Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
102 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
THE GENEALOGY OF BENJAMIN:
A CRITICISM OF 1 CHRONICLES VIII.
In the article " Benjamin " in the Encyclopaedia Biblica
soon to appear, the present writer argues that traces of
systematic structure in parts of the list occupying i Chron.
viii suggest that perhaps at one time the whole chapter
was far less incoherent than it now seems. A few simple
emendations possessing inherent probability go so far
towards introducing order and meaning that the case for
other emendations, not in themselves so obvious, gains in
plausibility, and the conviction is borne in upon one that
a determined effort must be made to remove the textual
corruption by which the passage is obscured. It is proposed
here to state as briefly as possible the main grounds of this
contention 1 . If some of the details are necessarily of
a kind that may seem tedious, there are also points of
considerable interest ; and if the general result should be to
any extent admitted, the inferences that must eventually
be drawn are not unimportant.
Several considerations combine to prove that the text of
the long list of Benjamite names in i Chron. viii is corrupt.
We shall begin with one of the most obvious points.
1. Elpaal and his brothers (vv. 1 1 b-27). — Ver. 12 a, with
its three sons of Elpaal, disturbs the scheme of the gene-
alogy as at present arranged, for, as we shall see, Elpaal's
1 For the sake of brevity, constant reference to the hypothetical nature
of the conclusions proposed is avoided. The reader -will easily supply the
necessary qualifications. Technical details will be omitted as much as
possible ; but the nature of the argument determines the method of
THE GENEALOGY OP BENJAMIN 103
sons follow naturally in ver. 1 7 f. along with the sons of
his brothers. The names of the b'ne Elpaal in ver. 12 a
and in ver. 17 f. are not in English very similar: —
ver. 12 Eber and Misham
ver. 17 Zebadiah and Meshullam [and Hizki and Heber]
„ T2 and Shemed,
„ 17 and Ishmerai,
but in Hebrew the resemblance is so striking that it can
hardly be accidental : —
nnn oytPtti -oy ver. 12
nDtyi ["urn *prm] tbvcn nmr ver. 17 f.
The most natural explanation of the disorder and the
resemblance would be to regard ver. 12a as a duplicate of
ver. 17 f. The probability of this being the case is raised
to practical certainty by the fact that we can show (as
we shall do presently) how ver. 12 a came to be repeated,
and even why it was inserted precisely after ver. 11.
Finally, any excuse for lingering hesitancy is removed
when we find how symmetrical the whole passage becomes
on the simple omission of ver. 12. All that is necessary is
to read "Ahio" in ver. 14 as "his brethren" (iTR? as VHK), or
to correct it to " their brethren " — that vnN is not, as even
© supposed, a proper name is shown by the fact that it is
not afterwards resumed in the way that, as we shall see,
the names on each side of it are resumed — and we have
in vv. 11-27 fi rs t an account of the five (six) "sons" of
Hushim, and then a list of their descendants. For the
"sons" Elpaal (ver. 11), Beriah, Shema (ver. 13), Shashak,
and Jeremoth (ver. 14), are obviously the same as the
"fathers" Elpaal (ver. 18), Beriah (ver. 16), Shimei (ver. 21),
Shashak (ver. 25), and Jeroham (ver. 27). It may indeed
be objected that in ver. 11 Elpaal precedes Beriah (ver. 13),
whilst in ver. 18 he follows Beriah (ver. 16), and it might
be supposed that this is an indication that ver. 11 is the
original and ver. 17 f. the duplicate. But this change of
order really points us to the explanation of the whole con-
fusion. Some scribe, after copying the list of five " sons "
104 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(vv. 12-14), began the list of their descendants ; but after
he had written "Zebadiah," the name of the first son of
Elpaal, his eye passed to Zebadiah the first son of Beriah.
The sons of Elpaal were thus entirely omitted. They were
therefore written on the margin. Subsequently they were
restored to the text, but (by mistake) before instead of
after Beriah. The writer of another copy, however, inserted
them independently into his copy, and was, somewhat
naturally, misled into placing them immediately after the
mention of Elpaal in ver. 11. Our present text is a con-
flation of the two attempts to remedy the blunder.
It is thus plain that the text has suffered in transmission.
It also appeals that some of the corruptions can by care be
removed. All is now clear from ver. 11 to ver. 27.
