ge-ha-ra'-shim (ge'charashim): In 1 Ch 4:14, the King James Version renders "valley of Charashim." In Neh 11:35, English Versions of the Bible renders "valley of craftsmen"; here it is named with Lod and Ono. Something of the name perhaps survives in Khirbet Hirsa, East of Lydda.
ge'-ba (gebha`, "hill"):
(1) A town on the Northeast boundary of the territory of Benjamin (Josh 18:24), given to the Levites (Josh 21:17; 1 Ch 6:60). It stood on the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah, Geba and Beersheba marking respectively the northern and southern limits (2 Ki 23:8). In 2 Sam 5:25 "Geba" should be altered to "Gibeon," which stands in the corresponding passage, 1 Ch 14:16. In Jdg 20:10,33; 1 Sam 13:3,16, the Hebrew reads "Geba," the translation "Gibeah" being due to confusion of the two names. From 1 Sam 14:5 we gather that Geba stood to the South of the great gorge, Wady Suweinit, commanding the pass at Michmash. This was the scene of Jonathan's daring enterprise against the Philistines, when, accompanied by his armor-bearer, he accomplished an apparently impossible feat, climbing the rocky steeps of the gorge to the North and putting the enemy to flight. There can be no doubt that the modern village of Jeba` occupies the ancient site. It stands to the South of Wady Suweinit, looking toward Michmash--modern Mukhmas--with Seneh, the crag on the southern lip of the gorge, in front of it. The distance from Jerusalem is about 6 miles. It was fortified by Asa with materials that his enemy Baasha had used to fortify Ramah against him (1 Ki 15:22). It is named by Isaiah in his description of the terrifying march of the Assyrians upon Jerusalem from the North (10:28 ff). It appears among the cities which were reoccupied by Israel after the Exile (Ezr 2:26, etc.; Neh 11:31).
(2) (Gaibai): Between a fortress so named and Scythopolis (Beisan), Holofernes pitched his camp (Judith 3:10). On the high road that runs through Jenin, and down the Vale of Jezreel to Beisan, about 2 miles to the South of Sanur, stands the village of Jeba`, with which this fortress may be identified.
W. Ewing
ge'-bal (gebhal, "border"; Bublos, and Biblos; Byblus, modern Jebeil):
(1) An ancient Phoenician city, situated on a bluff of the foothills of Lebanon, overlooking the Mediterranean. It was one of the principal seaports of Phoenicia, and had a small but good harbor for small ships. It lies in lat. 34 degrees 8', nearly, and about 4 miles North of the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim). It was regarded as a holy city by the ancients. Philo mentions the tradition that it was founded by Kronos, and was sacred to the worship of Beltis and, later, of Adonis, whose rites were celebrated yearly at the river of the same name and at its source in the mountain, at Apheca (See TAMMUZ ). Gebal was the center of quite an extensive district, extending from the Eleutherus on the North to the Tamyras on the South, a distance of 60 or 70 miles along the coast. It is mentioned by Josh (13:5) as the land of the Gebalites (which see) (the King James Version "Giblites"), and the Gebalites are also mentioned in 1 Ki 5:18 (Hebrew 32) as aiding in the construction of Solomon's temple. The "elders" and the "wise men" of Gebal are among the workmen employed on Tyrian ships (Ezek 27:9 the American Revised Version, margin). The earliest mention of Gebal found in history is in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, which were composed in the first half of the 14th century BC. It had become, in connection with all Phoenicia, a dependency of Egypt in the days of Thothmes III and was under Egyptian governors, but, in the reign of Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton), the Hittites and Amorites from the North and Khabiri from the South attacked the territory of Gebal, and its governor wrote letters to Amenhotep, calling for help. There are over 60 of these, describing the desperate condition of the city and of its governor, Ribaddi, who was expelled and took refuge in Beirut, but afterward regained his capital only to be besieged and lose all his dependencies, and finally to fall into the hands of the enemy. Gebal afterward became independent, as is shown by the records of Ramses IX (1442-1423 BC) and of Ramses XII, for its king retained the emissaries of the former 17 years in captivity, and treated a trusted agent of the latter with scant civility. Its king at this time was Zakkar-Baal, and kings of Gebal are mentioned in the Assyrian records, one paying tribute to Ashurnazir-pal (circa 887 BC) and another to Sennacherib (705-680). The latter king was Uru-melek, and kings of Gebal are mentioned in connection with other Phoenician cities under Persian rule. The city submitted to Alexander the Great without opposition, and furnished a fleet to aid him in the siege of Tyre (332). Strabo refers to it as a town of note in the days of Pompey (xvi.2,17), and it is frequently mentioned in Phoenician (CIS, 1) and Assyrian inscriptions in the forms Gubal and Gubli (COT, I, 174).
(2) (gebhal; Gobolitis): A district Southeast of the Dead Sea, which is referred to in Ps 83:7 (Hebrew 8) in connection with Moab, Ammon, Amalek and others, as making a covenant together against Israel (compare 1 Macc 5). Robinson (BR, II, 154) found the name Jebal still applied to this region, and Josephus (Ant., II, i, 2) speaks of a Gebalitis as forming part of Idumaea. It is a hilly region, as the modern name signifies, and includes the towns of Shobek and Tolfieh.
H. Porter
ge'-bal-its (ha-gibhlim): Inhabitants of GEBAL (which see). According to the present text of Josh 13:5, "the land of the Gebalites" was given to Israel as part of its future territory. But it was never occupied by the Israelites. Septuagint, however, has a very different reading, indicating an early corruption of the text. Perhaps with many modern scholars it is better to read "to the borders of the Gebalites."
In 1 Ki 5:18 the King James Version translates this word "stone-squarers," the King James Version margin gives "Giblites," and the Revised Version (British and American) "Gebalites," as workmen who, with the men of Solomon and of Hiram, fashioned the stones for the temple. Here also the text is doubtful, and some by a slight change would read: "and made a border for them" (i.e. for the stones). In Ezek 27:9 the men of Gebal are described as the "calkers" of the ships of Tyre and Sidon.
George Rice Hovey
ge'-ber (gebher, "man," "strong one"):
(1) According to 1 Ki 4:13 the King James Version the father of one of the 12 officers who provided food for Solomon and his household (but here the Revised Version (British and American) "Ben-geber"). His district lay to the Northeast of Jordan.
(2) Another, and the last in the list of Solomon's commissariat officers (1 Ki 4:19). His district was also East of the Jordan, but probably to the South of that named in connection with the official of 4:13 (the Revised Version (British and American) "Ben-geber"). According to the rendering of English Versions of the Bible, he is said to have been "the only officer that was in the land." Unless the text, which presents some difficulties, is corrupt, as some suppose, it probably means that this large region was assigned to one official because less able than the others to furnish the required supplies.
