ili. The clans and subdivisions of Manasseh.— In the enumeration of these there is much diversity ; the different schemes will be apprehended most capa if presented in tabular form.
1. In J, then, we have the following genealogy (Jos 17?>-2)—
Manasseh | if I | Machir Atom ποῖος Asriel Shechem* Hepher Shemida Gilead (with the art., the country).
2. But in P the genealogy is as follows (Nu 2678-4) _ Manasseh Machir (hence the Machirites) Gilead (hence the Gileadites)
| | | ‘Tezers Heley Asriel Shedhem * Shemids’ Hepher
(the (the (the (the (the (the ‘Tezer- Helek- Asriel- Shechem- Shemida’- Hepher- ites) ites) ites) ites) ites) ites) Zelophebad |
| | l Mahlah Noah Hoglah Milcah Tirzah®
eye: in Jos 172, Jg 64 82, called Abi'ezer (ἼΡ 32 Ν); 80 Jg 611. 4 552 the Abrezrite.
> The same five daughters of Zelophehad are also mentioned, with the same pedigree, in Nu 27! (cf. 861. 4), Jos 173 (all P).
* Pointed O>y’, not (like the name of the place) B>y’.
LB
3. We have also (1 Ch 7!#1%)_—
Manasseh = Aramitess concubine
MANASSEH
| Ham-Molecheth
| | Gilead Ϊ τι ατϑι cal Ishh Abi ezer Mahlah
Ι Μα ΔΟΔῊ τε ΜΙ δο τ ἢ
| Peresh Sheresh |
| Ι Ulam Rekem | Bedan
Zelophehbad is also mentioned as the ‘second’ son of some one, whose name does not appear, and it is said that he had daughters: the sons of Shemida’ are also enumerated, viz. Ahian, Shechem, Likhi, and Aniam; but the text is evi- aa either corrupt or defective ; and what place Zelophehad and Shemida’ held in the genealogy is not clear, though Berth. and Kuenen think that Zcpnhenes is meant to be the second son of Man- assen.
4. There is, lastly (1 Ch 27-%3)— Judah +—— | Machir Er Onan Shelah poles Zelah
| ea
| Gilead Haul
Manasseh
| | a daughter = Hezron
Segub | Jair (‘ who had 28 cities in the land of Gilead’).
It is impossible to harmonize these conflicting
schemes: it is manifest that they are different attempts to correlate and account for the principal clans of Manasseh, or for the names of districts colonized by it.+ Gilead is ‘son’ of Machir, simply because the country was occupied by Machirite clans. Abi‘ezer is mentioned in Jg 61: %4-% g2. 32 as the family, or clan, to which Gideon belonged : the other names, Helek, Asriel, etc., do not occur ex- cept in the passages cited. The only point on which the schemes all agree is in representing Machir as ‘son’ of Manasseh, and as ‘father’ of Gilead. In other respects the conspicuous difference is that, according to J, Machir is the eldest son of Man- asseh, and the other clans, Abi‘ezer etc., are co- ordinated with him as his brethren ; whereas in P Machir is Manasseh’s only son, and the six clans, Abi‘ezer, etc., are represented as being his descend- ants, and in fact descended from him through his son ‘Gilead.’ Thus, as regards Machir, three stages seem to be discernible in the manner in which he was viewed. (1) In Jg 5% he represents the West half of Manasseh. (2) In J (Jos 17}*-2, Nu 32*) he is the ancestor of the principal part of the Hast half of Manasseh, his brother clans being located, it is implied, on the W. of Jordan. (3) In P (Nu 26*#-) he is the ancestor, through his son ‘Gilead,’ of αἱ the Manassites, Eastern and Western alike. _ Accordingly, Jos 1381» (‘ even for,’ etc.), restricting what is said in v.* of all the Machirites to half of them, is (Kuen., Dillm.) a correction of v.81, made for the purpose of harmonizing it with the representation of P (according to which, as Machir was Manasseh’s only son, the Εἰ, half of the tribe could form only a part of his descendants).
* Asriel in v.14 seems to be a corrupt anticipation of the following words, 77>’ wk (Berth., Kittel, Oettli, αἱ.).
t Zelophehad and his daughters, who play such an important part in the law of Hebrew inheritance, are, no doubt, historical personages ; but among their ancestors there appears, in P, the name of a country (cf. Jg 111»),
MANASSES (PRAYER OF)
It is hardly possible to interpret with confidence the historical significance of these variations ; but it is possible that the variation between Jg δ᾽" and 1 may point to the fact that between the age of Deborah and that of J Gilead had been conquered by immigrants from the tribe of Manasseh settled on the W. of Jordan ;* and that the representation of P may imply that (vol. ii. p. 129°), ‘holding Gilead to have been first conquered, as represented in the Hex., he regarded the W. Manassites as offshoots of the E. Manassites.’ In 3 the state- ment that Manasseh’s coneubine was an Aramitess may be an indication that there was an admixture of Aramzan blood in the tribe, especially in its Eastern half ; Ma’acah, Machir’s ‘ wife’ (1 Ch 7"*), also suggests some connexion with the Aram. tribe of Maacah, in the same neighbourhood (Dt 34, Jos 138, 2S 108 a/.). In 4 the connexion with a clan of Judah, assumed for Jair, is remark- able.
LITERATURE.—See, in addition to the authorities quoted (esp. Dillm. on Nu 828942, and Jos 16-17), Kuenen’s essay on the tribe of Manasseh, in ΤΑΊ", 1877, p. 478 ff. ; and cf. art. ΟΝ Ε- ALOGy in vol. ii. p. 129f. S. R. DRIVER.