Working our way backwards from ver. 11, we ask who
this venerable Hushim is whose posterity is enumerated in
2. Who was Hushim (vv. 8 b-i 1 a) ? — From verses 8 b, 9 a
it is commonly inferred that Hushim was one of two earlier
wives of Shaharaim. The passage as it stands, however,
cannot be construed. It is unsafe, therefore, to draw any
such inference. © BA reads not "wives," but "wife," thus
confining the reference to Baara (better Beriah ? a ). Perhaps
we have a clue to the original reading in the t prefixed
to Baara in © B (i/3aaAa for toja), which may represent
a , (or l) — the last letter of the preceding word, wrongly
connected by the Greek translator with the proper name.
The original text was probably "and his wife [was]
Baara " (xnjn mew). When the final 1 was lost tnjn iriEW
would easily become " and Baara " (Nijn DN1). After this
corruption occurred, "his wives" (Wi) at the end was
perhaps added to make sense.
The only other hint of Hushim's being a " wife " is the o
at the beginning of ver. 11 if it is regarded as a preposition
(E.V. " of"). Some versions, however, make it a part of the
1 PaSaa, the reading of © L , suggests that perhaps we should emend
Baara to the better known form Beriah (cp. vers. 13, 16).
THE GENEALOGY OF BENJAMIN 105
name '. It is better to attach it to the preceding word : for
"fathers. And of Hushiin " read " their fathers. And Hushim "
(D'wni : Dniax for D^noi : ni3N). If this view of the passage
be adopted, all reason for supposing that Hushim was
a " wife " of Shaharaim disappears. Was Shaharaim, then,
perhaps father? If the words preceding "Hushim" could
really be construed as they stand, this would be the most
natural explanation ; but they cannot. It will be best to
begin by asking who Shaharaim himself was.
3. Shaharaim, (vv. 7 b, 8). — His name is, so to speak,
thrust in quite unintroduced at the beginning of ver. 8, as
subject of what has the form of an explanatory clause.
This probably means that either this name or some previous
name (probably the immediately preceding name Ahihud),
is corrupt, or that both are so. The probability that both
are corrupt is strengthened by the fact that neither Ahihud
nor Shaharaim occurs anywhere else. Ahishahar, however,
occurs — not only in Assyrian records, but also in the
Chronicler's earlier Benjamin list (vii. 10). Ahihud and
Shaharaim are, therefore, probably independent corruptions
of a single Ahishahar. — Hud (in) in Ahihud being part of
shahar (-int?) dittographed, and aim in Shahar(aim) belonging
•not to the name but to the following context, being in fact the
conjunction " and" (l) misread as a contraction (•<) and ex-
panded into aim (c). The " and " which we thus get would
then connect " [he] begat " (read T^vi for nhn ... l) in ver. 8 a
with something in the preceding context. For (ver. 7 end)
"and Ahihud. (ver. 8) And Shaharaim begat," accordingly,
we propose to read simply " and Ahishahar. And he begat."
The meaningless expression (ver. 8 a /J) DHN in?B> |D (E.V.
"after he had sent them [whom?] away)," following " begat
in the country of Moab," must therefore contain somehow
the name of the person, son or daughter, born in Moab.
Possibly the original was "Mesha 2 , their sister" (Dnin$ NB^o),
1 © L pvaotip. ; Pesh. Mahiim ; Vulg. Mehusim.
1 For Mesha, cp. ver.9f, and De Vogue, Syrie CentraXe, p. 39, inscription 33a,
line 3, where, moreover, Mesha is feminine — not, as in verse 9, masculine.
106 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
or some equivalent. Verse 8 a thus becomes a parenthesis
(" and he begat in the field of Moab Mesha their sister ") —
if, that is, with © L , we insert "and" before Hushim in
verse 8b and read thus: (ver. 7b) "begat Uzza and
Ahishahar, (ver. 8) [and he begat, in the field of Moab,
Mesha their sister], and Hushim (and his wife was Baara
[or Beriah?])." The sons of Hushim follow in verses
11-27 — after the interpolation of verses 9 and 10 (supposed
sons of Hodesh), which look like a parenthetic passage
(to this we shall return later). All is now comparatively
clear from verse 7 b onwards to verse 27.
4. Verses 6b/3-8a. — We must next work our way back
a stage farther. What are we to make of nbin Kin (E. V. "he
removed them " [who removed whom ?]) which immediately
precedes (in ver. 7 a)? Kautzsch in Die Heilige Schrift gives
up the passage as hopeless. Hopeless it is unless it can
be emended. But perhaps it can. © BA may furnish a clue
when it takes D^jn as a proper name : lyaajj. [B], iy\aaju. [A].