Benjamin Reno Downer
ge'-bim (gebhim, "trenches"): A place named only in Isa 10:31. Some would place it at Jebia, identifying it with the Geba of Eusebius, 5 Roman miles from Gophna (modern Jifneh), on the way to Shechem. Its place, however, in the order of names, after Anathoth, seems to point to some position South of that village, to the Northeast of Jerusalem.
gek'-o (the Revised Version (British and American) for 'anaqah, only in Lev 11:30; Septuagint mugale, "shrew mouse" or "field mouse"; the King James Version ferret): Probably a shrew or a field mouse.
ged-a-li'-a (gedhalyah; except in 1 Ch 25:3,9 and Jer 38:1, where it is gedhalyahu, "Yah(u) is great"):
(1) Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam (the friend and protector of Jeremiah) and grandson of Shaphan (the scribe in the reign of Josiah) (2 Ki 25:22-25; Jer 39:14; 40:5-16; 41:1-18).
1. His Appointment as Governor in Judah:
After the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away captive of the Jews to Babylon (586 BC), Gedaliah was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar governor over the poor Jews who had been left in the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen (2 Ki 25:12,22). To his charge were committed also some royal princesses (Jer 43:6) and courtiers (Jer 41:16) who had been allowed to remain as unlikely to cause any trouble. Gedaliah fixed his residence at Mizpah, a few miles Northwest of Jerusalem. Here he was joined by Jeremiah (40:6).
2. His Conciliatory Spirit and Wise Rule:
The Jewish soldiers who had escaped capture, having heard that the Chaldeans had departed, and that Gedaliah, one of their own nation, had been appointed governor in Judah, came with Ishmael, Johanan and other officers at their head, to Gedaliah at Mizpah (2 Ki 25:23,14; Jer 40:7-10). The governor assured them that they need have no fear of vengeance from their conquerors, and promised them on oath protection and security, if they would remain and cultivate the land and become the peaceful subjects of the king of Babylon. This assurance led to a general gathering around Gedaliah of refugees from all the neighboring countries (Jer 40:11,12). For two months (some think longer) Gedaliah's beneficent and wise rule did much to consolidate affairs in Judah and to inspire the feeble remnant of his countrymen with heart and hope.
3. His Treacherous Assassination:
But evil spirits were at work against him. Baalis, king of Ammon, had determined upon his life (Jer 40:13-16). The peaceful and popular rule which was being established by the good governor stood in the way of the accomplishment of any plan of conquest he entertained. Baalis found a ready instrument for his murderous design in Ishmael who, as one of royal birth and in the counsels of the king (Jer 41:1), was doubtless jealous of the man who had been chosen governor in preference to himself. Gedaliah was informed by Johanan and the other captains of the plot to assassinate him, and Johanan at a private interview expressed to him a strong desire to go himself and slay Ishmael secretly, declaring that the safety of the Jews depended upon the life of the governor. But Gedaliah refused to allow Johanan to anticipate his enemy, believing, in the generosity of his heart, that Ishmael was not capable of such an act of treachery. He soon found, however, that his confidence had been sadly misplaced. Ishmael, with ten of his companions, came on a visit to him to Mizpah, and after they had been hospitably entertained they fell upon their good host and murdered him, along with all the Jewish and the Chaldean soldiers whom he had with him for order and protection (2 Ki 25:25; Jer 41:1-3). They then cast the bodies of their victims into the cistern which Asa had made (Jer 41:9). Ishmael was pursued and overtaken by Johanan, but he succeeded in effecting his escape to the Ammonites (Jer 41:11-15). Then Johanan and the other captains, afraid lest the Chaldeans should avenge upon them the murder of the governor (Jer 41:16-18), and against the earnest entreaties of Jeremiah (chapter 42), fled to Egypt, taking the prophet and the Jewish remnant with them (43:5-7). In memory of the date of Gedaliah's assassination the Jews kept a fast (which is still retained in the Jewish calendar) on the 3rd day of the 7th month, Tishri (Zec 7:5; 8:19).
The narratives reveal Gedaliah in a very attractive light, as one who possessed the confidence alike of his own people and their conquerors; a man of rare wisdom and tact, and of upright, transparent character, whose kindly nature and generous disposition would not allow him to think evil of a brother; a man altogether worthy of the esteem in which he was held by succeeding generations of his fellow-countrymen.
(2) (gedhalyahu): Son of Jeduthun, and instrumental leader of the 2nd of the 24 choirs in the Levitical orchestra (1 Ch 25:3,1).
(3) A priest of the "sons of Jeshua," in the time of Ezra, who had married a foreign woman (Ezr 10:18).
(4) (gedhalyahu): Son of Pashhur (who beat Jeremiah and put him in the stocks, Jer 20:1-6), and one of the chiefs of Jerusalem who, with the sanction of the king, Zedekiah, took Jeremiah and let him down with cords into a cistern where he sank in the mud (38:1,4-6).
(5) Grandfather of Zephaniah the prophet, and grandson of Hezekiah, probably the king (Zeph 1:1).
James Crichton
ged'-ur (Geddour): Head of a family of temple-servants (1 Esdras 5:30), corresponding to Gahar of Ezr 2:47 and Neh 7:49.
ged'-e-on (Heb 11:32 the King James Version).
See GIDEON .
ge'-der (gedher): A royal city of the Canaanites taken by Joshua along with Lachish, Eglon, Gezer, Debir and Hormah (Josh 12:13 f). It may be the city called "Beth-gader" in 1 Ch 2:51, and the birthplace of Baal-hanan, who had charge of David's olives and sycamores (27:28); unidentified.
ge-de'-ra, ge-de'-ra-thit (ha-gedherah, "the enclosed place"): A town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Socoh, Azekah, Shaaraim and Adithaim (Josh 15:36). In 1 Ch 4:23 the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah," for the King James Version, "those that dwelt among plants and hedges." It is probably represented by Khirbet Jadireh, about 3 miles Southwest of Gezer. "Gederathite," applied to Jozabad (1 Ch 12:4), probably meant an inhabitant of this place.
ge'-der-it, ge-de'-rit (gedheri): Inhabitant of GEDER, which see (1 Ch 27:28).
ged'-e-roth, ge-de'-roth (gedheroth): A town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Kithlish, Beth-dagon, Naamah and Makkedah (Josh 15:41). It is mentioned along with Bethshemesh and Aijalon as taken by the Philistines in the reign of Ahaz (2 Ch 28:18). It possibly corresponds with the "Kidron" of 1 Macc 15:39,41; 16:9. Eusebius, Onomasticon places a very large village named Gedrom 10 Roman miles from Lydda on the road to Eleutheropolis. This points to Katrah, Southeast of Yebnah.
ged-e-ro-tha'-im (gedherathayim, "place of enclosures"): Stands as the 15th in a list which professes to give only the names of 14 cities in the Judean Shephelah (Josh 15:36). the King James Version margin suggests that we might read "or" for "and" after Gederah, but this is impossible. Septuagint reads, "and its cattle shelters." Probably, however, the name has arisen by dittography from the preceding GEDERAH (which see).
ge'-dor (gedhor; Codex Vaticanus, Geddor, Codex Alexandrinus, Gedor):
(1) A town in the mountains of Judah, named with Halhul and Beth-zur (Josh 15:58). It seems to be referred to by Eusebius as Gadeira (Onomasticon, under the word), which he identifies with Gaidora (Jerome calls it Gadora), a village in the borders of Jerusalem, near the terebinth. It is probably represented today by Khirbet Jedur, about 7 miles North of Hebron (PEF, III, 313, Sh XXI).
