The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Chronicles — Section 34

(' Spenker's Commontnry,' in loc.) thnt just these verses !ins also been alren,lv discussed. ns vcr. 33 closes the table of J ernhmcel It may Le 110w added (see Kei(' Commen- with "These were the sons of Jerahmeel,'' tary,' in loc.) that some would nnclerstand the 80 ver. 49 should close the to.hie of Culeh wor<ls as though they meaut, These were the (ver. 42) with the words, These were the sons of Co.lab, in the descending line of Hur, oons of Caleb. With I\ eligllt o.ltemtion, Ephratah'a firstborn. This rendering is got ver. 50 would then begiu The sons of Hur, o.t by o.ltering "the son of llur" i11to "the etc. This is, however, only conjecture. eonY of Hur," which seems to have been the Ver. 42, then, must be consi<lered to give reruling of the Septuagint manuscripts, and ns o.nother family of Caleb, i.e. e. family which, at all events, their renclering has. by o.nother wife, of name not given, just The remainder of ver. 50, with the follow- possibly the J erioth unaccounted for in ver. ing four, give three sons of Caleb: 1. Shobal, J8. The first statement lands us in per- prince ofXirjath-jearim (city of woods; Jush. plexity. Mesha (Ill?'!?) is the firstborn (i.e. ix. I 7 ; xvi ii. 15; xv. 9, GO; cf. xvi ii. 14), on hv the wife or womo.n in question), o.nd the border-land of Judah and Benjamin, and the founder of Ziph. And amid some about ten miles from Jerusalem on the road omission or corruption of text, we are then to Emmau, (Nicopolis). It is to be identi- confronted with the words, and the sons of fie<l, almost with certainty, with the modern Mareshah (/"l~'J9) the father ( or again, per- Kuriet-el-Ennb. Other references of exceed- ha ps,founder) of Hebron. The reading of the ing interest o.re I Sum. vi. 21; vii. 2; 2 Sam. Septuagint gives Mo.reshah in both of these vi. 5; Ezro. ii. 25; Nch. Yii. 29; eh. xiii. G; 2 passages, aud may come from e. Hebrew Chron. L 4; Jer. x:xvi. 20; Ps. cxxxii. 6. This text that we have not. The substitution Sbobal (ver. 52) had two sons, Haroeh, i.e. could, however, scarcely be o.ccouuted for Rea.iah (eh. iv. 5), nnd the pro;enitor, as a. mei·e clerical error, considering both whatever his name, of half or the people the omission of a i·esh and the replacing of called Me.nahethites (Authorized Yersion)- nn he with o.n ayin. The sentence refuses o.t o. form probably sug-gcste<l by tlie l\Iasoretic present o.ny treatment except the unsatisfac- pointing of ver. 5-!--0r Chatsi-hammeno11- tory one of pure conjecture. But employ- choth (Hebrew text), which Gcsenius treats ing this, it may be noted that the omitting e.s CL proper name, e.n,\ which means "the of the words, "the sons of,'' before l\foreshoh midst of quiet places" (Ps. xxiii. 2), from would most help to cleo.r the verse of con- which comes the patronymic of the next fusion. In this o.nd following verses, Ziph, verse but one (Burrington, 'Genealogies,' Hebron, 'l\,;ipue.h, Jorkoam, e.nd lleth-znr, i. 213). From the Kirjuth-jcarim family nm nil narnes of places cert11inly, whether were deriveJ (ver. 53), the Ithrites, Puhites, or not they nre o.11 of persons. Bhume.thites, an,l Mishre.ites, of none of Vera. 46-49 give the no.mes (the first of xxiii.whom, e::::cept probably the Ithrites (2 Sam. 38; eh. xi. 40), do we find other which 11ppears 11s that of o. man also, next mention; and from the l\Iishraites ng"iu verse 1111d eh. i. 33) of two additional concu- were derivecl two offshoots, the Zareathites bines of Caleb, e.nd of their descendo.nts. e.nd Eshtanlites, the towns of both of whom Ver. 47 offers us another name, J'e.hde.i, not o.re with great probobility to be trncke,l to ho 11ccounted for with any certe.inty. H (Josh. xv. 33; xix. 41; Judg. xiii. 25; is not linked to the context, o.nd nothing xviii. 2). They were situated in thot pa.rt iY known of the six sons e.ssigned to tho of Judah called the "low" country. or thu person owning it. The.t Go.zez occurs twice Shefelo.h, stretching from J oppo. to Goza on in the provious verse is remark11ble, 11nd the l\1e<literro.neo.u. 2. Sal.ma, princo of suggestive, possibly, of mistake. The Sep- l..lethlehem. The so-called " sons " hero tue.gint omits e.ltogether the clause in which attributed to him, six in number, including it is found the second time. Houbig11nt Dethlchom, evidently betoken fomilic~ tro.uslates, '' Porro Ho.rnn genuit Jo.hdai," re.ther thon the nomes of individunls. 'fhu 11nd so summarily removes the difficulty town Netophnh (Ezra. ii. 21; Neh. vii. from his wo.y (Il11rringtou's • Genealogies,' i. 2G) gove the gcntilo noun Netophathites 210). Hiller(' Onom11sticon,' S.) would me.ke (2 Som. xxiii. 28; Jer. xl.1:i). Ate.roth, the it the so.me nome 11s Mozo., but without honse of J' oo.'!I ( i.e. " crowns" of the houso nny pretence of orgument. A more ree.son- of Jonb), fa not mentioned elsewhere; but nble suggestion than this might be the.t the reosou of its being distinguished thus JnhL!ui is the no.me of yet another concu- m11y be due· to the fact tl,ot tliere we.a bine of Caleb (Lange, 'O.T. Comm.,' in loc.). e.nother Ataroth of Gatl (Numb. xxxii. 3, Ver. 149.-Me.chbenah is 11n /l,ra~ ,\,-y&- 34), e.nd yet nnother of Ephraim (Josh. x_iv. u,vov (for Me.dmann11h and Gibea, Josh. xv. 5; xviii. 13). The Zorites (•11.,~) Geseurnd 81, 57). Tho Inst sentence of thi~ verso is thinks to be another gentile· form from trentcd above. ;,11,:i: with •r,i,,i:, but of them we do not mu.I Ve1·s. 50-55.-Th!l opening sentence of c!s~;vhore. •Ver. 55 should not linvo hecu  THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES. [cu. u.1-G/i.