In favour of the word being a proper name is the fact
that it is just as meaningless — taken as a verb — when it
recurs, this time unrecognized as a name by @ BA , in verse
6b. Taken as a verb— as it is taken by the versions,
ancient and modern alike (E. V. " and they removed them ")
— to whom could it refer ? If we take the word as a noun
we are reminded of ey\oja, which in 1 Chron. vi. 69 
@ B represents Aijalon. Here, however, lyXaajj. more probably
points to a form d^J\ Such a name is, no doubt, unknown ;
but the formation is frequent in names of places. The
probability, if it is a proper name, that it began with a , is
increased by the fact that it so occurs in verse 6 b (D[l]^ri).
The next two words in verse 6, " to Manahath " (nroD~7K),
suit the verbal meaning ; but they may have been made to
fit it. If we adopt the proper-name theory we must assume
that they have been changed. Perhaps we could best
explain them as a corruption of some other name, possibly
the Benjamite place-name Alemeth (see chap. vii. 8) — a
corruption resulting from the interpretation of lyXaap as
THE GENEALOGY OF BENJAMIN 107
a verb (which seemed to need a preposition), assisted
perhaps by a conflation of the well-known alternative
forms fiD$>y and nD^y. The "he " (wn) before iy\aafi in verse
7 a can hardly in any case be right. It might be a mis-
correction of an "and " connecting Alemeth (i. e. "to Mana-
hath") with lykaa/j. — an "and" which would naturally
become unintelligible when the three names (Naaman,
Ahiah, Gera) at the beginning of ver. 7, which seem out of
place (to this we shall return), strayed into their present
position. It will now become natural to understand the
parenthetic ver. 8a — "and he begat in the field of Moab
their sister Mesha " — as predicated of this lyAaa/tx.
5. Verse 6b/3. — This hypothetical restoration of the text
of vv. 6b/3, 7a/3 — 8 receives some confirmation when we
now inquire who lyAaajx and Alemeth (?) are. Since ver. 6 ba
(" these are the heads of the fathers of the inhabitants of
Geba") is manifestly a parenthetic note on " sons of Ehud,"
and ver. 7aa ("and Naaman, and Ahiah, and Gera") is, as
we shall soon see, a misplaced repetition, if we simply
transpose the 1 of obs* in ver. 6 b to after the D 1 , and drop
1 (with @ B ) after tyAaaju, in ver. y 2 , we have a well-ordered
progression from ver. 6 onwards: (6a) And these are the
sons of Ehud ... (6 b/3) viz. iy\aan and Alemeth (?)... (7 a/3)
And tyAaajix (7 b) begat Uzza and Ahishahar ... (8 b a) and
Hushim ... (9) And he (?) begat of Hodesh, &c.
6. Verses 9 and 10. — The next question is, Who is Hodesh?
If the answer be, A wife of Ehud, then ver. 9 f. (the considera-
tion of which we have postponed till now) is a parenthesis —
perhaps a marginal gloss — for ver. 11 returns, as we have
seen, to Hushim. But it is at least possible, and the
conjecture is very tempting, that "of Hodesh" (enrap)
is a corruption of " Ahishahar " (inc'ITO) — a corruption that
would easily lead to the interpolation of " his wife " (we>n) —
if that is not mere dittography (the next word is 33V-ns).
1 Reading therefore ritinn o'm for nrrart* di?ji.
a Beading therefore -pVin Dtai for -rtim oton mn .
Io8 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
If this suggestion be entertained we should then continue
the rendering thus : (ver. 9) " And Ahishahar begat Jobab, &c.
(ver. 10 a/3) and Mirma. [(ver. 10 b) These were his sons,
heads of their (see above) fathers' houses], (ver. 11) And
Hushim begat," &c., as above, on to ver. 27. We have thus
a simple scheme running continuously from ver. 6 to ver. 27,
viz. sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Ehud.
7. Ehud. — Our next inquiry must be, what the compiler
has to tell us of this prolific Ehud. Even if we could find
no other trace of him in the list, we should not be surprised
at the Chronicler's making room for him. Is not Ehud the
clan whose real or supposed eponymos delivered Benjamin
from the sway of Moab in the days of Eglon ? The
Chronicler might be expected, however, to find a way of
engrafting him more or less organically into his genealogical
tree. Nor is it difficult to divine how he would do it.
