the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah,” etc. The descending are the usual. (11) Feminine names are occasionally found, where there is anything remarkable about them, as Sarai and Milcah (Gen 11:29), Rebekah (Gen 22:23), etc.; or where any right or property is transmitted through them, as the daughters of Zelophehad, who claimed and were accorded “a possession among the brethren of (their) father” (Num 26:33; Num 27:1-11 ), etc. In such cases as Azubah and Ephrath, successive wives of Caleb (1Ch 2:18-20), many modern critics find tribal history enshrined in this case, “Caleb” or “dog” tribe having removed from Azubah, “deserted” to Ephrathah, Bethlehem, in Northern Judah. But the principle is not, and cannot be, carried Out consistently. (12) The state of the text is such, especially in Chronicles, that it is not easy, or rather not possible, to construct a complete genealogical table after the modern form. Names and words have dropped out, and other names have been changed, so that the connection is often difficult and sometimes impossible to trace. The different genealogies also represent different stages in the history and, at many places, cannot with any knowledge now at our command be completely adjusted to each other, just as geographical notices at different periods must necessarily be inconsistent. (13) In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.

6. Principles of Compilation

The principal genealogical material of the Old Testament is found in Gen 5; 10; 11; 22; 25; 29; 30; 35; 36; 46; Ex 6; Nu 1; 2; 7; 10; 13; 26; 34; scattered notices in Josh, Ruth, 1 Sam; 2 Sam 3; 5; 23; 1 Ki 4; 1 Ch 1 through 9; 11; 12; 15; 23 through 27; 2 Ch 23; 29; Ezr 2; 7; 10; Neh 3; 7; 10; 11; 12. The genealogies of our Lord (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-38) are the only New Testament material. The Old Testament and New Testament genealogies bring the record down from the creation to the birth of Christ. After tracing the descent from Adam to Jacob, incidentally (Gen 10) giving the pedigree of the various nations within their purview, the Hebrew genealogists give the pedigree of the twelve tribes. As was to be expected, those tribes, which in the developing history assumed greater prominence, received the chief attention. Dan is carried down but 1 generation, and credited with but 1 descendant; Zebulun 1 generation, 3 sons; Naphtali 1 generation, 4 sons; Issachar 4 generations, 15 descendants; Manasseh 4 generations, 39 descendants; Asher 7 generations, 40 descendants; Reuben 8 (?) generations, 22 descendants; Gad 10 generations, 28 descendants; Ephraim 14 (?) generations, 25 descendants. Levi, perhaps first as the priestly tribe, Judah next as the royal, Benjamin as most closely associated with the others, and all three as the survivors of the exile (although representatives of other tribes shared in the return) are treated with the greatest fullness.

7. Sources

Chronicles furnishes us the largest amount of genealogical information, where coincident with the older genealogies, clearly deriving its data from them. Its extra-canonical sources are a matter of considerable difference among critics, many holding that the books cited by the Chronicler as his sources (“The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah,” “The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” “The History of Samuel the Seer,” “The History of Nathan the Prophet,” etc., to the number of perhaps 16) are our canonical books, with the addition of a “Midrashic History of Israel,” from which he quotes the most freely. But the citations are made with such fullness, vividness, and particularity of reference, that it is hard to believe that he did not have before him extensive extra-canonical documents. This is the impression he clearly seeks to convey. Torrey (AJSL, XXV, 195) considers that he cit, es this array of authority purely “out of his head,” for impressiveness’ sake, a theory which leaves the Chronicler no historical value whatever. It is extremely likely that he had before him also oral and written sources that he has not cited, records, private or public lists, pedigrees, etc., freely using them for his later lists and descents. For the post-exilic names and lists, Ezra-Nehemiah also furnish us much material. In this article no attempt is made at an exhaustive treatment, the aim being rather by a number of characteristic examples to give an idea of the quality, methods and problems of the Bible genealogies.

8. Principal Genealogies and Lists

In the early genealogies the particular strata to which each has been assigned by reconstructive critics is here indicated by J, the Priestly Code (P), etc. The signs “=” or “:” following individual names indicate sonship.

(1) Gen 4:16-24 - The Cainites (Assigned to P)

Seven generations to Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-cain, explaining the hereditary origin of certain occupations (supposed by many to be a shorter version of chapter 5).

(2) Gen 4:25, Gen 4:26 - The Sethites (Assigned to J)

(3) Genesis 5:1-32 - The Book of the Generations of Adam (Assigned to The Priestly Code (P), Except Gen 5:29 J)

Brings the genealogy down to Noah, and gives the chronology to the Flood. The numbers in the Hebrew Massoretic Text, the Samaritan Hebrew, and the Septuagint differ, Massoretic Text aggregating 1,656 years, Samaritan 1,307 years, and Septuagint 2,242 years. Some scholars hold this list to be framed upon that of the ten Babylonian kings given in Berosus, ending with Xisuthrus, the Babylonian Noah. An original primitive tradition, from which both lists are derived, the Hebrew being the nearer, is not impossible. Both the “Cainite” list in Gen 4 and this “Sethite” list end with three brothers.

(4) Genesis 10:1-32 - The Generations of the Sons of Noah

“The Table of Nations” (assigned to the Priestly Code (P), Gen 10:1-7; J, Gen 10:8-19; the Priestly Code (P), Gen 10:20; J, Gen 10:21; the Priestly Code (P), Gen 10:22; J, Gen 10:24-30; the Priestly Code (P), Gen 10:31, Gen 10:32). Found in abridged form in 1 Ch 1:5-24.

I.    Japheth = Gomer, Magog, Badai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Tiras

1.    Gomer = Ashkenaz, Riphath (1Ch 1:6, Diphath), Togarmah.

2.    Javan = Elisha, Tarshish, Kittim, Dodanim (Rodanim, 1 Ch 17, is probably correct, a “ד, d”, having been substituted by a copyist for “ר, r”).

II.    Ham = Cush, Mizraim, Put, Canaan

1.    Cush = Seba, Havilah, Sibtah, Raamah, Sabteca (Nimrod).

2.    Mizraim = Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim (whence the Philis), Caphtorim.

3.    Canaan = Zidon (Chronicles, Sidon), Heth; the Jebusite, Amorite, Girgashite, Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite, Hittite.

4.    Raamah (son of Cush ) = Sheba, Dedan.

III.    Elam = Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, Aramaic

1.    Aram = Uz, Hul, Gether, Mash (Chronicles, Meshech).

2.    Arpachshad = Shelah = Eber = Peleg, Joktan.

3.    Joktan (son of Eber) = Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, Jobab.

4.    Peleg (son of Eber) = Reu = Serug = Nahor = Terah = Abraham.

Nearly all these names are of peoples, cities or districts. That Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Nimrod, and probably Peleg, Reu, Serug, represent actual persons the general tenor of the narrative and the general teaching of Scripture clearly indicate, although many critics consider these also as purely eponymous. The others can mostly be more or less clearly identified ethnographically or geographically. This table represents the nations known to the writer, and in general, although not in all particulars, expresses the ethnographical relationships as far as they are now known to modern research. It follows a partly ethnological, partly geographical scheme, the descendants of Japheth in general representing the Aryan stock settled in Asia Minor, Media, Armenia, Greece, and the islands of the Mediterranean; those of Ham representing the Hamitic races in Ethiopia, Egypt, in Southwest Arabia, and Southern Babylonia. Many modern writers hold that in making “Nimrod” the son of “Cush,” the Scripture writer has confused “Cush,” the son of Ham, with another “Gush,” the Cassei, living near Elam, since the later Babylonians and Assyrians were clearly Semitic in language and racial characteristics. Nevertheless the Scripture statement is accordant with early traditions of a Hamitic settlement of the country (Oannes the fish-god coming out of the Red Sea, etc.), and perhaps also with the fact that the earliest language of Babylonia was non-Sem. The sons of Canaan represent the nations and peoples found by the Hebrews in Palestine, the Phoenicians and the Canaanites. Heth is the great Hittite nation, by language and racial type strikingly non-Sem. Among the sons of Shem, Eber is by many considered eponymous or imaginary, but the hypothesis is not necessary. Most Assyriologists deny the connection of Elam with Shem, the later Elamites being non-Sem; the inscriptions, however, show that the earlier inhabitants up to 2300 bc were Semitic Lud must be the Lydians of Asia Minor, whose manners and older names resemble the Semitic Asia Minor presents a mixture of races as manifold as does Palestine. The sons of Joktan are tribes in Western and Southern Arabia. Havilah is given both as a son of Cush, Hamite, and of Joktan, Semite, perhaps because the district was occupied by a mixed race. It would seem, however, that “begat” or “son of” often represents geographical as well as ethnological relations. And where the classification of the Scripture writer does not accord with the present deliverances of archaeology, it must be remembered that at this distance conclusions drawn from ethnology, philology and archaeology, considering the present incomplete state of these sciences, the kaleidoscopic shifting of races, dynasties and tongues through long periods, and our scanty information, are liable to so many sources of error that dogmatism is precarious. The ancient world possessed a much larger amount of international knowledge than was, until recently, supposed. A writer of 300 bc had a closer range and could have had sources of information much more complete than we possess. On the assumption of the Mosaic authorship, that broad, statesmanlike mind, learned in all the knowledge of the Egyptians, and, clearly, profoundly influenced by Babylonian law and literature, may be credited with considerable breadth of vision and many sources of information. Aside from the question of inspiration, this Table of Nations; for breadth of scope, for inclusiveness (though not touching peoples outside of the life of its writer), for genial broadmindedness, is one of the most remarkable documents in any literature.

(5) Genesis 11:10-27 - The Generations of Shem (Assigned to P)

From Shem to Abraham. The list is also chronological, but the versions differ, Massoretic Text making 290 years, from Shem to Abraham, Samaritan Hebrew, 940, and Septuagint 1,070. Septuagint inserts Cainan, 130 years, otherwise agreeing with the Samaritan to the birth of Abraham. Arpachshad may be rendered “the territory of Chesed,” i.e. of the Chasdim, Chaldeans. Eber therefore is descended from Arpachshad, Abraham, his descendant, coming from Ur-Chasdim.

(6) Gen 11:23-26; Gen 22:20-24 - The Children of Nahor (Gen 11:23-26 P; Gen 22:20-24 J)

Uz, Buz, Kemuel, etc. These descendants of Abraham’s brother probably represent Aramean tribes chiefly East or Northeast of Canaan. Aram may be the ancestor of the Syrians of Damascus. Uz and Buz probably belong to Arabia Petrea, mentioned in Jer 25:23 with the Arabian tribes Dedan and Thema. Chesed in this list probably stands, not for the Chaldeans of Babylonia, but for a related tribe of Northern Syria. In Gen 10:23 (assigned to P) Uz is the son of Aram, and in Gen 10:22 Aram is a son of Shem. On the purely tribal hypothesis, this is either a contradiction, or the later statements represent other tribal relationships or subdivisions. Probably other individuals or tribes are indicated. Chronicles does not have this list, it being a side stream.

