Skip to main content

Full text of "The Genealogy of Benjamin: A Criticism of 1 Chronicles VIII"

See other formats


STOP 



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 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



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 
contact support@jstor.org. 



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 
treatment. 



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 
verses 11-27. 

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 [54] 
@ 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 
ignored *. 

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. 



VOL. XI. 



H4 



THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 



PROVISIONAL ANALYSIS OP 1 CHRON. VIII'. 
(a) (ver. i) Bela [BECHER] Ashbel 



(jb) 



Ahiram (ver. 2) Naaman Gera 



I 



(c) (ver. 3) Addar (ver. 5) Shupham Hupham 



(ver. 3) EHUD (ver. 4) Shual (?) 

I 

I I 

(ver. 8) Beriah 2 (?) w.(ver. 6) Iglaam (?) Alemeth (?) 

i i i i. 

(ver.7)Uzza Ahishahar (ver.8) Mesha(?) Hushim 

I I 

(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.