(2) Among the Benjamites who joined David at Ziklag were the sons of Jeroham of Gedor (1 Ch 12:7). No trace of this name is found in the territory of Benjamin. It may be identical with (1).
(3) The Simeonites are said to have gone to the entering in of Gedor in search of pasture for their flocks. They smote and expelled the Meunim, "and dwelt in their stead" (1 Ch 4:39 ff). Here the Septuagint reads Gerar, and this is probably correct.
(4) A family in Judah (1 Ch 4:4).
(5) An ancestor of Saul (1 Ch 8:31).
W. Ewing
ge-ha'-zi (gechazi, except in 2 Ki 4:31; 5:25; 8:4,5, where it is gechazi, perhaps "valley of vision"): The confidential servant of Elisha. Various words are used to denote his relation to his master. He is generally called Elisha's "boy" (na`ar), servant or personal attendant; he calls himself (5:25) his master's servant or slave (`ebhedh), and if the reference be to him in 4:43 the Revised Version, margin, he receives the designation "minister" (meshareth), or chief servant of Elisha.
Mention is made of him on three different occasions. He is first brought under notice in the story of the wealthy Shunammite (2 Ki 4:8-37) who provided in her house special accommodation for Elisha, which suited his simple tastes, and of which he availed himself as often as he passed that way. By command of his master, Gehazi called the Shunammite, that she might be rewarded by the prophet for her liberal hospitality. Failing to elicit from the lady a desire for any particular favor, and being himself at a loss to know how to repay her kindness, Elisha consulted with his servant, whose quick perception enabled him to indicate to his master the gift that would satisfy the great woman's heart. When on the death of her child the Shunammite sought out the man of God at Carmel, and in the intensity of her grief laid hold of the prophet's feet, "Gehazi came near to thrust her away" (2 Ki 4:27)--perhaps not so much from want of sympathy with the woman as from a desire to protect his master from what he considered a rude importunity. Then Elisha, who had discovered of himself (2 Ki 4:27), from what the woman had said (2 Ki 4:28), the cause of her sorrow, directed Gehazi, as a preliminary measure, to go at once to Shunem and lay his staff upon the face of the dead child. Gehazi did so, but the child was "not awaked."
In this narrative Gehazi appears in a favorable light, as a willing, efficient servant, jealous of his master's honor; a man of quick observation, whose advice was worth asking in practical affairs.
Gehazi, however, reveals himself in a different character in connection with the healing of Naaman (2 Ki 5:20-27). As soon as the Syrian general had taken his departure with his retinue from the house of Elisha, the covetous spirit of Gehazi, which had been awakened by the sight of the costly presents the prophet had refused, was no longer able to restrain itself. Running after Naaman, Gehazi begged in the prophet's name a talent of silver (400 pounds = $2,000) and two changes of raiment, alleging, as a specious reason for Elisha's change of mind, the arrival at his master's house of two poor scholars of the prophet, who would require help and maintenance. Naaman, glad to have the opportunity he desired of showing his gratitude to Elisha, urged Gehazi to take two talents and sent two servants with him to carry the money and the garments. When they came to the hill in the neighborhood of the prophet's house, Gehazi dismissed the men and concealed the treasure. Thereafter, with a bold front, as if he had been attending to his ordinary duties, he appeared before his master who at once inquired, "Whence, Gehazi?" (Hebrew). On receiving the ready answer that he had not been anywhere, Elisha, who felt sure that the suspicion he entertained regarding his beloved servant, his very "heart" (2 Ki 5:26), was well grounded, sternly rebuked him for the dishonor he had brought upon God's cause, and called down upon him and his family forever the loathsome disease of the man whose treasures he had obtained by his shameful lie. "And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow."
By this narrative confidence in Gehazi is somewhat unexpectedly and rudely shaken. The active, zealous servant stands confessed a liar and a thief. Gehazi's sin branched out in different directions. By his falsehood he deceived Naaman and misrepresented Elisha; he not only told a lie, but told a lie about another man, and that man his master and friend. Further, he brought true religion into disrepute; for it was not a time (2 Ki 5:26) for a servant of God to allow any commercial idea to be associated with the prophet's work in the mind of the Syrian general to whom God's power had been so strikingly manifested and when many for worldly gain pretended to be prophets. But while Gehazi's sin had ats various ramifications, its one root was covetousness, "the love of money (which) is a root of all kinds of evil" (1 Tim 6:10).
Once more Gehazi is mentioned (2 Ki 8:1-6) as having been summoned, leper though he was, by King Jehoram to give him an account of all the great things Elisha had done. And when he came to the story of the restoration of the Shunammite's child to life, the woman herself appeared before the king along with her son, craving to be reinstated in her house and land of which she had been dispossessed during her seven years' absence from her native country in a time of famine. Gehazi testified to the identity of both mother and son, with the result that the king at once ordered the restoration not only of all her former possessions, but also of all the profits her land had yielded during her sojourn in Philistia.
The appearance and conduct of Gehazi on this occasion give some ground for the hope that he had repented of his sin and could now be trusted to speak the truth; and the pleasure he seemed to take in rehearsing the wonderful deeds of a master who, though kind and indulgent to a stranger, was hard upon him, may even warrant the belief that in his earlier days there was some good thing in him toward his master's God. If also, as has been indicated above, the word used in 2 Ki 4:43 (meshareth) applies to him--the same as is applied to Elisha (1 Ki 19:21)--we may be the more readily inclined to see in the history of Gehazi how one besetting sin may prevent a man from taking his natural place in the succession of God's prophets. Let us hope, however, that though Gehazi became a "lost leader," "just for a handful of silver," he was yet saved by a true repentance from becoming a lost soul.