(7) Gen 16:15; Gen 21:1-3; 25 (also 1Ch 1:28-33) - The Sons of Abraham By Sarah, Hagar, Keturah

(Gen 16:15 assigned to P; Gen 21:1-3 to J, the Priestly Code (P), J, P; Gen 25:1-6 J; Gen 25:7-11 P; Gen 25:11 J; Gen 25:12-17 P; Gen 25:18 J; Gen 25:19, Gen 25:20 P; Gen 25:21-26 J; Gen 25:26 P; Gen 25:27-34 J).

The descendants of Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael represent the Ishmaelite tribes of Arabia living North and Northwest of the Joktanidae, who chiefly peopled Arabia. Twelve princes are named, possibly all sons of Ishmael, perhaps some of them grandsons. The number has seemed “suspicious” as balancing too exactly the twelve tribes of Israel. But twelve is an approved Semitic number, determining not necessarily the sons born, but the “sons” mentioned. The Arabians generally were frequently given the name Ishmaelites, perhaps because of the greater prominence and closer contact of these northern tribes with the Hebrews. The sons of Keturah seem to have been chiefly Arabian tribes, whose locations are unknown. Midian, of the sons of Keturah, is the well-known and powerful tribe in the Arabian desert near the Aelanitic Gulf, bordered by Edom on the Northwest Sheba and Dedan are also mentioned as Cushites (Gen 10:7). Very likely the tribes extensively intermarried, and could claim descent from both; or were adopted into one or the other family. Sheba was in Southwestern Arabia. Dedan lived near Edom, where the caravan routes to various parts of Arabia converged. Asshurim are of course not Assyrians, but an Arabian tribe, mentioned by the side of Egypt in Minaean inscriptions. While the two sons of Isaac are to be accepted as real persons, their typical character is also unmistakable, the history of the two nations, Israel and Edom, being prefigured in their relations.

(8) Genesis 29:31 Through 30:24; Gen 35:16-26. The Children of Jacob

(Gen 29:31-35 Assigned to P; Gen 30:1-3 JE; Gen 30:4 P; 30:4b-24 JE; Gen 35:16-22 JE; Gen 35:23-26 P).

The account of the parentage, birth and naming of the founders of the twelve tribes; by Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun (daughter Dinah); by Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali; by Zilpah: Gad, Asher; by Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin. Much modern criticism agrees that these names are purely those of tribes, some of them perhaps derived from persons or places impossible now to trace, but mostly eponymous. Accordingly, these chapters are to be translated as follows. An Arab tribe, Jacob, wanders in Canaan, quarrels with Edom, migrates to Haran, forms alliances with the Aramean clans Rachel, Bilhah, Leah, Zilpah. Rachel and Jacob constitute a new tribe, Joseph. The federation takes the name Jacob. The other allied clans divide into sub-clans, or new clans join them, until Leah has six “sons,” Reuben, Simeon, etc.; Zilpah, two; Bilhah, two. Zilpah and Bilhah are “concubines” because inferior members of the federation, or else have a left-handed connection with it. The formation of the new tribe Benjamin broke up the old tribe Rachel, which (who) accordingly “died.” Although such are the original facts imbedded in the documents, they are now set in a framework of personal narrative, and were understood as narrative by the first hearers and readers. The history thus constituted is necessarily “an enigma which it is very hard to solve” (Bennett, Genesis, 284), and with almost as many answers as students. For critical purposes it presents a rich field for exploration, analysis and conjecture, but its edificatory value is chiefly found in reading the narratives as personal: a serious and reverent religious romance rounded on facts or legends, whose real value lies in the sidelights it throws on national character and ethical principles, expressed in a naïve, vivid, lifelike story, full of suggestion and teaching. This present article, however, proceeds on the Scripture representation of these details and incidents as personal.

The explanations of the names illustrate the Hebrew fondness for assonances, paronomasia, coming from a time when much importance was attached to words and sounds, but need not be considered mere popular etymologies, the Hebrew individual mother being fully capable of them. Neither do they necessarily represent the original etymology, or reason for the name, but may give the pregnant suggestion occurring to the maternal or other imagination.

Leah, “wild cow,” is supposed by many to be so called from the “totem” of the “Leah” tribe. Reuben (r^e’ūbhēn), original meaning unknown, unless Leah’s emotional explanation explains the name, rather than is explained by it: rā’āh b^e‛onyı̄, “hath looked upon my affliction.” Superficially it might be r^e’ū bēn, “See, a son,” as in the American Revised Version, margin. Others see in the second statement: “My husband will love me,” still another etymology, ye’ĕhābhanı̄, “will love me.” The lover of assonances can find more than one. The tribe is not prominent after Deborah’s time. Simeon, considered by some an animal (totem) name, the Arabic sim‛u, cross between hyena and wolf, suggests to the mother (or is suggested by that) its likeness to shāma‛, “hear”: “Yahweh hath heard.” It is not much known after the Conquest. Levi, “adhesion, associate”: thought by many a gentilic adjective from Leah, the Leah tribe par excellence; the name is adjectival in form. Leah connects it with yillāweh, “He will join,” ’Now will my husband be joined unto me.’ A similar allusion is found in Num 18:2, Num 18:4, there applied to the “joining” of the tribe to Aaron. Judah is associated with the verb hādhāh, “praise”: “Now will I praise Yahweh.” Jacob makes the same suggestion in Gen 49:8; no other plausible suggestion of the origin of the name can be made. The etymology and origin of Bilhah are unknown. Dan is associated with dānāh, “judge”: “God hath judged”; no other etymology can be found. Naphtali is derived from niphtal, “wrestle”: “I have wrestled,” the only discoverable etymology. Zilpah, zilpāh, perhaps is “dropping,” “drop.” Gad, gādh, “fortunate,” according to Leah. Gad was the well-known Syrian god of “fortune”; but there is no necessary connection here. Asher, from ’āshar, “happy,” ’ashshēr, “call happy”; so Leah; no connection with Asshur, Assyrian god. Issachar, from sākhar, “hire,” “man of hire”: “God hath given me mine hire,” also because Leah had “hired” Jacob with her son’s mandrakes; a similar allusion in Gen 49, “a servant under taskwork.” Wellhausen would read ’ı̄sh-sakhar, “man of (some deity, unknown).” Zebulun, from z^ebhūl, “habitation, dwelling”: Leah gives two explanations, the first assigned by critics to Elohist (E) (probably), connecting the name with a root found in Zebediah, Zabdi, etc., “endow”: “God hath endowed me with a good dowry”; the second with zābhal, “dwell”: “Now will my husband dwell with me.” Dinah, like Dan, is from dān, “judge.” Supposed by some to be an old tribe of Israel, in some way associated with Dan, possibly a twin division. Rachel is “ewe,” hence identified with a “ewe” tribe. Joseph has a twofold suggestion: the first (assigned to E) from āṣaph, “take away”: “God hath taken away my reproach”; the second (assigned to J) from yāṣaph, “add”: “Yahweh will add to me another son.” None of these three cases of double explanation would so far exhaust Hebrew maternal imagination as to require the hypothesis of two documents, even though in the last “God” is used in the first suggestion and “Yahweh” in the second. Benjamin is called by Rachel Benoni, “the son of my sorrow,” which is supposed to be an old tribal name, perhaps related to Onan, a clan of Judah, or the Benjamite city, Ono, and possibly to the Egyptian On. Benjamin, Jacob’s name for him, “son of the right hand,” i.e. of happiness, is understood as “son of the south,” because originally the southern section of the Joseph tribe. The attempts to trace these names to tribal origins, local allusions, cognate languages, customs and religions have engaged much research and ingenuity, with results exceedingly diverse.

(9) Genesis 36. The Generations of Esau (P)

I. The Descent of the Edomite Chiefs and Clans from Esau Through His three Wives, the Hittite or Canaanite Adah, the Ishmaelite Basemath, and the Horite Oholibamah (Genesis 36:1-19)

The wives’ names here differ from the other statements: In Gen 26:34 and Gen 28:9: 1. Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite. 2. Bashemath, daughter of Elan, the Hittite. 3. Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebaioth.

In Gen 36: 1. Oholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon, the Hivite. 2. Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite. 3. Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebaioth. It is not necessary to resort to the hypothesis of different traditions. Bashemath and Adah are clearly identical, Esau perhaps having changed the name; as are Mahalath and the Ishmaelite Basemath, a transcriber’s error being probably responsible for the change. As to Judith and Oholibamah, Anah is probably a man, identical with Beeri (Gen 36:24), the son of Zibeon. Both “Hivite” and “Hittite” are apparently errors for “Horite,” the difference being in only one consonant. Or “Hittite” may be used as the larger term embracing “Horite.” “Edom” (Gen 36:1, Gen 36:8, Gen 36:19) is a personal name; in Gen 36:9, Gen 36:43 (Hebrew the American Revised Version, margin) it is national, indicating that to the writer Esau was a person, not an eponym. Nowhere are personal characteristics more vividly and unmistakably portrayed than in the accounts of Jacob and Esau. In these Esauite names are but two compounds of “El” (’ēl), none of “Jah” (yāh).

II. The Aboriginal Leaders or Clans in Edom, Partly Subdued by, Partly Allied with, the Esauites (Gen 36:20-30)

These are descendants of “Seir the Horite” in seven branches, and in sub-clans. “Seir” looks like an eponym or a personification of the country, as no personal details have been preserved. Among these names are no “El” (’ēl) or “Jah” (yāh) compounds, although they are clearly cognate with the Hebrew. Several close similarities to names in Judah are found, especially the Hezronite. Many animal names, “Aiah,” “bird of prey,” “Aran,” “wild goat,” etc.

III. Eight Edomite “Kings” Before the Hebrew Monarchy (Gen 36:31-39)

One ’ēl compound, “Mehitabel,” one ba‛al compound. It is to be noted that the “crown” was not hereditary and that the “capital” shifted; the office was elective, or fell into the hands of the local chief who could win it.

IV. A List of Esauite Clan Chiefs; “Dukes” (English Revised), “Chiefs” (American Standard Revised Version); “Sheiks” (Gen 36:40-43)

Apparently arranged territorially rather than tribally. The names seem used here as either clans or places and should perhaps be read: “the chief of Teman,” etc. The original ancestor may have given his name to the clan or district, or obtained it from the district or town.

In general this genealogy of Esau shows the same symmetry and balance which rouses suspicion in some minds: excluding Amalek, the son of the concubine, the tribes number twelve. Amalek and his descendants clearly separated from the other Edomites early and are found historically about Kadesh-barnea, and later roaming from the border of Egypt to North Central Arabia.