For the eponymos Ehud was a son of Gera, and Gera is
prominently mentioned invv. 1-7. We must see, therefore,
whether it is possible in some way to connect Ehud with
Gera in the present list, and for this purpose we must
endeavour to find our way through the labyrinth of the
opening verses of the chapter. It is not, after all, very
difficult, for Gera himself supplies us with the clue.
8. Opening verses. — Probably the most noticeable pecu-
liarity of the opening verses of the chapter is the recurrence
of the group Naaman-Ahiah-Gera. This suggests that the
names form a well-defined Gera triplet. In seeking to
determine its original position, however, we note another
Gera-clause — Gera-Abihud-Abishua — in vv. 3, 4. This,
which we shall find to be parenthetic, and the following
Gera-group cannot be regarded as in place ; for if we
remove them we find that they have been keeping apart
" Addar " (ver. 3) and " Shephuphan and Huram " (ver. 5),
a group that may plausibly be regarded as equivalent to
a pretty clear triplet in P's Benjamin list in Gen. xlvi. 21.
That list, when critically examined, is found to consist
of three triplets: —
THE GENEALOGY OF BENJAMIN 109
(a) Bela Becher Ashbel.
(6) Gera Naaman Ahiram 1 .
(c) Shupham 2 Hupham 2 Ard 3 .
Of these (a) may at once be recognized in our ver. 1 aba:
"And Benjamin begat Bela his first-born, Ashbel his second."
It is only thinly disguised through the second name, Becher
(or Bichri), being misinterpreted as "his first-born" — an
error which naturally led to the further obscuring of the
original scheme (of triplets) by the interpolation of the
numerals (second to fifth) 4 , (c) is just as clearly to be
recognized in ver. 3 b a Addar (= Ard), ver. 5 a/3 Shephuphan
( = Shupham), and ver. 5 b Huram (= Hupham). It is not
unnatural, accordingly, to surmise that the three remaining
names represent the third triplet (b) ; and there is, in fact,
sufficient resemblance to make this quite plausible. Aharah
(ver. 1 b/8) is almost certainly a corrupt form, and it would
not be easy to find a more likely correction than Ahiram
(rnnN=D"inN), whilst Nohah and Rapha (ver. 2) may, in so
corrupt a context, represent Naaman (or, with ©, Naama)
and Gera (nnu=|Dj»; NBi=N"o). We may conjecture that
they are the reading of an erroneous copy of a defaced MS.,
and that the two other Gera-triplets already detached as
•out of place (viz. vv. 4 a/3 — 5 a a, and 7 a a respectively)
represent a marginal reading, from a better copy, which has
crept into the text at two wrong places. If this restoration
can be accepted, we arrive at the remarkable result that
vv. 1-5 contain nothing but P's three triplets (a), (b), and (c),
and the parenthetic clause Gera-Abihud-Abishua (vv. 3, 4).
The plausibility of this hypothesis is perhaps strengthened
when we compare the Chronicler's list with P's second form
of the Benjamite genealogy (Num. xxvi. 38-40) — if, that
is to say, this list, which is certainly closely related to the
' Or Ahijah. 3 Vocalization doubtful.
* Order of last two consonants doubtful.
4 This interpolation has been carried in the Peshitta right up to ten.
This version has, on the other hand, preserved (or restored) the name
Becher in the second place.
IIO THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Genesis list, can be regarded as dependent on an earlier,
but already corrupt, form of what the Chronicler used:
in (a) Becher has been read "first-born," and therefore
We can now perceive what the parenthetic Gera-clause
(vv. 3b/3, 4 a a) must be: if it is to be taken with the
restored triplet (6), the last and only important name of
which is Gera, it should, according to all analogies, convey
some additional information about Gera — that is to say,
we must read, not " and Gera and Abihud and Abishua,"
but " and Gera was the father of Ehud and the father of
Shua" (jnt? •OKI iinx ■ax 2 x-ui for jntswoNi mrrato N-01). The
natural sequel to this is, of course, vv. 6-27, with their
genealogical tree of descendants of Ehud.