James Crichton
ga-hen'-a (geenna (see Grimm-Thayer, under the word)): Gehenna is a transliteration from the Aramaic form of the Hebrew ge-hinnom, "valley of Hinnom." This latter form, however, is rare in the Old Testament, the prevailing name being "the valley of the son of Hinnom." Septuagint usually translates; where it transliterates the form is different from Gehenna and varies. In the New Testament the correct form is Gee'nna with the accent on the penult, not Ge'enna. There is no reason to assume that Hinnom is other than a plain patronymic, although it has been proposed to find in it the corruption of the name of an idol (EB, II, 2071). In the New Testament (King James Version margin) Gehenna occurs in Mt 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mk 9:43,15,47; Lk 12:5; Jas 3:6. In all of these it designates the place of eternal punishment of the wicked, generally in connection with the final judgment. It is associated with fire as the source of torment. Both body and soul are cast into it. This is not to be explained on the principle that the New Testament speaks metaphorically of the state after death in terms of the body; it presupposes the resurrection. In the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Gehenna is rendered by "hell" (See ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ). That "the valley of Hinnom" became the technical designation for the place of final punishment was due to two causes. In the first place the valley had been the seat of the idolatrous worship of Molech, to whom children were immolated by fire (2 Ch 28:3; 33:6). Secondly, on account of these practices the place was defiled by King Josiah (2 Ki 23:10), and became in consequence associated in prophecy with the judgment to be visited upon the people (Jer 7:32). The fact, also, that the city's offal was collected there may have helped to render the name synonymous with extreme defilement. Topographically the identification of the valley of Hinnom is still uncertain. It has been in turn identified with the depression on the western and southern side of Jerusalem, with the middle valley, and with the valley to the E. Compare EB ,II , 2071;DCG , I, 636; RE 3,VI .
Geerhardus Vos
ge-li'-loth (geliloth): This word is used for "districts" or "circuits" perhaps indicating the different parts subject to the several lords of the Philistines (Josh 13:2, the King James Version "borders," the Revised Version (British and American) "regions"); for the quarter of the Jordan valley where the eastern tribes built the altar of Ed (Josh 22:10 f; the King James Version "border of," the Revised Version (British and American) "region about," Jordan); and apparently, for the whole of Philistia (Joel 3:4, the King James Version "coasts of Palestine," the Revised Version (British and American) "regions of Philistia"). But in Josh 18:17, it is clearly used as a place-name. Geliloth lay on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin which passed En-shemesh (probably `Ain el-Chod, about 2 miles East of Jerusalem), "and went out to Geliloth, which is over against the ascent of Adummim." From this point it "went down" toward the plain. The place cannot therefore be identified with Gilgal in the Jordan valley. Some point on the road leading from Jericho to Tal`at ed-Dumm, about 6 miles from Jerusalem, was probably intended, but no identification is possible.
W. Ewing
jem (Prov 26:8, the English Revised Version "a bag of gems,").
ge-mal'-i (gemalli, "camel owner"): Father of the spy Ammiel from the tribe of Dan (Nu 13:12), who was one of those sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan.
ge-ma'-ra.
See TALMUD .
gem-a-ri'-a (gemaryahu, gemaryah, "Yahweh hath accomplished"):
(1) Son of Shaphan the scribe, one of the princes, from whose chamber Baruch read Jeremiah's prophecies to the people. He, with others, sought to stay Jehoiakim from burning the roll (Jer 36:10,11,12,25).
(2) Son of Hilkiah, one of Zedekiah's ambassadors to Babylon, by whom Jeremiah sent his letter to the captives (Jer 29:3).
ge-ma'-tri-a.
jen'-der (yaladh, `abhar; gennao): "Gender" is an abbreviation of "engender." In Job 38:29 yaladh (common for "to bear," "to bring forth") is translated "gender" (after Wycliff), the Revised Version (British and American) "The hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" margin "given it birth." In 21:10 we have `abhar (either the Piel of `abhar, "to pass over," etc., or of a separate word meaning "to bear," "to be fruitful"), translated "gendereth," "Their bull gendereth, and faileth not"; in Lev 19:19, rabha', "to lie down with," is used of cattle gendering. In Gal 4:24 the King James Version we have "Mount Sinai, which gendereth (gennoa, "to beget") to bondage," the Revised Version (British and American) "bearing children unto bondage" (like Hagar, Abraham's bondwoman), and in 2 Tim 2:23, which "gender strifes," i.e. beget them.
W. L. Walker
GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE
2. Nature and Importance of the Issue
II. THE GENEALOGIES SEPARATELY
1. Peculiarities of Matthew's Genealogy
2. Explanation of the Foregoing
3. Peculiarities of Luke's Genealogy
4. Explanation of the Foregoing
IV. THE GENEALOGIES AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH
LITERATURE
The genealogy of Jesus as contained in the First and Third Gospels presents three special problems which lie somewhat part from general questions of New Testament criticism: (1) the construction and purpose of each list taken separately; (2) the relation of the two lists, in their coincidences and variations, to each other; (3) the relationship of both lists to the statement concerning the virgin birth of our Lord with which they are directly connected. These questions necessarily involve the conclusion to be arrived at concerning the trustworthiness of the list of names as forming an actual historical connection between Jesus and His ancestors according to the flesh.
2. Nature and Importance of the Issue:
Before these problems are dealt with, it would be well to consider the kind and degree of importance to be attached to the question at issue. As we see it, the only vital point at stake is the balance, sanity and good judgment of the evangelists.
(1) That Jesus had a line of ancestors by His human birth may be taken for granted. The tradition, universal from the earliest times among believers and granted even by the bitterest opponents, that He was connected with the line of David, may also readily be accepted. The exact line through which that connection is traced is, on general principles, of secondary importance. The fact is that, while natural sonship to David on the part of the Messiah was of vital importance to many Jewish inquirers, it failed of any very enthusiastic endorsement on the part of Jesus Himself (see the truly remarkable interview recorded in Mk 12:35-37). The expressions of Paul in this connection will be referred to later; at this point it is sufficient to say that physical kinship to David cannot be insisted upon as the only justification for his words.
(2) If, then, the purpose of the evangelists in having recourse to these lists is worth while, the question of their correctness need not even be raised. Unless some vital issue is involved, the supposition of a special inspiration to go behind lists currently accepted is gratuitous. No such issue seems to be presented here. The Davidic kinship of Jesus, in any sense essential to His Messiahship, is independent of the lists which are used to justify it. This is preliminary to the actual discussion and need not prevent us from giving all due credit to lists which could not have been carelessly compiled nor lightly used.
II. The Genealogies Separately.
1. Peculiarities of Matthew's Genealogy:
(1) The construction and incorporation of Joseph's genealogical tree is, in the light of all the facts, the primary consideration.
(2) The artificial division into three groups of fourteen generations each. The apparent defect in this arrangement as it actually stands (the third group lacks one member) is probably traceable to a defect of the Septuagint version of 1 Ch 3:11, which is reproduced in the Greek gospel (see Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, English translation, 564, note 4). This arrangement into groups is the more striking because it makes 14 generations from the captivity to Joseph, where Luke makes 20 or 21, and because the first group of 14 is formed by the omission of three names. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that this artificial grouping is essential to the purpose of the evangelist.
(3) The insertion of the names of brothers, thus following the historical lists and broadening the genealogy by including collateral lines.