(10) Genesis 46:8-27

(In different form, Nu 26:1-51, and much expanded in parts of 1 Ch 2 through 8; compare Exo 6:14-16). Jacob’s posterity at the descent into Egypt (considered a late addition to P).

A Characteristic Genealogy

It includes the ideal number of 70 persons, obtained by adding to the 66 mentioned in Gen 46:26, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, the two latter born in Egypt. Septuagint, followed by Stephen (Act 7:14), reckons 75, adding to Gen 46:20 the names of three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph, obtained from Num 26:29, Num 26:35. Some may have been omitted to secure the ideal number so fascinating to the Hebrew mind. It is to be noted that Leah’s male descendants are double those of Zilpah, and Rachel’s double those of Bilhah, showing the ideal (but not the fictitious) character of the list. The design, also, seems to be to include those descendants of Jacob from whom permanent divisions sprang, even though, like Manasseh and Ephraim and probably Hezron and Hamul, born after the migration, but before Jacob’s death. A comparison with the partial parallels also illustrates the corruption of the text, and the difficulty of uniformity in lists of names. The full list follows:

1.    Jacob.

2.    Leah’s descendants.

A.    Reuben = Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi.

B.    Simeon = Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, Shaul.

C.    Levi = Gershon, Kohath, Merari.

D.    Judah = Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, Zerah; Perez, Hezron, Hamul.

E.    Issachar = Tolah, Puvah, Iob, Shimron.

F.    Zebulun = Sered, Elon, Jahleel.

G.    Dinah, daughter.

3.    Zilpah’s descendants, 16.

A.    Gad = Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, Areli.

B.    Asher = Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, Serah (daughter); Beriah = Heber, Malchiel.

4.    Rachel’s descendants, 14.

A.    Joseph = Manasseh, Ephraim.

B.    Benjamin = Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rash, Muppim, Huppin, Ard.

5.    Bilhah’ s descendants, 7.

A.    Dan = Hushim.

B.    Naphtali = Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, Shillem.

The list differs in many respects from those in Numbers and Chronicles, and presents some chronological and other problems. Without entering upon an exhaustive study, a number of names may be touched on.

Carmi, (2A), like the other names in i, might be a gentilic, “the Carmite,” like “the Amorite,” etc., especially if these names are those of clans, as they are in Numbers, instead of persons, as the Genesis narrative states. A town, “Bethhaccherem,” is mentioned in Jer 6:1. But “the vine-dresser” is also a good rendering.

Hezron (2A). Another Hezron is given as a descendant of Judah. This duplication of names is possible in clans; see instances below, but more likely in persons.

Jemuel (2B). Nemuel in Num 26:12; 1Ch 4:24, an easy error in transcription, י, yōdh, and נ, nūn, being easily confused. In Numbers, Nemuel is also a Reubenite name.

Jamin (or Jachin) (2B) is Jarib in Chronicles.

Ohad (2B). Not in Numbers or Chronicles.

Zohar (2B) is Zerah in Numbers and Chronicles.

Gershon (2C). In 1Ch 6:16 Gershom; identified by some with Gershom, son of Moses, on theory that the priestly family of Gershom originally traced its descent to Moses, but its later members were reckoned, not as priests, but as Levites, thus becoming identified with Levi; precarious; its principal foundation being similarity of name and tribe.

Hezron and Hamul (2D) rouse chronological or exegetical difficulties. Pharez (Gen 33) could not have been old enough at the migration to have two sons; but very possibly Gen 38 is introduced episodically, not chronologically, and therefore its events may have occurred before those of Gen 37. Jacob was 130 years old at the descent, making Judah not 42 but 62, and Pharez old enough for sons. And, as suggested above, the writer may have done with Hezron and Hamul as with Ephraim and Manasseh - included them constructively, they having been born in Egypt, but before Jacob’s death, belonging therefore to the generation of the migration and so reckoned, especially as they rounded permanent tribal divisions.

Puvah (2E). Puah in 1Ch 7:1. In Jdg 10:1, centuries later, Puah is father of Tola, an illustration of the descent of fathers’ names.

Iob (2E) is Jashub (Numbers, Chronicles), the latter probably correct. Septuagint has it here. A copyist, no doubt, omitted the “shı̄n,” “sh.”

Dinah (2G) is thought by some to be a later insertion, on account of the “awkward Hebrew,” “with Dinah.” Dinah and Serah as unmarried, and no doubt because of other distinguishing facts, now unknown, are the only women descendants mentioned; married women would not be. On the clan theory of the names, the “Dinah” clan must have disappeared in Egypt, not being found in Number.

Ziphion (3A). Zephon in Numbers, perhaps giving its name to the Gadite city of Zaphon (Jos 13:27).

Ezbon (3A). Ozni (Num 26:16). Possibly Ozni, on Ezbon’s death, took his place, rounding a tribal family, like Hezron and Hamul in Judah. Copyist’s error unlikely.

Arodi (3A). In Num 26:17 Arod.

Ishvah (3B). Omitted in Numbers; perhaps died childless, or his descendants did not constitute a tribal family.

Beriah (3B). Also an Ephraimite (1Ch 7:23); a Benjaminite (Num 8:13, Num 8:16); a Levite (Num 23:10, Num 23:11). The repetition of the name indicates individuals rather than clans; but both the Asherite and Benjamite were heads of families.

Serah (3B), שׂרח, seraḥ, “abundance,” not the same name as that of Abraham’s wife, שׂרה, sārāh, “princess.”

Heber (3B), חבר, ḥebher; in 1Ch 4:18, a clan of Judah; 1Ch 8:17, of Benjamin. Not the same name as Eber, עבר, ‛ēbher (1Ch 5:13; 1Ch 8:22; and Gen 10:21).

The Sons of Benjamin

The three lists, Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, represent marked divergences, illustrating the corruption of perhaps all three texts. This list illustrates the genealogical method of counting all descendants as sons, though of different generations. It gives Benjamin ten “sons.” Num 26:38-40 gives five sons, Naaman and Ard being sons of Bela. The Septuagint of our passage gives only three sons, Bela, Becher, Ashbel. 1Ch 7:6 gives three sons, Bela, Becher, Jediael (Ashbel), and Shuppim and Huppim are Bela’s grandsons. Becher is omitted in 1Ch 8:1, probably through a copyist’s error, who took בּכר ואשבּל, bekher w^e-’ashbēl, for “Becher and Ashbel,” בּכרו אשבּל, b^ekhoro ’ashbēl, “his first-born, Ashbel.” Jediael, both by older and newer scholars, is usually, but not with absolute certainty, identified with Ashbel. He may be a later chief. Another explanation is that 1Ch 7:6 is part of a Zebulunite genealogy which has been transformed into a Benjamite list, Jediael being a remaining Zebulunite “pebble.”

Naaman (4B) perhaps appears, by a transcriber’s error in 1Ch 8:2, as נוחח, Nōḥaḥ for נעמן, Na‛ămāň. If Nohah is not Naaman, and not (Keil) Shephupham, or a chief who succeeded him, he may have been one who was born after the migration and not needed to make up the seventy.

Gera (4B) in similar fashion may appear in 1Ch 8:2 as Rapha. If not, Rapha also may be one born after the migration, and did not found a family.

Ehi (4B) is Ahiram (Num 26:38); Aharah (1Ch 8:1). Ehi probably arises from some copyist omitting the “ram.”

Rosh (4B) is not in Numbers or Chronicles. He rounded no family.

Muppim (4B) troubled the scribes greatly. In Num 26:39 he is Shephupham, though as compounded in his family name it is Shupham. In 1Ch 7:12 he is Shuppim, and it is not made clear whether he is a son, or other descendant, of Benjamin. He is apparently called, with Huppim, a son of Ir (Iri), son of Bela. In 1Ch 8:8 he is catalogued as a son of Bela, as Shephuphan. In old Hebrew mem מ (“m”) and shin שׁ (“sh”) closely resemble each other. As the “sh” also appears in the gentilic names, it is probably the correct form. The corrupt state of the Chronicler’s text especially is apparent, and also the fact that “son” may refer to any male descendant.

Huppim (4B) in Num 26:39 is Hupham; in 1Ch 8:5 is Huram.

Ard (4B) in 1Ch 8:3 is a son of Bela, Addar, the copyist having transposed ד, “d”, and ר, “r”, or mistaken one for the other. In Septuagint at Gen 46:21 Ard is son of Gera, son of Bela.

Hushim (5A), the same in 1Ch 7:12, is Shuham (Num 26:42), by transposition of consonants. Another Hushim is a Benjaminite, son of Aher, but Aher may possibly be a corruption of the numeral “one,” it being the Chronicler’s frequent habit to add numerals. But see under Dan 1Ch 21:6, (3), p. 1194.

Jahzeel (5B) is Jahziel in 1Ch 7:13.

Guni (5B) in 1Ch 5:15 is also a Gadite name.

Shillem (5B), in 1Ch 7:13, Shallum, the commoner form.

(11) Exo 6:14-25 (Assigned to P) - Partial List of Heads of Fathers’ Houses of Reuben, Simeon and Levi

Reuben and Simeon are as in Genesis. Levi follows:

1.    Gershon = Libni, Shimei.

2.    Kohath.

A.    Amram married Jochebed = Aaron, Moses; Aaron married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon = Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, Ithamar; Eleazar married daughter of Putiel = Phinehas.

B.    Izhar = Korah, Nepheg, Zichri; Korah, Assir, Elkanah, Abiasaph.

C.    Hebron.

D.    Uzziel = Mishael, Elzaphan, Sithri.

3.    Merari = Mahli, Mushi.

The interest of the list is partly chronological, but chiefly to illustrate the genealogical place of Aaron and Moses. It probably exhibits the genealogical practice of omitting links, Amaram the father of Moses apparently being several links from Amram the son of Kohath. By Moses’ time the Amramites numbered some 2,000 males (Num 3:27, etc.). Jochebed (2A) is an instance of Yah in compounds before the Exodus. Putiel (2A) has been considered a partly Egyptian name, Puti or Poti, “devoted to” -El (’ēl); but probably Hebrew, “afflicted by God.” Hebron is often identified with the city. It is also found in 1Ch 2:42, 1Ch 2:43, as Judahite.

(12) Numbers 1:5-54; 2:3-29; Num 7:12; Num 10:4 - The Heads of Houses Representing and Leading the Tribes (Assigned to P)

I.    Reuben: Elizur, Son of Shedeur

II.    Simeon: Shelumiel, Son of Zurishaddai

Shelumiel found in Judith.

III.    Judah: Nahshon, Son of Amminadab

Both found also in Exo 6:23; Rth 4:9-22; 1Ch 2:10-12: Mat 1:4: Luk 3:32 (genealogies of Christ).

IV.    Issachar: Nethanel, Son of Zuar

Nethanel, name of nine persons in Chronicles, Nehemiah, Ezra, same as Nathaniel.

