The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Chronicles — Section 16

ngree in the two ph1cee oe regards these remark may have !hence originated. Lastly nnmee, with the aamo exceptions. Bat it he.a been correctly pointed out that th~ in tho Septuagint the names differ much structure of the sentence in the original moro in the two plucee. Thus for 'nua.p, does not at all necessitate the suggestion A,ud.v (or Aurd.v), 'AAwv, Ta.,fJ11"-, %wrpl, •nva.v, (of which in the English Version there At8, %wvav, Aa.tt1wv, 'Eµ.,pwv, 'Au,fJwv, is confessedly the appearance), that kings 'lf8paµ., o.nd A1<a.11 here, we have 'Aua.p, had already been in Israel. At the same 'P,uwv, rwAaµ., ra.,M1A, %wcJ>a.p, •nµap, 'At,, time, too great stress must not he laid upon •Avd, b.711TW111 'Aµa64, 'Au/30.v, •1epCv, and this, for the slight alteration of translation 'lov1<a.µ there. When the nome of Anah tbe.t would suit the time for Genesis, wouhl is reached in Genesis, it is added, "This we.a throw it out again for our text here, and that Auah that found the mules (c•;i~-:,-nt;1, yet the words of the original are identical. more probably 'hot springs,' as the finder of These kings are eight in number; the which Ane.h ie supposed to have been parentage or the land of each is given. It called Beeri1 in the wilderness, as he fed is to be noticed that the line of royalty is the asses of Zibeon, his father." And not hereditary, and that several dukes, or again, when Dishon ie mentioned as the heads of tribes, or princes of di.tricts, rule son of Ane.h, there is added, " And Aholi- under the king. The no.mes, whether of per- be.mah the daughter of Anah." Note is sons or places, agree in the Authorized Ver- made of her name, no doubt, for the same sion as they occur here and in Gen. xxxvi. kind of reason as Timna is mentioned above. 31-39, except that Saul is here spelt Shani, Aholibe.mah (i.q. ",Judith, the daughter of o.nd that we have here Hadad a.ml Pai for Beeri the Hittite," Gen. xxvi. 34) enjoys Hadar and Pan there. These two differ- notice inasmuch as she became the wife ences are occasioned by the He brew tP-x t, of Esau; and 'rimna, as Hhe became the and are the only differences between the concubine of Esau'a son Eliphaz, and two Hebrew texts, except that ct\n her" thereby the mother of Amalek. is given CJ~n there, and that tho incorrect Vers. 42 - 50. - G. LIST OF KINGS OF spelling he;e of m:JI. is found right (••':!!.) EnoM. These verses contain II list of in Genesis. The -superfluous statement, kings who 1·eigned in Edom, during o. Hadad died also, which be_gins our fifty-first period expressly notified o.s anterior to the verse, is not found in Genesis. In the institution of kings in Israel. Some further Septuagint the variations between the two point of prnctical use than has been yet places are greater, as well as those from aacel'laiued may lie in the preservation of the Hebrew text in either place. Thus we these snatches of Edom's hi~tory. Some- have Asam, Gethaim, Sebla, Roboth, Bala- thing surely ho.nga on the emphatic but ennor, Achobor, Adad, here, for Asom, Get- otherwise gratuitous statement, that kings thaim, Same.da, Rooboth, Ballenon, Acbobor, were unknown in Tsrael when this line Arnd, there. There is also an entire omis- reigned in Edom. It may turn out to cover sion here of the name of the wife of the lo.st the fulfilment of some obscure point of king, with those of her mother and gra.ud- prophecy, or to snbserve some important mother, a.II of which are given in the pussage chronological purpose ; but wedged in o.a of Genesis, as found in the Hebrew text. it is, it cannot be permitted to count for Ver. 44.-It is not impossible lho.t this nothing. That it stands in identical words J"obab is one with Job. 'The o.llusions in in Gen. xxxvi. 31 increases not a little the Gen. xxxvi. 11 to "Elipbnz the Tem,i.nite" attention to be pai<l to it. It has hence been have directed attention to this; and it has asserted far too dogmatically, as by Spinoza. been favoured Ly the Septuagint o.nd tl.rn that the Book of Genesis was no work of Fathers. Moses; or again, that the passage, in the course of some trnnscri ption of me.n nscri pte, Ver. 4S.-Rehoboth by the river; i.e. the ho.d found its way from Chronicles, through Euphro.tes, to distinguish it probably from a marginal note, at le.et into the text of "the city Rehoboth" of Gen. x. 11. Genesis (see Kennicott). lint these posi- Vera. 51-54.-II. LrsT OF ELEVE~ D1J:KE9 tions are only forced by the assumption tbnt OF EnoM. These, the remaining verse~ kings must have reigned in Israel before of eh. i., appear to gi1·e II list of eleveu the sentence could have been w1·itten, which dukes of Edom, emphasized apparently o.s is an unnecessary assumption. Kings had "the dukes or E,\om," as thougl.i thero wer~ Leen promised to Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 11), as none before or 1ifter them. Dut see Gen. among his posterity, and had been pro- xxxvi. 15, 41, 43, tho study of which can phesied of by Moses (Dent. xxviii. 36). It scarcely leave a doubt on the mind that 1n£1y have been that Edow, secure in her this list is not one of persons but of places: kings for generntions, had been wont to e.g. "the duke" of the city, or region o! ma.Ice her boast of them, in comparison of "Timnah," 11nd so on. Tho places wuro and in presence of her ncighhoura, and the dul.edoms. The names of these verses, iu  G 'l'HE FinS1' 13OOK OF 'l'I-lE CHRONICLES. [ CH, t, 1-64-,