(4) The insertion of the names of women--a practice not only foreign but abhorrent to ordinary usage. This peculiarity is the more marked when we notice that these names introduce what would be considered serious blots in the family history of the Davidic house (See Mt 1:5,7).
(5) The principle upon which the division into periods is constructed: (a) from Abraham to David, (b) from David to the Captivity, (c) from the Captivity to Jesus. Attention has repeatedly been called to the fact that this gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy. It involves the origin, the rise to power, the decay and downfall of the house of David (see Allen, ICC , "Matthew," 2; compare Zahn, N_T , English translation, I, 535).
2. Explanation of the Foregoing:
Of the many theories which have been constructed to explain the foregoing six peculiarities of the genealogy of Matthew, altogether the most satisfactory is that of Professor Zahn. His contention is that the list was framed not to prove the natural connection of Jesus with the house of David--a fact which no one doubted--but to defend the one vital point where attack had been made, namely, the legitimacy of Jesus' connection with David. No one seems to have questioned that Jesus was born of Mary and was closely connected with the royal house. The question was whether He was of legitimate birth. It was charged--and the slander which was very early in origin and circumstantial in character obtained an extraordinary hold upon the hostile Jewish mind--that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Mary. The Gospel of Mt meets that slander by giving a bird's-eye view of the movement of the history from Abraham to the Messiah in the form of a genealogy of Joseph, who in the light of all the facts concerning the origin of Jesus marries Mary and gives her the protection of his stainless name and royal lineage. The extraordinary boldness and brilliancy of this apologetic method ought not to be overlooked. The formal charge that Jesus is son of Mary, not of Joseph, is admitted--the slander involved is refuted by bringing Joseph forward as a witness for Mary. Nothing could have been more natural for a man fearless in the confidence of truth; nothing could have been more impossible for one insecure in his hold upon the facts. So far as the genealogy is concerned, just the moment we realize that the purpose is not to prove the natural sonship of Jesus to David, but to epitomize the history, all hesitancy and apprehension concerning the historicity of the successive names disappear. The continuity of blood relationship through these successive generations becomes of no essential importance. Zahn's explanation (the argument in full should be read by every student), simple in itself, explains all the facts, as a key fits a complicated lock. It explains the choice of a genealogy as a method of epitomizing history and that genealogy Joseph's, the artificial grouping at the expense of changing the traditional lists, the inclusion of the names of brothers and of women.
3. Peculiarities of Luke's Genealogy:
(1) The choice of Joseph's genealogical tree on the part of one who is so deeply interested in Mary.
(2) The reversal of order in going back from Joseph to his ancestors. Godet emphasizes the fact that, in the nature of the case, a genealogy follows the order of succession, each new individual being added to the roll of his family. Luke's method indicates that his genealogy has been constructed for a special purpose.
(3) The carrying of the line back of the history of the covenant, which begins with Abraham, to Adam, who represents the race in general. This fact, together with another, that the line of Joseph is traced to David through Nathan who was not David's heir, proves that Luke was not concerned with establishing the Davidic standing of Jesus.
(4) The placing of the genealogy, not at the beginning of the Gospel, but at the beginning of the ministry, between the baptism and the temptation.
(5) The omission of the article before the name of Joseph.
4. Explanation of the Foregoing:
(1) In his comment upon the fourth peculiarity enumerated above, namely, the placing of the genealogy at the beginning of the ministry, Godet (Gospel of Luke, American edition, 126) has this to say: "In crossing the threshold of this new era, the sacred historian casts a general glance over the period which thus reaches its close, and sums it up in this document, which might be called the mortuary register of the earlier humanity." In other words, in connecting the genealogy directly with the ministry, Luke exhibits the fact that his interest in it is historical rather than antiquarian or, so to say, genealogical. As Matthew summarizes the history of the covenant people from the days of Abraham by means of the genealogical register, modified so as to make it graphic by its uniformity, so Luke has written the story of the humanity Jesus, as the Second Adam, came to save, by the register of names summarizing its entire course in the world.
It has recently been commented upon that genealogical lists such as those of Genesis and the New Testament are not infrequently used to convey ideas not strictly germane to the matter of descent or the cognate notion of chronology. For example, the statements as to the longevity of the patriarchs are of historical interest only--they are not and could never have been of value for chronological purposes (see Warfield, "Antiquity and Unity of Human Race," Princeton Review, February, 1911).
(2) In commenting upon the order which Luke adopts, Godet (who has thrown more light upon this portion of the Gospel than anyone else) says: "The ascending form of genealogy can only be that of a private instrument, drawn up from the public document with a view to the particular individual whose name serves as the starting-point of the whole list" (127).
(3) From the fact that the name of Joseph is introduced without an article Godet draws three conclusions: (a) that this name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke; (b) that the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli; (c) and consequently, that this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli (ibid., 128).
(4) (a) The importance of these considerations is twofold. In the first place it indicates that Luke is bringing together two separate documents, one of which contained a statement of the foster-fatherhood of Joseph, while the other contained the genealogy of Heli, between whom and Joseph there existed a relationship which made Luke desirous of connecting them. (b) In addition, the absence of the article serves to call attention to something exceptional in the relationship of Joseph to the rest of this ancestral line which is brought into connection with his name. To this point we shall recur later. We have an explanation for all the suggested problems except one, and that one, in a sense, the most difficult of all, namely, the choice of Joseph's genealogy.
III. The Genealogies Compared.
In order, however, to discuss this question intelligently, we must enter upon the second stage of our inquiry--as to the relationship between the two lists.
(1) The most notable fact here is of course the wideness of the divergence together with the contrasted and unintelligible fact of minute correspondence. Between Abraham and David the two lists agree. Between David and Joseph there is evident correspondence in two (See Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27), and possible correspondence in four names (that is, if Abiud (Mt 1:13)) and Judah (Lk 3:30) are the same). This initial and greatest difficulty is of material assistance to us because it makes one conclusion certain beyond peradventure. The two lists are not divergent attempts to perform the same task. Whatever difficulties may remain, this difficulty is eliminated at the outset. It is impossible that among a people given to genealogies two lists purporting to give the ancestry of a man in the same line could diverge so widely. There is, therefore, a difference between these lists which includes the purpose for which they were compiled and the meaning which they were intended to convey.
(2) Two of the most striking points in the lists as they stand may be brought into connection and made to explain each other. The two lists coincide in the names of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel--they differ as to the name of Joseph's father, who is Jacob according to Matthew and Heli according to Luke. As to the second of these two important items this much is clear. Either these two lists are in violent contradiction, or else Joseph was in some sense son of both Jacob and Heli. Now, in connection with this seeming impossibility, turn to the other item. The names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel belong to the captivity. Their being common to both lists is easily explained by the fact that during that troubled period a number of collateral family branches might be narrowed down to one or two common representatives (see Zahn, op. cit., 535). In the New Testament genealogies Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel--according to 1 Ch 3:19 he is the nephew of Shealtiel and the son of Pedaiah. He is, therefore, at one and the same time heir and, legally, son of two men and would appear as such on two collateral lists.