V.    Zebulun: Eliab, Son of Helon

Other Eliabs, Num 16:1 (Reubenite); 1Sa 16:6 (Jesse’s son, Judah).

VI.    Joseph: Ephraim: Elishama, Son of Ammihud

Other Elishamas: 2Sa 5:16 (son of David); Jer 36:12; 2Ch 17:8. Ammihuds: 2Sa 13:37 m; Num 34:20, Num 34:28; 1Ch 9:4 (Judahite).

VII.    Joseph: Manasseh: Gamaliel, Son of Pedahzur. New Testament Gamaliel

VIII.    Benjamin: Abidan, Son of Gideoni

IX.    Dan: Ahiezer, Son of Ammishaddai

Another, 1Ch 12:3 (Benjamite).

X.    Asher: Pagiel, Son of Ochran

XI.    Gad: Eliasaph, Son of Deuel

Another, Num 3:24 (Levite).

XII.    Naphtali: Ahira, Son of Enan

Seven of these names, Amminadab, Ammihud, Abidan, Ahirah, Ahiezer, Eliab, Elishama, are concededly early. The 5 compounded in Shaddai or Zur are said to be of a type found only in P; 9 of the 24 are compounded in ’ēl, said to be a characteristic of late names. The ’Ēl is postfixed more times, 5, than it is prefixed, 4; also a characteristic of late names. The proportion of compound names is also greater than in the older names; for these and similar reasons (Gray, ICC, “Nu,” 6; HPN, 191-211; The Expository Times, September, 1897, 173-90) it is concluded that though several of the names are, and more may be, early, the list is late. But see Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 74, 83ff, 85ff, 320. The contention rests largely on the late date of the Priestly Code (P) and of Chronicles. But while fashions in names changed in Hebrew life as elsewhere, in view of the persistence of things oriental, the dating of any particular names is somewhat precarious. They may be anticipations or late survivals of classes of names principally prevalent at the later or earlier date. Two of the names, otherwise unknown, have come to us through Ruth, and indicate a source now unknown to us, from which all the names could have been drawn. The fondness for names in ’ēl very likely indicates not a late date but an early one. ’Ēl is the Divine name appearing in personal names previous to Moses, succeeded by Jab from Moses and Joshua on. The recurrence of ’ēl in the time of Ezra and later probably indicates the renewed interest in antiquity as well as the at once wider and narrower outlook brought about by the exile and return. Numerous South Arabian compounds both with the “ilu,” “ili” (’ēl), affixed and prefixed, occur in monuments about 1000 bc (AHT, 81ff).

(13) Numbers 3:1-37. - The Family of Aaron, with the “Princes” of Levi

Adds nothing to list in Exo 16:16-25 except the Levite “princes.”

I.    Gershonites: Eliasaph, Son of Lael

Also a Benjaminite Eliasaph (Num 1:14).

II.    Kohathites: Elizaphan, Son of Uzziel

A Zebulunite Elizaphan (Num 34:25). Five other Uzziels, Benjamite, Levite, Simeonite.

III.    Merarites: Zuriel, Son of Abihail

A Gadire Abihail (1Ch 5:14); also father of Queen Esther; also two women: wife of Abishur (1Ch 2:29); wife of Rehoboam (2Ch 11:18). Four ’ēl suffixes, two prefixes.

(14) Num 13:4-16. - The Twelve Spies (P)

I.    Reuben: Shammua, Son of Jaccur

Other Shammuas (2Sa 5:14; 1Ch 14:4 (David’s son); Neh 11:17, Levite; Neh 12:18, priest). Seven other Zaccurs, Simeonites and Levites.

II.    Simeon: Shaphat, Son of Hori

Four other Shaphats, one Gadite, one Judahite; Elisha’s father. Hori looks like the national name of the Horites; perhaps Hori or an ancestor had been adopted, through marriage or otherwise.

III.    Judah: Caleb, Son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite (Num 32:12; Jos 14:6, Jos 14:14)

Another Caleb, Chelubai, son of Hezron, brother of Jerahmeel (1Ch 2:9). Either as an individual, or as a clan, Caleb seems to be originally of the pre-Israelitish stock in Canaan, absorbed into the tribe of Judah. Perhaps Jephunneh the Kenizzite married a woman of Caleb’s (brother of Jerahmeel) household, and to their firstborn was given the name of Caleb, he becoming head of the house and prince of Judah. Another Jephunneh, an Asherite (1Ch 7:38).

IV.    Issachar: Igal, Son of Joseph

Other Igals: 2Sa 23:36 (one of David’s heroes); 1Ch 3:22. Note the name of another tribe given to a man of Issachar - Joseph (Num 13:7).

V.    Ephraim: Hoshea, Son of Nun;

Hoshea, Joshua’s early name. Others: 1Ch 27:20; King Hoshea, 2Ki 15:30; Neh 10:23; Hebrew name of prophet Hosea.

VI.    Benjamin: Palti, Son of Raphu. See 16 Iv

VII.    Zebulun: Gaddiel, Son of Sodi

VIII.    Joseph-Manasseh: Gaddi, Son of Susi

A Gaddi is in 1 Macc 2:2.

IX.    Dan: Ammiel, Son of Gemali

Another Ammiel (2Sa 9:4).

X.    Asher: Sethur, Son of Michael

Nine other Michaels, Gadite, Levite, Issacharite, Benjamite, Manassite, Judahite.

XI.    Naphtali: Nahbi, Son of Vophsi

XII.    Gad: Geuel, Son of Machi

Four names in ’ē̄ľ. Nine ending with i; unusual number. The antiquity of the list cannot be readily questioned.

(15) Numbers 26:5-62 (P) - The Heads of Houses at the Second Census

Related to Nu 1 and 2, and closely follows Gen 46. The divergences in individual names have been noted under (10). This list adds to

I.    Reuben:

1.    Eliab, son of Pallu (also Num 16:1, Num 16:12).

2.    Dathan, Abiram, Nemuel, sons of Eliab.

II.    Manasseh:

1.    Machir; also Gen 50:23.

2.    Gilead, son of Machir.

3.    Iezer (abbreviation for Abiezer), Helek (not in Chronicles), Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, sons of Gilead.

4.    Zelophehad, son of Hepher.

5.    Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, Tirzah, daughters of Zelophehad.

III.    Ephraim:

1.    Shuthelah; also 1Ch 7:21.

2.    Becher.

3.    Tahan (Tahath, 1Ch 7:20).

4.    Eran (Elead, 1Ch 7:21).

The names of Manasseh’s grandsons and great-grandsons are puzzling. Gilead is the district except in Jdg 11:1, Jdg 11:2, where it is the father of Jephthah. Shechem sounds like the Ephraimite town. Hepher reminds of Gath-Hepher. In Jos 17:1, Jos 17:2 the six sons of Gilead are described as sons of Manasseh; loosely, it is probable; they are to be understood as descendants. Perhaps the references may be summarized: The family of Machir, the son of Manasseh, conquered Gilead, and took its name therefrom, either as a family or in the person of a son, Gilead, whose six sons founded clans named from or giving names to certain towns or districts.

The daughters of Zelophehad are noted for the interesting case at law they presented, claiming and receiving the inheritance of their father, which by Gray, ICC, “Nu,” is considered not historical but a fictitious instance, for the purpose of raising the question, these daughters being clans, and not persons.

Among the sons of Ephraim, Becher has perhaps been misplaced from verse 38, and possibly displaces Bered (1Ch 7:20) between Shuthelah and Tahath. It is not found here in the Septuagint. It is possible that an alliance between the Becherites and the Ephraimites caused one portion of the former to be counted with Ephraim and another with Benjamin; or that at different times the clan was allied with the two different tribes. An error in transcription is more probable. Another Shuthelah is found later in the line (1Ch 7:21).

(16) Num 34:16-28. - Tribal Representatives in the Allotment

Reuben, Gad, half-Manasseh, omitted because their allotments had already been assigned East of Jordan; Levi, because receiving none. Changing to the order in (10):

I.    Reuben: None

II.    Simeon: Shemuel, Son of Ammihud

Shemuel is Hebrew of Samuel. Another Shemuel is of Issachar, 1Ch 7:2. Samuel the prophet, a Levite.

III.    Judah: Caleb, Son of Jephunneh

IV.    Issachar: Paltiel, Son of Azzan

Another Paltiel, otherwise Palti, David’s wife Michal’s temporary husband (2Sa 3:15). Another Benjamite spy (Num 13:9).

V.    Zebulun: Elizaphan, Son of Parnach

Another Elizaphan, Kohathite Levite (Exo 6:18, Exo 6:22).

VI.    Gad: None

VII.    Asher: Ahihud, Son of Shelomi

Another Ahihud, Benjamite (1Ch 8:7).

VIII.    Joseph-Ephraim: Kemuel, Son of Shiftan

Another Kemuel, son of Nahor, an Aramean chief (Gen 22:21); also Levite of David’s time (1Ch 27:17).

IX.    Joseph-Manasseh: Hanniel, Son of Ephod

Hanniel, also an Asherite (1Ch 7:39).

X.    Benjamin: Elidad, Son of Chislon

XI.    Dan: Bukki, Son of Jogli

Bukki, abbreviation of Bukkiah; another, in high-priestly line of Phinehas (1Ch 6:5, 1Ch 6:51).

XII.    Naphtali: Pedahel, Son of Ammihud

A Simeonite Ammihud above.

Seven “El” names, only one “Jah.”

(17) Rth 4:20. - The Ancestry of David (Perez: Hezron: Ram: Amminadab: Nahshon: Salmon (Salmah): Boaz: Obed: Jesse: David)

Contained unchanged in 1Ch 2:9-15; also Mat 1:1-6; also Luk 3:32. Some links have been omitted between Obed and Jesse. Salmon might be traced to the ancestor of the Bethlehemite (1Ch 2:51, 1Ch 2:54), who is, however, of Caleb’s line, not Ram’s; but the lines may mingle.

(18) 2Sa 3:2-5; 2Sa 5:14, 2Sa 5:15. David’s Children (also in 1Ch 3:1-9; 1Ch 14:4-7)

I.    Born in Hebron: Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah, Ithream.

II.    Born in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, Eliphelet.

Four names in ’ēl, all prefixed. Two in “Jah.” Chileab is Daniel in 1Ch 3:1; uncertain which is right, but probably Daniel is a corruption. Chronicles adds Nogah to the Jerusalem sons, probably developed in transcription. 1Ch 3:6-8 has two Eliphelets; 1Ch 14:6 has Elpalet in place of the first; more probable. This gives David 6 sons in Hebron, and, if both Nogah and Elpalet be correct, 12 in Jerusalem. Eliada is Beeliada in 1Ch 14:7, perhaps the original form, a relic of the time before the Hebrews turned against the use of Baal, “lord,” as applied to Yahweh; in which case Baaliada, “Lord knows,” was changed to Eliada, “God knows.” 1Ch 3:6 reads Elishama for Elishua. Japhia is also the name of a king of Lachish in Joshua’s time (Jos 10:3-7).