9. Verses 39 and 40. — All that is now needed to complete
the scheme is the descendants of Shua, and we suggest that
these may be found (ver. 39 f.) 3 in the three sons of Eshek
(pety = jnt? : perhaps the real name was i>jnE> [cp. ® B ao-nA,
@ A co-eXe*], the famous Benjamite district of Shual), in which
case the phrase " his brother " in ver. 39 becomes easy and
natural, for it means "brother of Ehud" (referring back
to ver. 3 f.).
10. Verses 28 and 29. — We must now consider the long
passage (viii. 28-38) that separates the trees of the two sons
of Gera, Ehud and Shual. As is well known, this passage
recurs at the end of chap, ix (vv. 34-44), and Ed. Meyer
declares with confidence (Entstehung, p. 161, n. 2) that it has
been copied thence into chap. viii. It is certain that viii. 28 £
have come from ix. 34 f. (ver. 28 [=ix. 34] "These are [the]
heads of families [of the Levites] in their generations, chief
men. These dwelt at Jerusalem"; ver. 29 [=ix. $$\ "And
1 The omission of Becher can, however, be explained also otherwise :
see the article in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.
2 Meyer saw that "and Abihud" should be "is the father of Ehud,"
but went no farther (Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 161, n. 2).
3 That ver. 39 is to be connected immediately with ver. 27 has been
already recognized by Ed. Meyer (loc. cit).
THE GENEALOGY OF BENJAMIN III
at Gibeon dwelt," &c), for the words had to be changed
to suit (?) the new context. In the first of the verses the
phrase "of the Levites" is natural enough, indeed indis-
pensable, in the context of chap. ix. In chap, viii it became
unintelligible, and was therefore simply omitted. Then as
to the second of the verses. According to ix. 2 the Chroni-
cler was giving in chap, ix an enumeration of ;< early " (post-
exilic) inhabitants (owton D»3tWl) "in their cities," viz.
first (ver. 3, beginning ; ver. 34, end) at Jerusalem, and second
elsewhere. In ix. 35 ff., therefore, we should expect
an enumeration of inhabitants of other towns after the
manner of Neh. xi. 25-30, 31-36. If 1 Chr. ix. 35 looks like
the beginning of such a passage — and it does look like it —
it is on the supposition that the text has since become corrupt
and been emended hypothetically in a way determined by
the verses that now follow (it is perhaps hopeless to
attempt a restoration *). With ix. 36 begins a list of a quite
different character — in fact, a genealogy. It will be better,
therefore, instead of studying it as a part of chap, ix, to ask
first whether a natural connexion can be found between it
and the rest of the genealogical chapter (chap. viii).
11. Verses 30-38. — If the nine verses, viii. 30-38, really
belonged to chap, viii, what should we expect to find in
them ? After what we have found in viii. 6-27, 39 f., we can
have little hesitation in replying. Of the two Benjamite clans
known to history, vv. 6-27, 39 f. give us the tree of one,
viz. Gera ; vv. 30-38 must surely be the tree of the other,
1 The context would suit very well a scheme of construction something
like: "And at Gibeon lived the sons (m for n«) of Gibeon (cp. Neh.
vii. 25 = Ezra ii. 20 - 1 Esd. v. i6[l]), and at Ai (now tow ; cp. Neh. vii. 32
©b aK(ia) the men of Ai" (cp. Neh. vii. 32). Mr. S. A. Cook suggests, as
nearer ths present text, "And at Gibeon lived Bichri the father of Gibeon
(and his wife's name was Maacah) ; and the sons of Bichri were, &c."
This is an attractive restoration, and it is favoured by the singular verb
Karyicqotv of @ B <« A )L. It is, however, not without its difficulties. For
such a passage could hardly belong originally to chap. ix. But, as we
have seen, viii. 28 ( = ix. 34) belongs to the scheme of that chapter, and
viii. 29 surely belongs to the same context as viii. 28.
112 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
viz. Becher or Bichri. And examination shows conclusively
that that is precisely what the passage contains — nay, what
it really professes to contain. All that has hitherto pre-
vented this from being discovered is that, by the same
error that introduced so much confusion in the opening
verses of the chapter, some scribe or editor misread the first
two words. For " And his first-born son " read " And the
sons of the Bichrite are " (nann "OSl for ittnn 1321), and at
once the purport of the passage becomes clear. The
plausibility of this emendation and its palaeographical
soundness are obvious. Its probability is raised almost
to certainty by an examination of the list that follows,
which is admirably suited to serve as a tree of the Bichrites.