Shealtiel himself appears in Mt (1:12) as the son of Jechoniah and in Lk (3:27) as the son of Neri. In 1 Ch 3:17 he appears as son of Jechoniah. The name of Neri is peculiar to Lk, so that we cannot check his use of it and discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. His appearance in two lists with a double reference of parentage is not surprising in view of what we have already seen. Besides this, a reasonable explanation at once appears. In Jer 36:30 it is asserted that Jehoiakim should have "none to sit upon the throne of David," and of his son (Jehoiachin, Jechoniah, Coniah) it is said (Jer 22:30), "Write ye this man childless," etc. It has been rightly pointed out (See HDB , II 557) that this means simply legal proscription, not actual childlessness. It suggests, however, that it might be thought necessary to provide in the genealogy an heir not of their blood for the two disgraced and proscribed members of the royal house, In view of these facts the contradictory references as to Joseph's parentage present no difficulty.
Joseph may easily have been and undoubtedly was, legally, son and heir of both Jacob and Heli. Godet's objection to this is based upon the supposition that Heli and Jacob were brothers, which leaves the divergence beyond these two names unexplained. It is evident, however, that the kinship between Jacob and Heli might have been more distant than this supposition calls for.
(3) When we come to explain how it happened that Joseph was connected with both these lines and that Matthew chose one list and Luke the other we are necessarily shut up to conjecture. There is one supposition, however, which is worthy of very careful consideration because it solves so many and such difficult problems. The authorities have been divided as to whether Luke's genealogy is Joseph's, as appears, or Mary's. Godet makes a strong showing for the latter, and, after all has been said per contra, some of his representations remain unshaken (compare Godet and Plummer sub loc.). Most of the difficulties are removed at one stroke, and the known facts harmonized, by the simple supposition that Luke has given us the meeting-point of the lineage both of Joseph and Mary who are akin. This explains the apparent choice of Joseph's list; the peculiar position of his name in that list; the reversal of the order; the coincidences and discrepancies with reference to Matthew's; the early tradition of Mary's Davidic origin; the strange reference in the Talmud (Chaghigha' 77 4) to Mary as the daughter of Heli; the visit of Mary with Joseph to Bethlehem at the time of the registration; the traditional discrepancy of ages between Joseph and Mary, such that (apparently) Joseph disappears from the scene before Jesus reaches maturity. Against this nothing of real weight can be urged (the kinship with Elisabeth is not such: see Edersheim,LTJM , I, 149) except that it is too simple and too felicitous. Its simplicity and felicitous adjustment to the whole complex situation is precisely its recommendation. And there we may let the matter rest.
IV. The Genealogies and the Virgin Birth.
We have now to deal with the relationship of the genealogies to the virgin-birth statement which forms the vital center of the infancy narratives and to the general question of the Davidic origin of Jesus.
See VIRGIN BIRTH .
The first part of this question may be most directly approached by a brief consideration of the text of Mt 1:16. The text upon which the Revised Version (British and American) is based reads: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Beside this there are two readings, one contained in the so-called Ferrar group of manuscripts, and the other in the Sinaitic which, differing among themselves, unite in ascribing the parentage of Jesus to Joseph. This has been seized upon by negative critics (see for list and discussion Machen, Princeton Review, January, 1906, 63; compare Bacon, HDB , article "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," Am. Jour. Theol., January, 1911, who long ago gave in his advocacy to the supposition that the evangelists could easily reconcile the supernatural birth with the actual paternity of Joseph) to support the idea of a primitive Christian tradition that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Of this contention Zahn leaves nothing, and concludes his argument with this statement: "The hope of finding indications in old manuscripts and versions that the authors of lost Gospels or brief writings which may have been worked over in our Mt and Lk regarded Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, should at last be dismissed. An author who knew how to make even the dry material of a genealogy to its least detail contribute to the purpose of his thought concerning the slandered miracle of the Messiah's birth, cannot at the same time have taken over statements from a genealogy of Joseph or Jesus used by him which directly contradicted his conception of this fact. Any text of Mt which contained such statements would be condemned in advance as one altered against the author's interest" (op. cit., 567). It is interesting to note that Allen (ICC, "Matthew," 8), starting from the extreme position that the Sinaitic form of statement, of all extant texts, most nearly represents the original, reaches the same conclusion as Zahn, that Matthew's Gospel from the beginning taught the virgin birth.
(1) It is clear, therefore, from the general trend as well as from specific statements of both Gospels, that the genealogies and the birth-narratives were not floating traditions which accidentally touched and coalesced in mid-stream, but that they were intended to weld inseparably the two beliefs that Jesus was miraculously conceived and that He was the heir of David. This could be done only on the basis of Joseph's genealogy, for whatever the lineage of Mary, Joseph was the head of the family, and the Davidic connection of Jesus could only be established by acknowledgment of Him as legal son by Joseph. Upon this basis rests the common belief of the apostolic age (see Zahn, ibid., 567, note references), and in accordance with it all statements (such as those of Paul, Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8) must be interpreted.
(2) For it must be remembered that, back of the problem of reconciling the virgin birth and the Davidic origin of Jesus, lay the far deeper problem--to harmonize the incarnation and the Davidic origin. This problem had been presented in shadow and intimation by Jesus Himself in the question: "David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his Son?" It is further to be noticed that in the annunciation (Lk 1:32) the promised One is called at once Son of God and Son of David, and that He is the Son of God by virtue of His conception by the Spirit--leaving it evident that He is Son of David by virtue of His birth of Mary. With this should be compared the statement of Paul (Rom 1:3,1): He who was God's Son was "born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." This is at least most suggestive (see Orr, Virgin Birth of Christ, 119, with note, p. 121), for it indicates that as Paul and Luke were in very close sympathy as to the person of our Lord, so they are in equally close sympathy as to the mystery of His origin. The unanimity of conviction on the part of the early church as to the Davidic origin of Jesus is closely paralleled by its equally firm conviction as to His supernatural derivation. The meeting-point of these two beliefs and the resolution of the mystery of their relationship is in the genealogies in which two widely diverging lines of human ancestry, representing the whole process of history, converge at the point where the new creation from heaven is introduced.
LITERATURE.
The literature on this subject is very copious. The works referred to in the text will serve to introduce the reader to more extensive investigations. The whole situation is well summarized by Plummer (ICC, "Luke," sub loc.).
Louis Matthews Sweet
je-na-al'-o-ji, jen-a-al'-o-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
The Old Testament translates (once, Neh 7:5) the noun yachas; cepher ha-yachas, "book of the genealogy"; also translates a denominate verb in Hithpael, yachas, "sprout" "grow" (compare family "tree"); hithyaches, "genealogy"; the idea is conveyed in other phrases, as cepher toledhoth, "book of the generations," or simply toledhoth, "generations." In the New Testament it transliterates genealogia, "account of descent," 1 Tim 1:4; Tit 3:9. In Mt 1:1, biblos geneseos, "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 1 Ch 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.