(19) 2 Samuel 23 (also 1 Chronicles 11:11-41) - David’s Knights

1.    Josheb-Bashebeth, the Tahchemonite.

In Chronicles it is Jashobeam, and should read Ishbaal, the writer’s religious horror of Baal leading him to substitute the consonants of bōsheth, “shame,” as in Mephibosheth, Ishbosheth. Septuagint has Ἰεσεβαδά, Iesebadá (Codex Vaticanus), Ἰεσσεβαδάλ, Ἰσβαάμ, Iessebadál, Isbaám (Codex Alexandrinus), in Chronicles, and Ἰεβόσθε, Iebósthe (Codex Vaticanus), Ἰεβοσθαί, Iebosthaı́ (Codex Alexandrinus) here. In Chronicles he is a Hachmonite, probably correct. “Adino the Heznite” is probably a corruption for “He wielded his spear” (Chronicles).

2.    Eleazar, son of Dodai, the Ahohite.

Dodo in Chronicles; 8 other Eleazars in the Old Testament. Another Dodo is father of Elhanan.

3.    Shammah, son of Agee, a Hararite.

Omitted by Chronicles. Three other Shammahs, one of them a knight of David. “Harari” may be “mountaineer,” or “inhabitant of the village Harar.”

4.    Abishai, son of Zeruiah, brother of Joab.

Abshai (1Ch 18:12 margin). Zeruiah perhaps David’s half-sister (2Sa 17:25). Father never mentioned.

5.    Benaiah, son of Jehoaida of Kabzeel.

Eleven other Old Testament Benaiahs, one of them also a knight. This Benaiah succeeded Joab as commander-in-chief, 4 other Jehoiadas, one Benaiah’s grandson, high in David’s counsel, unless a scribe has inverted the order in 1Ch 27:34, which should then read Benaiah, son of Jehoiada.

6.    Asahel, brother of Joab.

Three other Asahels.

7.    Elhanan, son of Dodo of Bethlehem.

Another Elhanan, slayer of the brother of Goliath (2Sa 21:19; 1Ch 20:5). Perhaps the same.

8.    Shammah the Harodite.

Chronicles, Shammoth. From Harod, near Gideon’s well (Jdg 7:1).

9.    Elika the Harodite.

10.    Helez the Paltite.

Paltite perhaps local or family name from Pelet, or Palti.

11.    Ira, son of Ikkesh the Tekoite.

Two others, one a knight. Tekoah, Judaite town, home of Amos, etc.

12.    Abiezer the Anathothite.

One other, a Manassite (Jos 17:2). Anathoth an hour Northeast of Jerusalem, Jeremiah’s town.

13.    Mebunnai the Hushathite.

Should read, with Chronicles, Sibbecai.

14.    Zalmon the Ahohite.

Zalmon, also name of mountain (Jdg 9:48). Descendant of Ahoah, Benjamite of Bela’s line. See 1Ch 8:14.

15.    Maharai the Netophathite.

From Netophah, town.

16.    Heleb, son of Baanah.

1Ch 11:30, Heled. Three other Bannabs.

17.    Ittai, son of Ribai of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin.

1Ch 11:31, Ithai. An Ittai of Gath also followed David.

18.    Benaiah a Pirathonite.

Pirathon, Amalekite town in Ephraimite territory.

19.    Hiddai of the brooks of Gaash.

Chronicles, Hurai (ד, “d” for ר, “r”). Ga’ash, a Wady in Ephraim.

20.    Abi-Albon the Arbathite.

Chronicles, Abiel, perhaps corrupted from Abi-Baal; from Beth-arabah, Judah or Benjamin.

21.    Azmaveth the Barhumite.

Three others, and a Judaite town, of the same name. Baharumite; Chronicles, Barhumite, a Benjamite town.

22.    Eliahba the Shaalbonite.

Shaalbon, a Danite town.

23.    The sons of Jashen (better, Hashem).

Chronicles, “the sons of Hashem the Gizonite.” “Sons of” looks like a scribal error, or interpolation, perhaps a repetition of “bni” in “Shaalboni” above.

24.    Jonathan, son of Shammah the Hararite.

Chronicles adds, “the son of Shagee the Hararite.” Shagee should perhaps be Agee (2Sa 23:11); but Septuagint indicates Shammah here; both Samuel and Chronicles should read “J., son of Shammah the Ararite.”

25.    Ahiam, son of Sharar the Ararite.

Chronicles, Sacar the Hararite. Sacar is supported by Septuagint.

26.    Eliphelet, son of Ahasvai, the son of the Maacathite.

Chronicles has “Eliphal, son of Ur,” and adds “Hepher the Mecherathite.” Both texts are corrupt. Chronicles should perhaps read, “Eliphelet the son of...., the Maacathite, Eliam,” etc.

27.    Eliham, son of Ahithophel the Gilonite.

Eliham, possibly father of Bathsheba. Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Gilonite, native of Giloh.

27a.    Ahijah the Pelonite (in Chronicles but not Samuel).

Seven other Ahijahs. Pelonite uncertain, probably a corruption; perhaps inserted by a scribe who could not decipher his “copy,” and means “such and such a one,” as in 1Sa 21:2.

28.    Hezro (Hezrai) the Carmelite.

A scribe confused the Hebrew letters, waw (ו, “w”) and yod (י, “y”). Carmel, near Hebron.

29.    Paarai the Arbite.

Chronicles, “Naarai, son of Esbai.” Uncertain. Arab., a town of Judah.

30.    Igal, son of Nathan of Zobah.

Chronicles, Joel, brother of Nathan. Igal less common than Joel, hence, more likely to be corrupted; 2 other Igals; 12 other Joels; 5 other Nathans.

30a.    Mibhar, son of Hagri (Chronicles, not Samuel).

Text uncertain as between this and 31.

31.    Bani the Gadite (Omitted in Chronicles).

Possibly the Gerarite.

32.    Zelek the Ammonite.

Ammon East of Jordan and upper Jabbok.

33.    Naharai the Beerothite, armor-bearer to Joab, son of Zeruiah.

Beeroth, Benjamite town.

34.    Ira the Ithrite.

Ithrites, a family of Kiriath-jearim, Judah.

35.    Gareb the Ithrite.

Gareb also a hill West of Jerusalem.

36.    Uriah the Hittite.

Bathsheba’s husband; 3 others. From some Hittite town surrounded by Israel at the Conquest.

37.    Zabad, son of Ahlai (perhaps dropped out of Samuel), Chronicles.

Chronicles adds 13 others. The filling of vacancies makes the number 37 instead of 30. Two names, perhaps, in ba’al, 5 in yāh, 7 in ’ēľ. As far as guessable, 5 from Judah, 3 from Benjamin, 2 from Ephraim, 1 from Dan, 1 from Issachar, 1 Ammonite, 1 Hittite, 2 (or 4) Hararites, 2 Harodites, 2 Ithrites.

(20) 1 Kings 4:1-19 - Solomon’s “Princes” and Commissaries

Eleven princes, 12 officers. No mention of their tribal connections; assigned only partly by tribal bounds. 7 yāh names, 1 ’ēl; 5 of the officers are prefixed ben as if their own names had dropped out.

(21) 1 Chronicles 1-9 - Genealogies, with Geographical and Historical Notices

By far the largest body of genealogical material, illustrating most fully the problems and difficulties. The estimate of its value depends on the estimate of the Chronicler’s date, purpose, equipment, ethical and mental qualities. He uses freely all previous Old Testament matter, and must have had in hand family or tribal songs, traditions; genealogical registers, as mentioned in Ezr 2:61-69; Neh 7:63-65; local traditions; official genealogies, such as “the genealogies reckoned in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and ... Jeroboam king of Israel” (1Ch 5:17); prophetic, historical and other matter now lost, “the words of Shemaiah ... after the manner of genealogies” (2Ch 12:15), and elsewhere. The results of David’s census seem to have been in his hands (1Ch 27:24). Curtis (ICC, “Chronicles,” 528) suggests that his purpose was partly to provide genealogies for contemporary families, implying an accommodating insertion of names “after the manner of genealogies” today. Two main purposes, however, seem clear: the first historical, to give the historical and personal basis and setting to elucidate the Chronicler’s main thesis, that national prosperity depended upon, and national character was measured by, fidelity to the law of God, especially as it centered upon the worship and services of Yahweh’s house. To do this it was necessary to trace the descent of the prominent characters, families, tribes. Hence, the space given to Judah, Levi, Benjamin, the main line of fidelity, the survival of the fittest. The other purpose was to conserve purity of blood in the restored nation, to include all who were entitled and to exclude all who were not. We may also credit him with such regard for his material that he preserved it all (with certain comprehensible exceptions), even though extremely fragmentary here and there. His materials are of many degrees of age. It is thought by some that the antiquity is indicated by the last stage in the descent, the genealogy of Sheshun, e.g. ending with Hezekiah’s time; Heman’s and Asaph’s (1 Ch 6, 33) in David’s. Name-study and historico-literary criticism seeks still other marks of relative age. The text has suffered much, as lists of names will, from scribal errors. Details of his method will be pointed out in the following analysis. As in this whole article, space forbids exhaustive treatment of the endless textual, critical, historical questions arising. A few illustrative cases only are given.

I. Primeval Genealogies (1 Chronicles 1:1-54)

To show Israel’s place among the nations; follows Genesis closely, omitting only the Cainites; boldly, skillfully compressed, as if the omitted facts were well known.

(1)    The ten antediluvian Patriarchs, and Noah’s three sons (1Ch 1:1-4).

Follows Gen 4:5, giving only the names.

(2)    Japheth’s descendants (1Ch 1:5-7) (Gen 10:2-4 unchanged).

(3)    The Hamites (1Ch 1:8-16) (Gen 10:6-8, Gen 10:13-18 unchanged).

(4)    The Semites (1Ch 1:17-23) (Gen 10:22-29; only scribal changes).

(5)    Abram’s descent (1Ch 1:24-27) (Gen 11:10-26 abridged, giving only the Patriarchs).

(6)    The sons of Abraham, Keturah, Isaac (1Ch 1:28-34).

Gen 25:1-4, Gen 25:13-16, Gen 25:25, Gen 25:26; Gen 32:28. Reverses the order of Ishmael’s and Keturah’s descendants.

(7)    Sons of Esau (1 Ch 1:35-52) (Gen 36:4-10).

(8)    Kings and sheikhs of Edom (1Ch 1:43, 1Ch 1:14) (Gen 36:31-43). Scribal changes.