For the most important feature in the list is the genealogy
of Saul ; and Marquart 1 has made it probable that Saul, like
Sheba, was a Bichrite. Not the least interesting feature of
the present reconstruction of the Benjamite genealogy,
should it in any degree be considered made out, is that it
would furnish another argument for Marquart's contention.
12. History of the passage viii. 28-40. — If this view of
viii. 30-38 (= ix. 36-44) be correct the passage clearly
belongs to chap. viii. It just as clearly does not belong
to chap. ix. The fact that whoever copied it into chap, ix
stopped at the end of viii. 38 (=ix. 44) probably shows
that at that time viii. 39, 40 a (the sons of Eshek [or Shual ?])
had not yet been severed from viii. 6-27 (the sons of his
brother Ehud), viii. 38 no doubt ended, "All these were
the sons of Benjamin " (see ver. 40 @ l ) 2 .
We may conjecturally reconstruct the history of the
passage somewhat thus. Originally viii. 6-27 (descendants
of Ehud, son of Gera) was immediately followed by
1 Fundamente israeMischer undjudischer Geschichte, p. 14.
1 Either Benjamin was changed to "Azel" in ix. 44, as "Benjamin"
there gave no sense (and then the change made its way into the equiva-
lent viii. 38 also), or the change was made in chap, viii — when vv. 39,
40 a (sons of Eshek) were brought down to their present position — to
avoid the duplicate viii. 38 b = viii. 40 b.
THE GENEALOGY OP BENJAMIN II3
viii. 39, 40 a (sons of Ehud's brother), and that in turn
by viii. 30-38 (sons of Gera's brother Be l her, Bichri), the
whole being ended by viii. 38 b (= 40 b © L ). In some
manner, which it is perhaps still possible to determine
(we must postpone to another occasion what we have to
say on the question), ix. 34 f. made its way into chap, viii
(not where it now stands as vv. 28 f., but) immediately
after viii. 40 a (sons of Eshek), and therefore before viii.
30-38 (the Bichrites) 1 . viii. 32b (=ix. 38b "And these
also dwelt with their brethren in Jerusalem over against
them") is perhaps a marginal gloss of some bewildered
reader. Then, in some copy, viii. 39, 40 a was perhaps
accidentally omitted. It would be restored at the foot of
the page or on the margin, and finally inserted, as at present,
in a wrong position — after, instead of before, viii. 30-38
(and viii. 28 f.).
13. Review. — We shall not at present carry the work of
reconstruction any farther. We have endeavoured to restore
to something with a purpose a chapter that seemed a mere
waste of names. It is not likely that all the suggestions
we have made will commend themselves to other students.
They have very various degrees of probability : some are
hardly more plausible than alternative suggestions that
might have been made. These details are of comparatively
slight importance. The main point is, that the chapter
requires somewhat bold treatment. The reconstruction
suggested above may be very far from what a consensus
of opinion will eventually adopt as the nearest approach
we can make to the original form of the chapter. But some
reconstruction, it would seem, there must be.
Merely for the sake of convenience we recapitulate in
tabular form the main points.
1 Of this the copying of viii. 30-38 into chap. ix. (after verse 35) was
either the cause or a natural consequence.
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
PROVISIONAL ANALYSIS OP 1 CHRON. VIII'.
(a) (ver. i) Bela [BECHER] Ashbel
Ahiram (ver. 2) Naaman Gera
(c) (ver. 3) Addar (ver. 5) Shupham Hupham
(ver. 3) EHUD (ver. 4) Shual (?)
(ver. 8) Beriah 2 (?) w.(ver. 6) Iglaam (?) Alemeth (?)
i i i i.
(ver.7)Uzza Ahishahar (ver.8) Mesha(?) Hushim
(ver. 9f.) Jobab, &c. (vers. 1 1-27) Elpaal, &c.
(ver. 39 f.) Ulam, &c.
(vers. 30-38) Abdon, &c.
14. Estimate of results. — It is hardly necessary to say-
that to introduce order into the chapter is one thing, and
to recover documents of historical value is another. There
may be little that is historical in the chapter beyond the
clan-names, Gera, Ehud, Becher, Bela, and part of the
Bichrite tree. On the other hand, the bearing of the
reconstruction on literary questions is obvious and impor-
tant. Our view of this, however, we reserve for the present.
To discuss it here would involve too many other matters.
Hope W. Hogg.
1 Verses 28, 29 interpolated from chap. ix. Verse 3a b a gloss.
2 See note on p. 104.