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 Ex 6:14-27, where the sons of Reuben, Simeon and especially Levi, are given; in Nu 1:2; 26:2-51, where the poll of fighting men is made on genealogical principles; in Nu 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 (2 Ch 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 (1 Ch 4:41; 2 Ch 31:16-19); is seen in Jotham's reign when the Reubenites and Gadites are reckoned genealogically (1 Ch 5:17). Zerubbabel took a census, and settled the returning exiles according to their genealogies (1 Ch 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; 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 (Lk 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.
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.
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 naive 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, 150 ff;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 common 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 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 (1 Ch 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" (Josh 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 (1 Ch 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 (Lk 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, shebheT (in the Priestly Code (P), maTTeh), is the larger subdivision, then the clan, mishpachah, "family," and then the "house" or "fathers' house," bayith, or beth 'abh, beth 'abhoth; but sometimes a "fathers' house" is a tribe (Nu 17:6), or a clan (1 Ch 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 ff: "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" (Nu 26:33; 27:1-11 ), etc. In such cases as Azubah and Ephrath, successive wives of Caleb (1 Ch 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.
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.
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) Genesis 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) Genesis 4:25,26.--The Sethites (Assigned to J).
(3) Genesis 5:1-32.--The Book of the Generations of Adam (Assigned to the Priestly Code (P), Except 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), 10:1-7; J, 10:8-19; the Priestly Code (P), 10:20; J, 10:21; the Priestly Code (P), 10:22; J, 10:24-30; the Priestly Code (P), 10:31,32). Found in abridged form in 1 Ch 1:5-24.
I. Japheth = Gomer, Magog, Badai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Tiras.
1. Gomer = Ashkenaz, Riphath (1 Ch 1:6, Diphath), Togarmah.
2. Javan = Elisha, Tarshish, Kittim, Dodanim (Rodanim, 1 Ch 17, is probably correct, a "d", having been substituted by a copyist for "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) Genesis 11:23-26; 22:20-24.--The Children of Nahor (11:23-26 P; 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 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) Genesis 16:15; 21:1-3; 25 (also 1 Ch 1:28-33).--The Sons of Abraham by Sarah, Hagar, Keturah (Gen 16:15 assigned to P; 21:1-3 to J, the Priestly Code (P), J, P; Gen 25:1-6 J; 25:7-11 P; 25:11b J; 25:12-17 P; 25:18 J; 25:19,20 P; 25:21-26a J; 25:26b P; 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; 35:16-26. The Children of Jacob (29:31-35 Assigned to P; 30:1-3a JE; 30:4a P; 30:4b-24 JE; 35:16-22 JE; 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 naive, 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 (re'ubhen), original meaning unknown, unless Leah's emotional explanation explains the name, rather than is explained by it: ra'ah be`onyi, "hath looked upon my affliction." Superficially it might be re'u ben, "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'ehdbhani, "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 shama`, "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 paragraph excellence; the name is adjectival in form. Leah connects it with yillaweh, "He will join," `Now will my husband be joined unto me.' A similar allusion is found in Nu 18:2,4, there applied to the "joining" of the tribe to Aaron. Judah is associated with the verb hadhah, "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 danah, "judge": "God hath judged"; no other etymology can be found. Naphtali is derived from niphtal, "wrestle": "I have wrestled," the only discoverable etymology. Zilpah, zilpah, perhaps is "dropping," "drop." Gad, gadh, "fortunate," according to Leah. Gad was the well-known Syrian god of "fortune"; but there is no necessary connection here. Asher, from 'ashar, "happy," 'ashsher, "call happy"; so Leah; no connection with Asshur, Assyrian god. Issachar, from sakhar, "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 'ish-sakhar, "man of (some deity, unknown)." Zebulun, from zebhul, "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 zabhal, "dwell": "Now will my husband dwell with me." Dinah, like Dan, is from dan, "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 acaph, "take away": "God hath taken away my reproach"; the second (assigned to J) from yacaph, "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 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 36:1,8,19) is a personal name; in Gen 36:9,43 (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" ('el), none of "Jah" (yah).
II. The Aboriginal Leaders or Clans in Edom, Partly Subdued by, Partly Allied with, the Esauites (Genesis 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" ('el) or "Jah" (yah) 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 (Genesis 36:31-39).
One 'el 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" (Genesis 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.
(In different form, Nu 26:1-51, and much expanded in parts of 1 Ch 2 through 8; compare Ex 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 (Acts 7:14), reckons 75, adding to Gen 46:20 the names of three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph, obtained from Nu 26:29,35 ff. 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:
A. Reuben = Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi.
B. Simeon = Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, Shaul.
C. Leui = 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.
A. Gad = Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, Areli.
B. Asher = Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, Serah (daughter); Beriah = Heber, Malchiel.
A. Joseph = Manasseh, Ephraim.
B. Benjamin = Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rash, Muppim, Huppin, Ard.
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 Nu 26:12; 1 Ch 4:24, an easy error in transcription, yodh, and nun, 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 1 Ch 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 1 Ch 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 "shin," "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 (Josh 13:27).
Ezbon (3A). Ozni (Nu 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 Nu 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 (1 Ch 7:23); a Benjaminite (8:13,16); a Levite (23:10,11). The repetition of the name indicates individuals rather than clans; but both the Asherite and Benjamite were heads of families.
Serah (3B), serach, "abundance," not the same name as that of Abraham's wife, sarah, "princess."
Heber (3B), chebher; in 1 Ch 4:18, a clan of Judah; 8:17, of Benjamin. Not the same name as Eber, `ebher (5:13; 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." Nu 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. 1 Ch 7:6 gives three sons, Bela, Becher, Jediael (Ashbel), and Shuppim and Huppim are Bela's grandsons. Becher is omitted in 8:1, probably through a copyist's error, who took bekher we-'ashbel, for "Becher and Ashbel," bekhoro 'ashbel, "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 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 1 Ch 8:2, as Nochach, Nochach for Na`aman. 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 1 Ch 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 (Nu 26:38); Aharah (1 Ch 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 Nu 26:39 he is Shephupham, though as compounded in his family name it is Shupham. In 1 Ch 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 8:8 he is catalogued as a son of Bela, as Shephuphan. In old Hebrew mem ("m") and shin ("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 Nu 26:39 is Hupham; in 1 Ch 8:5 is Huram.
Ard (4B) in 1 Ch 8:3 is a son of Bela, Addar, the copyist having transposed "d", and "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 1 Ch 7:12, is Shuham (Nu 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 21:6, (3), p. 1194.
Jahzeel (5B) is Jahziel in 1 Ch 7:13.
Guni (5B) in 1 Ch 5:15 is also a Gadite name.