II. Descendants of Jacob (1 Chronicles 2 Through 9)

The tribes arranged chiefly geographically. Judah, as the royal line, is given 100 verses, Levi, as the priestly, 81 verses, Benjamin 50, the other ten 56, Dan and Zebulun neglected. His purpose practically confines him to the first three; and these were also the best preserved.

(1)    Sons of Israel.

Follows substantially the order in Gen 35. Dan is placed before Rachel’s sons. 17 different orders of the tribes in Bible lists.

(2)    Genealogies of Judah (1 Ch 2:3 through 4:23).

(a)    Descent of Jesse’s sons from Judah (1Ch 2:3-17).

Largely gleaned from the historical books. The sons of Zerah (1Ch 2:6-8) are not found elsewhere. Chelubai is Caleb. Only 7 sons of Jesse are mentioned. Abishai, Joab, Asahel are always designated by their mother’s name, Zeruiah.

(b)    Genealogy of Bezalel (1Ch 2:18-20).

The artificer of the tabernacle, hence, greatly interests the Chronicler.

(c)    Other descendants of Hezron (1Ch 2:21-24).

(d)    The Jerahmeelites (1 Ch 2:25-41).

Concededly a very old list of this important clan not found elsewhere. Sheshan (1Ch 2:35), who married his daughter to Jarha, an Egyptian servant, illustrates the introduction of a foreigner into the nation and tribe.

(e)    The Calebites (1Ch 2:41-55).

Not elsewhere. The names are largely geographical. A subdivision of the Hezronites. Not Caleb the son of Jephunneh.

(f)    David’s descendants (1 Ch 3:1-24).

Gives first the sons and their birthplaces, then the kings to Jeconiah and Zedekiah, then the Davidic line from Jeconiah to Zerubbabel, then the grandsons of Zerubbabel and the descendants of Shecaniah. Two other lists of David’s sons (2Sa 5:14-16; 1Ch 14:4-17). Eliphelet and Nogah here are thought to have developed in transcription, with some other changes. Johanan’s name (s. of Josiaih) is given among the kings, though he never reigned. Zedekiah is called son (instead of brother) of Jehoiachin, perhaps a scribal error. “Jah” names extremely numerous. Names of Zerubbabel’s sons are highly symbolic: Meshullam, “Recompensed”; Hananiah, “Jah is gracious”; Shelomith, “Peace”; Hashubah, “Consideration”; Ohel, “Tent,” i.e. “Dwelling of Yahweh”; Berechiah, “Jah blesses”; Hasadiah, “Jah is kind”; Jushab-hesed, “Loving-kindness returns”; characteristic of the Exile.

1Ch 3:19-24, beginning with Zerubbabel’s descendants, are obscure, and a battleground of criticism on account of their bearing on the date of Chronicles. There are three possible interpretations: (1) Following the Hebrew, Zerubbabel’s descendants stop with Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, his grandsons. Then follow three unclassified sets of “sons.” No connection is shown between Jeshaiah and these. Then follows Shecaniah’s line with four generations. There are several other instances of unrelated names thus being thrown in. This gives two generations after Zerubbabel. (2) Still following the Hebrew, assume that Shecaniah after Obadiah is in Zerubbabel’s line. This gives six generations after Zerubbabel. (3) Following Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 ad) (but the two latter are of very small critical weight), read in Oba 1:21, “Rephaiah his son, Arnan his son,” etc. - a very possible change: eleven generations after Zerubbabel. According to (3), Ch was written at least 253 years (allowing 23 years to a generation; more probable than 30 or 40) after Zerubbabel (515), hence, after 262 bc; (2) makes it after 373; (1) makes it 459, during Ezra’s life. The book’s last recorded event is Cyrus’ decree (538), which indicates the earliest date. The New Testament casts no light here, none of these names appearing in the genealogies in Matthew or Luke. If Septuagint is correct, Keil suggests that it is a later insertion, a critical device too frequently used to nullify inconvenient facts. The passage itself justifies the statement that “there is no shadow of proof that the families enumerated in 1Ch 3:21, latter part, were descendants of Hananiah the son of Zerubbabel.” Against this, and the other indications, the admittedly faulty Septuagint furnishes an insufficient basis for so far-reaching a conclusion.

(g)    Fragmentary genealogies of families of Judah (1 Ch 4:1-23).

Contains (1) “sons” of Judah, four or five successive generations; (2) sons of Shobal and Hur; (3) sons of Chelub; (4) sons of Caleb, son of Jephunneh; (5) sons of Jehaleel; (6) sons of Ezra (of course, not the priest-scribe of the return); (7) sons of “Bethiah the daughter of Pharaoh whom Mered took”; (8) sons of Shimon; (9) sons of Ishi; (10) sons of Shelah. It is hard to trace the law of association here; which fact has its bearing on the discussion under (f) above. Chelub may be another Caleb. 1Ch 4:9-11 give an interesting name-study, where Jabez by prayer transforms into prosperity the omen of his sorrowful name: “Because I bare him with sorrow,” a characteristic note. 1Ch 4:21-23 speak of the linenworkers and potters. Similar, even identical, names have been found on pot-handles-in Southern Palestine.

(3)    Genealogy of Simeon (4:24-43).

(a)     Simeon’s sons. Genealogy of Shimei. After Gen 46:10; Exo 6:15; Num 26:12-14.

(b)    Dwelling-places of Simeon. After Jos 19:2-8.

(c)    Princes and conquests (1Ch 4:34-43).

Source unknown, but considered old. Gray, however, thinks the names of late formation. Meshobab, Jamlech, Joshah, Amaziah, Joel, Jehu, Josibiah, Seraiah, Asiel, Elioenai, Jaakobah, Jeshohaiah, Asaiah, Adiel, Jesimiel, Benaiah, Ziza, Shiphi, Allon, Jedaiah, Shimri, Shemaiah, Ishi, Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah, Uzziel; many undoubtedly old ones; 11 in yāh, 5 in ’ēľ. Eliothal sounds post-exilic. The section mentions several exploits of Simeon.

(4)    East-Jordanic tribes (1 Ch 5:1-24).

As in Simeon above, the usual order, deviated from in instances, is (1) Introductory: Sons and immediate descendants; (2) Territory; (3) Princes or Chiefs; (4) Incidents.

(a)    Reuben (1Ch 5:1-10).

Partly follows Gen, Nu; but only as to first generation. Very fragmentary and connections obscure.

(b)    Gad (1Ch 5:11-17).

First generation omitted. Chronicler draws from genealogies “in the days of” Jotham and Jeroboam.

(c)    Half-Manasseh (1Ch 5:23, 1Ch 5:14).

The whole tribe is treated of (1Ch 7:14). Here only the seats and heads of houses.

(5)    Levi (1 Ch 6:1-81).

Illustrates more fully the Chronicler’s attitude and methods.

(a)    High priests from Levi to Jehozadak (the Exile) (1Ch 6:1-15).

(i)    Levi’s sons: Gershon, Kohath, Merari (Gen 46:11; Exo 6:16).

(ii)    Kohath’s sons: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, Uzziel (Exo 6:18).

(iii)    Amram’s “sons”: Aaron, Moses, Miriam (Exo 6:20, Exo 6:23 (except Miriam); Num 26:59 f).

(iv)    High priests from Eleazar. Also (partly) Ezra (Ezr 7:1-5):

1.    Eleazar	12.    Azariah
2.    Phinehas	13.    Johnnan
3.    Abishua	14.    Azariah
4.    Bukki	15.    Amariah
5.    Uzzi	16.    Ahitub
6.    Zerahiah	17.    Zadok
7.    Meraioth	18.    Shallum
8.    Amariah	19.    Hilkiah
9.    Ahitub	20.    Azariah
10.    Zadok	21.    Seraiah
11.    Ahimaaz	22.    Jehozadak

#Noteworthy omissions: Eli’s house, Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahimelech, Abiathar, because set aside for Zadok’s in Solomon’s time; Bukki to Zadok being their contemporaries; but the list also omits Amariah in the reign of Jehoshaphat (perhaps), Jehoiada, Joash’s “power behind the throne,” Urijah in Ahaz’ day, Azariah in Hezekiah’s. It has been thought that this was done in the interests of a chronological scheme of the Chronicler, making 23 generations of 40 years from the Exodus to the Captivity, or 920 years. The Hebrew generation, however, was as likely to be 30 as 40 years, and as a matter of fact was nearer 20. The apparent number of generations from Aaron to the Captivity, adding the data from the historical books, is 29, making a generation about 24 years. The reasons for the omission here, as for many others, are not apparent. Outside of Chronicles and Ezra we know nothing of Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, the first Amaziah, Johanan, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok 2, Shallum, Azariah 3. The list touches historical notices in Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Zadok, Ahimaaz, Azariah 2, contemporary of Solomon, perhaps Amariah, contemporary of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, contemporary of Uzziah, Hilkiah, contemporary of Joshua, Seraiah slain by the Chaldeans, and Jehozadak. The recurrence of similar names in close succession is characteristically Jewish (but compare names of popes and kings). It is seen in the list beginning with Jehozadak: Joshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Jonathan, Jaddua, Onias, Simon, Eleazar, Manasseh, Onias, Simon, Onias, Joshua. Also about Christ’s time: Eleazar, Jesus, Annas, Ismael, Eleazar, Simon, Joseph, Jonathan, Theophilus, Simon, although these latter do not succeed in a genealogical line.

(b)    The three Levitical clans (1Ch 6:16-19). After Exo 6:17-19; Num 3:17-20.

(c)    Lineal descendants of Gershom: seven, 1Ch 6:20, 1Ch 6:21; thirteen, 1Ch 6:39-43. See also 1Ch 23:7.

The two lists (1Ch 6:20, 1Ch 6:21 and 1Ch 6:39-43) are clearly the same:

Gershom	Gershom
Libni	Jahath
Zimmah	Zimmah
Joah	Ethan
Iddo	Adaiah
Zerah	Zerah
Jeatherai	Ethni
	Malchiah
	Baaseiah
	Michael
	Shimea
	Berachiah
	Asaph

Jahath, Zimmah, Zerah are in both. By slight changes Joah, יואה, is Ethan, איתן; Iddo, עדו, is עדה, Adaiah; Jeatherai, יאתרי, is Ethni, אתני. Shimei may have dropped from one and Libni from the other. Jahath and Shimei have been transposed. In 1Ch 23:7 Libni is Ladan.

(d)    Pedigrees of Samuel (1Ch 6:27, 1Ch 6:28; 33-35). See also 1Sa 1:1; 1Sa 8:2.