Shillem (5B), in 1 Ch 7:13, Shallum, the commoner form.
(11) Exodus 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:
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.
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 (Nu 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 ('el); but probably Hebrew, "afflicted by God." Hebron is often identified with the city. It is also found in 1 Ch 2:42,43, as Judahite.
(12) Numbers 1:5-54; 2:3-29; 7:12 ff; 10:4 ff.--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 Ex 6:23; Ruth 4:9-22; 1 Ch 2:10-12: Mt 1:4: Lk 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, Nu 16:1 (Reubenite); 1 Sam 16:6 (Jesse's son, Judah).
VI. Joseph: Ephraim: Elishama, Son of Ammihud.
Other Elishamas: 2 Sam 5:16 (son of David); Jer 36:12; 2 Ch 17:8. Ammihuds: 2 Sam 13:37 m; Nu 34:20,28; 1 Ch 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, 1 Ch 12:3 (Benjamite).
X. Asher: Pagiel, Son of Ochran.
XI. Gad: Eliasaph, Son of Deuel.
Another, Nu 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 'el, said to be a characteristic of late names. The 'El 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 Expositor T, 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, 83 ff, 85 ff, 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 'el very likely indicates not a late date but an early one. 'El is the Divine name appearing in personal names previous to Moses, succeeded by Jab from Moses and Joshua on. The recurrence of 'el 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" ('el), affixed and prefixed, occur in monuments about 1000 BC (AHT, 81 ff).
(13) Numbers 3:1-37.--The Family of Aaron, with the "Princes" of Levi.
Adds nothing to list in Ex 16:16-25 except the Levite "princes."
I. Gershonites: Eliasaph, Son of Lael.
Also a Benjaminite Eliasaph (Nu 1:14).
II. Kohathites: Elizaphan, Son of Uzziel.
A Zebulunite Elizaphan (Nu 34:25). Five other Uzziels, Benjamite, Levite, Simeonite.
III. Merarites: Zuriel, Son of Abihail.
A Gadire Abihail (1 Ch 5:14); also father of Queen Esther; also two women: wife of Abishur (1 Ch 2:29); wife of Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:18). Four 'el suffixes, two prefixes.
(14) Numbers 13:4-16.--The Twelve Spies (P).
I. Reuben: Shammua, Son of Jaccur.
Other Shammuas (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Ch 14:4 (David's son); Neh 11:17, Levite; 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 (Numbers 32:12; Joshua 14:6,14).
Another Caleb, Chelubai, son of Hezron, brother of Jerahmeel (1 Ch 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 (1 Ch 7:38).
IV. Issachar: Igal, Son of Joseph.
Other Igals: 2 Sam 23:36 (one of David's heroes); 1 Ch 3:22. Note the name of another tribe given to a man of Issachar--Joseph (Nu 13:7).
V. Ephraim: Hoshea, Son of Nun;
Hoshea, Joshua's early name. Others: 1 Ch 27:20; King Hoshea, 2 Ki 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 (2 Sam 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 'el. 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
1. Eliab, son of Pallu (also Nu 16:1,12).
2. Dathan, Abiram, Nemuel, sons of Eliab.
3. Iezer (abbreviation for Abiezer), Helek (not in Chronicles), Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, sons of Gilead.
5. Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, Tirzah, daughters of Zelophehad.
The names of Manasseh's grandsons and great-grandsons are puzzling. Gilead is the district except in Jdg 11:1,2, where it is the father of Jephthah. Shechem sounds like the Ephraimite town. Hepher reminds of Gath-Hepher. In Josh 17:1,2 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 (1 Ch 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 (1 Ch 7:21).
(16) Numbers 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):
II. Simeon: Shemuel, Son of Ammihud.
Shemuel is Hebrew of Samuel. Another Shemuel is of Issachar, 1 Ch 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 (2 Sam 3:15). Another Benjamite spy (Nu 13:9).
V. Zebulun: Elizaphan, Son of Parnach.
Another Elizaphan, Kohathite Levite (Ex 6:18,22).
VII. Asher: Ahihud, Son of Shelomi.
Another Ahihud, Benjamite (1 Ch 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 (1 Ch 27:17).
IX. Joseph-Manasseh: Hanniel, Son of Ephod.
Hanniel, also an Asherite (1 Ch 7:39).
X. Benjamin: Elidad, Son of Chislon.
Bukki, abbreviation of Bukkiah; another, in high-priestly line of Phinehas (1 Ch 6:5,51).
XII. Naphtali: Pedahel, Son of Ammihud.
A Simeonite Ammihud above.
Seven "El" names, only one "Jah."
(17) Ruth 4:20.--The Ancestry of David (Perez: Hezron: Ram: Amminadab: Nahshon: Salmon (Salmah): Boaz: Obed: Jesse: David).
Contained unchanged in 1 Ch 2:9-15; also Mt 1:1-6; also Lk 3:32. Some links have been omitted between Obed and Jesse. Salmon might be traced to the ancestor of the Bethlehemite (1 Ch 2:51,54), who is, however, of Caleb's line, not Ram's; but the lines may mingle.
(18) 2 Sam 3:2-5; 5:14,15. David's children (also in 1 Ch 3:1-9; 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 'el, all prefixed. Two in "Jah." Chileab is Daniel in 1 Ch 3:1; uncertain which is right, but probably Daniel is a corruption. Chronicles adds Nogah to the Jerusalem sons, probably developed in transcription. 1 Ch 3:6-8 has two Eliphelets; 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 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." 3:6 reads Elishama for Elishua. Japhia is also the name of a king of Lachish in Joshua's time (Josh 10:3-7).
(19) 2 Samuel 23 (also 1 Chronicals 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 bosheth, "shame," as in Mephibosheth, Ishbosheth. Septuagint has Iesebada (Codex Vaticanus), Iessebadal, Isbaam (Codex Alexandrinus), in Chronicles, and Iebosthe (Codex Vaticanus), Iebosthai (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 (1 Ch 18:12 margin). Zeruiah perhaps David's half-sister (2 Sam 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 1 Ch 27:34, which should then read Benaiah, son of Jehoiada.
Three other Asahels.
7. Elhanan, Son of Dodo of Bethlehem.
Another Elhanan, slayer of the brother of Goliath (2 Sam 21:19; 1 Ch 20:5). Perhaps the same.
Chronicals, Shammoth. From Harod, near Gideon's well (Jdg 7:1).
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.
One other, a Manassite (Josh 17:2). Anathoth an hour Northeast of Jerusalem, Jeremiah's town.
Should read, with Chronicles, Sibbecai.
Zalmon, also name of mountain (Jdg 9:48). Descendant of Ahoah, Benjamite of Bela's line. See 1 Ch 8:14.
From Netophah, town.
1 Ch 11:30, Heled. Three other Bannabs.
17. Ittai, Son of Ribai of Gibeah of the Children of Benj