We have three pedigrees of Samuel, all suffering in transcription:

(1) 1Ch 6:22-24, 1Ch 6:28	(2) 1Ch 6:33-38	(3) 1Sa 1:1; 1Sa 8:2
Kohath	Kohath
Amminadab	Izhar
Korah	Korah
Assir, Elkanah, Ebiasaph	Ebiasaph
Assir	Assir
Tahath	Tahath
Uriel	Zephaniah
Uzziah	Azariah
Shaul	Joel
Elkanah	Elkanah
Amasai	Amasai
Ahimoth	Mahath
Elkanah	Elkanah
Zophai	Zuph	Zuph
Nahath	Thoah	Tohu
Eliab	Eliel	Elihu
Jeroham	Jeroham	Jeroham
Elkanah	Elkanah	Elkanah
Samuel	Samuel	Samuel
Joel (Vashni) and Abijah	Joel	Joel
	Heman

#The text is obscure. Septuagint reads (1Ch 6:26), “Elkanah his (Ahimoth’s) son, Zophai his son.” It has Izhar in (1) for Amminadab, as has Hebrew in Exo 6:18, Exo 6:21. Uriel for Zephaniah is unexplainable. Uzziah and Azariah are exchangeable. The other variations are transcriptional. Joel has dropped out of the first list, and the following words, now in 1Sa 8:2, and the Syriac here: “and the second,” v-sh-n, have been read “Vashni.” 1Sa 1:1 calls Zuph an Ephraimite. The Chronicler’s claiming him (and Samuel) seems to some another instance of Levitical bias and acquisitiveness. The genealogy is also found “clearly artificial,” Zuph being a territory, and Toah, Tohu, Nahath, a family. But “Ephraimite” is either merely local, the family having been assigned residence there (Jos 21:5; 1Ch 6:66), or (Hengstenberg, Ewald) because, being thus assigned, it has been incorporated into the tribe. Hannah’s vow to devote him to Yahweh is said (Curtis, Moore, ICC in the place cited.) to show that he was no Levite, in which case no vow was necessary. But Elkanah’s Ephraimite citizenship may have obscured in Hannah’s mind the Levitical descent. In the disorganized times of the Judges an Ephraimite woman may well have been ignorant of, or indifferent to, the Levitical regulation, She, or the author of 1Sa 1:1, must also have forgotten that every male that openeth the womb from any tribe is equally God’s property A mother’s vow to devote her firstborn son to Yahweh, beyond recall or redemption, and to seal his consecration by the significant symbol of the unshaved head, is not hard to imagine in either a Levite or an Ephramite, and equally “unnecessary” in either case. Heman, ending the pedigree (2), was David’s contemporary.

(e)    Pedigree of Asaiah the Merarite (1Ch 6:29, 1Ch 6:30).

Merari: Mahli: Libni; Shimei: Uzzah: Shimea: Haggiah: Asaiah. Hard to adjust or place. Libni and Shimei are elsewhere Gershonites, but the same name is frequently found in different tribes or clans. Information below Mahli is entirely wanting.

(f)    Descent of David’s three singers, Heman, Asaph, Ethan (1Ch 6:33-47).

(i)    Heman has been given under (d) ; 20 links.

(ii)    Asaph: Getshorn: Jahath: Shimei: Zimmah: Ethan: Adaiah: Zerah: Ethni (Jeatherai): Malchijah: Baaseiah: Michael: Shimea: Berechiah: Asaph; 15 links.

(iii)    Ethan: Merari: Mushi: Mahli: Shemet: Bani: Amzi: Hilkiah: Amaziah: Hashabiah: Malluch: Abdi: Kishi: Ethan; 12 links.

Hardly anywhere is the Chronicler’s good faith more questioned than in these lists. Finding in his day the three guilds of singers claiming descent from David’s three, and through these from Levi, he fits them out with pedigrees, borrowing names from 1Ch 6:16-20, and filling out with his favorite names, or those of his own invention, or from current lists. To make Asaph contemporary with David, he adds Malchijah, Maaseiah, Michael, Shimei, Berechiah. He helps out Ethan with Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah, Hashabiah, Malluch, Abdi, Kishi. The names added are very frequent in Chronicles and Ezra, not frequent in older writings. Aside from the general objection to this thoroughgoing discredit of Chronicles, and theory of religious development in Israel on which it is based, it may be said: (1) The Chronicler’s failure to give his three families nearly the same number of links is suspicious, but if he took an old list, as it came to him, it is natural. (2) The fact that these added names occur many more times in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah indicates simply that Levitical names occur frequently in a writer and among a people whose interests are Levitical. No one would look among the Roundheads for either classical or aristocratic names. (3) In no tribe would such names be more likely to recur, naturally or purposely, than in the Levitical. (4) The Chronicler has inserted among his new names 6 in yāh and only 1 in ’ēl, and that far down the list. (5) Of the “added” names Malchijah occurs in Jer 21:1; Masseiah, in Jer 29:21, Jer 29:25; Jer 35:4, in every case priestly or Levitical. Michael occurs in Num 13:13. Berechiah is the name of the prophet Zechariah’s father. Hilkiah is the name of Joshua’s high priest. Amaziah reigned 800 bc. Bani is mentioned in 2Sa 23:36 (though this is thought to be copied from Chronicles). Shimea is concededly early. Of the 13 “added names” 8 are found elsewhere. Of the others, Amzi, Abdi, Kishi (Kish, Kushaiah) have an early look. Malluch might be late. If Hashabiah is late the author has scattered it well through the history, 1 several generations before David, 3 in David’s time, 1 in Josiah’s, 1 in Ezra’s, 3 in Nehemiah’s, in every case a Levite. (7) While these “added” names occur more times in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, than elsewhere, and 5 of the 13 occur nowhere else, it is also true that more than 500 other names also occur only in these three books, and that the total names in these, to say nothing of the “P” portions elsewhere, outnumber the names in the other books about three to one. Other things being equal, three mentions of any common name ought to be found in these books to one in the others. Of all names applied to more than four persons the usual proportion in these books by count is four, to one elsewhere.

(g)    Pedigree of Ahimaaz (1Ch 6:50-53). Parallel with 1Ch 6:4-8.

(h)    Dwelling-places of Levi.

(6)    The six remaining tribes.

(a)    Issachar (1Ch 7:1-5).

1Ch 7:1 derived from Gen 46:13; Num 26:23, Num 26:14. The rest peculiar to Chronicles. Closes with a record of fighting men, instead of the usual statement of dwelling-places.

(b)    Benjamin (1Ch 7:6-13).

A very difficult section. It is considered a Zebulunite genealogy which has been Benjaminized, because (1) There is a Benjamite list elsewhere; (2) Benjamin is out of place here, while in 13 out of 17 tribal lists Zebulun comes at this point, and in this list has no other place; (3) The numbers of Benjamin’s sons differ from other Benjamite genealogies; (4) The names of Bela’s and Becher’s sons are different here; (5) many names are not Benjamite; (6) Tarshish, in this list, is a sea-coast name appropriate to Zebulun, but not Benjamin. But (1) it is called Benjamite; (2) doublets are not unknown in Chronicles; (3) Dan is also neglected; (4) many Benjamite names are found; (5) both the Zebulunite material and the Benjamite material elsewhere is too scanty for safe conclusions.

(c)     Dan, 1Ch 7:12, from Gen 46:23.

Aher (“another”) is a copyist’s error or substitute for Dan.

(d)    Naphtali, 1Ch 7:13, from Gen 46:24 (transcriptional changes).

(e)    Manasseh, East and West (1Ch 7:14-19).

The text of 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:15 very corrupt. No other notice is found of the sons in 1Ch 7:16, 1Ch 7:17: Peresh, Sheresh, Ulam, Rakere, Bedan.

(f)    Ephraim to Joshua (1Ch 7:20-29).

Contains an interesting personal note in the mourning of Ephraim over his sons Ezer and Elead, and the subsequent birth of Beriah. Interpreted to mean that the clans Ezer and Elead met with disaster, on which the clan Beriah became prominent.

(g)    The seats of Joseph’s sons (1Ch 7:28, 1Ch 7:29).

Hard to say why this has been placed here.

(h)    Asher (1Ch 7:30-40).

The earliest names derived from Gen 46:17. Gray considers the others ancient.

(i)    Benjamin (1 Ch 8:1-40).

(i)    Sons of Benjamin. After Gen 46:21, with variations. See (6) (b).

(ii)    Descendants of Ehud (1 Ch 8:6-28). Text very corrupt, obscure.

(iii)    The house of Saul (1Ch 8:29-38); repeated (1Ch 9:35-44).

In this passage two exceptions to the usual treatment of Baal compounds. Ishbaal and Meribbaal here are Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth in S.

(7)    The inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Ch 9:1-34).

With variations in Neh 11:1-13. This passage has been thought an interpolation, but it is the Chronicler’s custom to give dwelling-places. Perhaps this and Neh are two independent abridgments of the same document. This probably describes post-exilic conditions. 1Ch 9:1 and 1Ch 9:2 here, and Neh 11 seem conclusive on this point. Four classes of returning exiles:

(a)    The children of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh.

Constituting “the laity,” “Israel.”

(b)    The priests.

Agreeing with Nehemiah, but abridged.

(c)    The Levites. Paralleling Nehemiah, but not exactly.

(d)    Nethinim or porters. Fuller than Nehemiah, and different.

(8)    The house of Saul.

(1Ch 9:35-44, repeating 1Ch 9:29-38)

(22) David’s Knights (1 Chronicles 11:10-47)

Discussed under (19). Adds to the list, Adina, son of Shiza, Reubenite; Hanan, son of Maacah, Joshaphat the Mithnite, Uzziah the Ashterathite, Shama and Jeiel the sons of Hotham the Aroerite, Jediael the son of Shimri, and Joah his brother, the Tizite, Eliel the Mahavite, and Jeribai and Joshaviah, the sons of Elnaam, and Ithmah the Moabite, Eliel, and Obed, and Jaasieh the Mezobaite.

(23) David’s Recruits at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12 Through 22)

Found only here. Contains 23 names from Benjamin (some may be Judahite); 11 from Gad; 8 from Manasseh; nothing to show that the names are not old.

(24) David’s Musicians and Porters at the Bringing of the Ark (1Ch 15:16-24)

Also 1Ch 16:5, 1Ch 16:6, 1Ch 16:37-43. Each division of the Levites represented by a chief musician.

(25) David’s Organization of the Kingdom (1 Chronicles 23 Through 27)

I.    The Levites (1 Chronicles 23).

(1)    The family of Gershon (1Ch 23:7-11); 9 houses.

(2)    The family of Kohath (1Ch 23:12-20); 11 houses.

(3)    The family of Merari (1Ch 23:21-23); 4 houses.

II.    The Priests (1 Chronicles 24).

24 divisions; 16 divided among descendants of Eleazar, headed by Zadok; 8 among those of Ithamar, headed by Ahimelech (perhaps an error for Abiathar); but perhaps Ahimelech’s. Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, was acting for his father.

(1)    Eleazar’s courses: Jehoiarib, Harim, Malchijah, Hakkoz, Joshua, Eliashib, Huppah, Bilgah, Hezer, Aphses, Pethahiah, Jehezekel, Jachin, Gamul, Delaiah, Maaziah.

(2)    Ithamar: Jedaiah, Seorim, Mijamin, Abijah, Shecaniah, Jachim, Joshebeab, Immer.

Josephus gives the same names of courses (Ant., VII, xiv, 7; Vita, 1). Several are mentioned in Apocrypha, Talmud, and the New Testament. Jehoiarib, Jedaiah, Harim, Malchijah, Mijarain, Abijah, Shecaniah, Bilgah, Maaziah, are found in one or both of Nehemiah’s lists.

(3)    Supplementary list of Levites (1Ch 20:1-8 through 31).

Repeats the Levitical families in 1 Ch 23:6-23, omitting the Gershonites, adding to the Kohathites and Merarites.

III.    The Singers (1 Chronicles 25).

(1)    Their families, classified under the three great groups, descendants of Asaph, Jeduthun (Ethan), Heman.

A curious problem is suggested by the fact that the names in 1Ch 23:4, beginning with Hanani, with a few very slight changes, read: “Hanan (’Have mercy’) -iah (’O Yahweh’); Hanani (’Have mercy’); Eli-athah (’Thou art my God’); Giddalti (’I have magnified’) (and) Romamti (’exalted’) (thy) Ezer (’help’); Josh-bekashah (’In the seat of hardness’); Mallothi (’I spake of it’); Hothir (’Gave still’); Mahazioth (’Visions’).” How, or why, this came among these names, cannot be said.

(2)    The 24 courses of 12 singers each, of which courses numbers 1, 3, 5, 7 fell to Asaph; numbers 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14 fell to Jeduthun; numbers 6, 9, 11, 13, 15-24 fell to Heman.

IV.    Gatekeepers and other officers (1 Chronicles 26).

(1)    Genealogies and stations of the gatekeepers (1 Ch 26:1-19).

(2)    Those in charge of the temple treasury (1Ch 26:20-28).

(3)    Those in charge of the “outward business.”

Subordinate magistrates, tax-collectors, etc.

V.    The army, and David’s officers (1 Chronicles 27).

(1)    The army (1Ch 27:1-15).

12 officers, each commanding 24,000 men, and in charge for one month; chosen from David’s knights.

(2)    The tribal princes (1Ch 27:16-24).

After the fashion of Nu 12 through 15. Gad and Asher are omitted. The 12 are made up by including the Levites and the Aaronites.

(3)    The king’s twelve stewards (1Ch 27:25-31).

(4)    The king’s court officers (1Ch 27:32-34).

Counselor and scribe: Jonathan, the king’s uncle, otherwise unknown; tutor: Jehiel; counselor: Ahithophel; “the king’s friend” (closest confidant?): Hushai. Possibly two priests are next included: Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar, high priest of the Ithamar branch. But perhaps it should read, “Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada.” If two priests are intended, it seems strange that Zadok is not one. The list ends with the commander-in-chief, Joab.

This elaborate organization in every part and branch of the kingdom is looked upon as the Chronicler’s glowing Utopian dream of what must have been, underrating the organizing power of the great soldier and statesman.

(26) Ezra 2:1-63 - The Exiles Who Returned with Zerubbabel

Paralleled in Neh 7:6-73. 9 “Jah,” 4 “El” names in 107.

(1)    The leaders (Ezr 2:2).

(2)    Numbers according to families (Ezra 2:3-19).

18 of Ezra’s numbers differ from Nehemiah’s.

(3)    Numbers according to localities (Ezra 2:20-35).

10 towns probably Judahite, 7 Benjamite.

(4)    The priests (Ezr 2:39, Ezr 2:42).

Only 4 families, representing 3 Davidic courses.

(5)    The Levites (Ezr 2:43, Ezr 2:44).

Among the singers, only Asaphites.

(6)    The porters (Ezr 2:45).

3 old names, 3 new ones.

(7)    The “Nethinim” (temple-slaves) (Ezr 2:46-56).

(8)    The children of Solomon’s servants (slaves) (Ezr 2:57-59).

(9)    Those who could not prove their descent.

(a)    General population.

Three families, children of Delaiah, Tobiah, Nekoda.

(b)    Priestly families.

Hobaiah, Hakkoz, Barzillai. Hakkoz, the seventh of the Davidic courses, perhaps succeeded later in establishing their right (Neh 3:21).

(27) Ezr 6:1-5. - Ezra’s Genealogy

An ascending genealogy: Ezra, son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, son of Amaraiah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth, son of Zerahiah, son of Uzzi, son of Bukki, son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron; 16 links. Follows 1Ch 6:7-10 down to Zadok, then omits 7 to Shallum, besides the 7 omitted in Chronicles.

(28) Ezra 8:1-20 - Numbers and Leaders of Those Who Returned With Zerubbabel

Numbers much smaller than in Zerubbabel’s list (Ezr 2:1-14). Perhaps 3 new families, Shecaniah, Shelomith, Joah; 7 more leaders. A much smaller proportion of Levites; among them a “man of discretion,” perhaps a name, “Ishsecel,” of the sons of Mahli, therefore a Merarite, with other Merarites, 39 in all.

(29) Ezra 10:18-44. - Jews Who Had Married Foreign Women

(1)    The priests (Ezr 10:18-22).

Seventeen in all; members of the high priest’s family, and of the Davidic courses of Immer and Harim, besides the family of Pashhur.

(2)    The Levites (Ezr 10:23); 6 in all.

(3)    Singers and porters (Ezr 10:24); 4 in all.

(4)    “Israel,” “the laity” (Ezra 10:25-43).

Sixteen families represented; 86 persons. Out of a total of 163 names, 39 yāh compounds, 19 ’ēl compounds, 8 prefixed.

(30) Neh 3:1-12 - The Leaders in the Repair of the Wall

Thirty-eight leaders; in 30 instances the father’s name also given. As far as mentioned, all from Judah and Jerusalem.

(31) Nehemiah 7:7-63 - Those Who Returned with Zerubbabel

Follows Ezr 2:1-63, with transcriptional variations in names and numbers.

(32) Neh 8:4-7 - Levites and Others Who Assisted Ezra in Proclaiming the Law

(33) Nehemiah 10:1-27 - The Sealers of the Covenant

Twenty-two priests, 17 Levites, 20 heads of families already mentioned, 24 individuals.

(34) Nehemiah 11:3-36 - Chief Dwellers in Jerusalem and Vicinity

Parallels in 1Ch 9:9-22. Some omissions and variations; 5 priestly courses given, Joiarib, course number 1; Jedaiah, number 2; Jachin, number 23; Malchijah, number 5; Immer, number 6. 24 “Jah,” 6 “El” names out of 82.

(35) Neh 12:1-8 - Priests and Levites Who Went up with Zerubbabel

Compare with priests’ lists in Neh 10:2-8 (33), and with priests under Joiakim (Neh 12:12-21 (36)). They are names of families. See Neh 12:12.

(36) Neh 12:10, Neh 12:11 - High Priests from Jeshua to Jaddua

(1)    Jeshua, 538 to 520 bc.

(2)    Joiakim.

(3)    Eliashib, 446 till after 433.

(4)    Joiada, about 420.

(5)    Jonathan, Johanan, 405 to 362.

(6)    Jaddua, to 323.

This list bears upon the date of Ezra-Nehemiah. Jaddua was high priest when Alexander visited Jerusalem, 335 bc. If the Darius of verse 22 is Darius Nothus (425 to 405 bc), and Jaddua, a young boy, is mentioned as the heir to the high-priesthood, this passage was written before 400. If Jaddua’s actual high-priesthood is meant, and Darius Codomannus (336 to 330 bc) is the Darius here, the date may be about 330. The enumeration of families here is assigned to the time of Joiakim, before 405, and the latest recorded events to the time of the high priest before Jaddua (Neh 12:23; Neh 13:28), hence, before 362. The hypothesis of an addition by some scribe after 350 is possible, but not necessary.

(37) Neh 12:12-21. - Heads of Priestly Families

(38) Neh 12:22-26. - Levites and Porters Under High Priest Johanan

(39) Neh 12:31-42. - Princes and Priests at Dedication of the Wall

(40) Matthew 1:1-17 - The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

(See separate article).

(41) Luke 3:23-38 - The Genealogy of Jesus

(See separate article).

Literature

Commentaries in the place cited., especially on Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, especially C. F. Keil, Bible Comm., 1872; E. Bertheau, in Kurzgef. exeget. Handb. zum Altes Testament, 1873; Bible (“Speaker’s”) Commentary (Browne, Gen; Clark, Ex; Espin, Nu; Rawlinson, Chronicles, etc.); W. B. Barnes, Cambridge Bible, Chronicles; R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Chronicles; Driver, Westminster Comm., Gen; ICC (Gray, Nu; Moore, Jgs; Curtis, Chronicles, etc.); Pulpit Comm.; W. R. Harvey-Jellie, Ch in Century Bible; S. Oettli, Kgf. Kom., 1889; O. Zoeckler, Lange’s Comm., etc.

Encyclopedia arts., especially HDB, E. L. Curtis, “Genealogies”; SBD, A. C. Hervey, “Genealogies”; EB, S. A. Cook, “Genealogies”; EB, 11th edition, S. A. Cook, “Genealogies”; other encyclopedia arts., under specific books, tribes, names, genealogies.

General works: Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names; Hommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition; A.C. Hervey, The Genealogies of our Lord; Sprenger, Das Leben u. d. Lehre d. Mohammad; W.R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia; J. Wellhausen, De Gentibus et Familiis Judaeis; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 1883 (ET), 177-277; McLennan, Studies in Ancient History.

Magazine articles: H.W. Hogg, “Genealogy of Benjamin,” JQR, XI, 1899, 96-133, 329-44; M. Berlin, “Notes on Genealogies of Levi, 1 Ch 23-26,” Jewish Quarterly Review, XII, 1900, 291-98; M. Berlin, “Gershonite and Merarite Genealogies,” JQR, XII, 1901, 291ff; H. W. Hogg, “Ephraimite Genealogy,” JQR, XIII, 1900-1901, 147-54; J. Marquart, “Genealogies of Benjamin,” JQR, XIV, 1902, 343-51; J. W. Rothstein, Die Genealogie das Königs Jojachin und seiner Nachkommen in geschichtlicher Beleuchtung, Berlin: Reuther u. Reichold, 1902; R.S. Macalister, “The Royal Potters, 1Ch 4:23,” The Expository Times, XVI, 1905, 379ff; R. S. Macalister, “The Craftsmen Guild of the Tribe of Judah,” PEFS, 1905, 243-53, 328-42; C. C. Torrey, “The Greek versions of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, XXV. 1903, 139ff, and many others.