C++ Programming.

Program Design
including Data Structures 8th Edition
D.S. Malik
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/c-programming-program-design-including-data-struct
ures-8th-edition-d-s-malik/
 EBOOK
DOCUMENT
CONTENT
BELLOW
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
be mentioned, but these will suffice to indicate the light which
Chronicles throws upon the conditions of the post-exilic community.

Much more important, however, is the insight we gain into the

methods and principles, the ideals and the ideas which prevailed in
Temple circles in Jerusalem during the third century b.c. Chronicles,
like all distinctive books, is necessarily eloquent of its author’s mind
and character. Now the Chronicler was a Levite of the Levites, and
no doubt typical of his class at this period. But we know that this
period was of the highest importance in the formation of the Old
Testament, and it was precisely at the hands of the orthodox Levitical
circles that many books of the Jewish Scriptures, especially the
Laws, the Histories, and the Psalms, underwent the revision which
brought them approximately to their present form. It is therefore
extremely valuable that we should be able to study the psychological
characteristics of a typical Levite of that age. From this point of view
hardly any part of Chronicles is without significance. Thus the
midrashic stories, whatever their value otherwise, at least reveal a
great deal regarding the mental and moral outlook of the writer and
his contemporaries.

“Chronicles,” it has been said (Bennett, Expositor’s Bible, p. 20),

“is an object-lesson in ancient historical composition.” But it ought
also to teach us that history is something more than the record of
occurrences. Facts are fundamental, but of profound importance
also is the attitude in which we approach them.

To sum up the whole matter of this section. Compared with

Samuel‒Kings, Chronicles is of little or no value as a record of the
history of the Judean kingdom. Where it differs from those books, in
almost all cases the earlier account is the more accurate and
trustworthy. In what Chronicles adds, there may sometimes be found
traditional developments of genuine historical facts. Even if they
should prove to be few, it is possible that there may be among them
some points of high importance for our understanding of the Old
Testament records. Finally, as a product of the Greek period,
Chronicles is very valuable in illustrating the methods, ideals, and
temperament of the Levitical classes of Jerusalem about that time.

These results are disappointing only if we insist on treating

Chronicles as a manual of early Judean history instead of as a
remarkable and in some ways unique religious work.

§ 8. The Religious Value of Chronicles

Chronicles has suffered by comparison with the fresher, more
human, history in Samuel and Kings. It has seemed to modern taste
somewhat dry and uninspiring. To the superficial reader any religious
feeling in the book is devoted to the concerns of a ritual that has long
since passed away, and with which we might in any case have little
sympathy. And, of course, the contrast is still more unfavourable if it
be made with the books which contain the noblest utterances of
Jewish faith. Job in his anguish crying “though He slay me yet will I
trust Him”; the Psalmist fearless of all ill since God is with him;
Hosea who wrote of God “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the
knowledge of God more than burnt offerings”—these stand on a
higher spiritual level than the Chronicler. None the less, there is
virtue, and even great virtue, in Chronicles, and failure to perceive it
only argues lack of insight on our part.

In the first place, if Temple ritual and observance of the precepts

of the Law bulk too largely in the Chronicler’s conception of the
religious life, he had much excuse for his attitude. In his day and
generation, faithfulness to Jehovah and to that moral and spiritual
interpretation of life for which the worship of Jehovah stood,
inevitably involved participation in the organised services which
centred in the Temple. Whatever its imperfections, the Temple at
Jerusalem in his time was performing a great religious work in
keeping alive zeal for Jehovah and His Law in the face of much
degenerate heathenism. Moreover it is an unfair and a false
assumption to suppose that his manifest devotion to the ritual
necessarily or probably meant that his religion was mere formalism
or his creed poorly conceived. Behind the parade of the formalities of
worship burns a living faith. The freedom with which the Chronicler
has retold the history to conform with his religious views is indeed
the measure of the force of his beliefs. We have already noted (p.
xlix) as regards one midrashic passage that it is essentially a sermon
on the need for trust in God. The Chronicler was passionately
convinced that virtue is rewarded and vice is punished. He believed
in a God supremely just yet merciful, One who rules directly and
personally in human life, destroying evil, guiding and fostering all that
is true and good. “The might of nations counted as nothing before
Him. Obedience and faith in Jehovah were more effective
instruments in the hands of Israel’s kings than powerful armies and
strong alliances.” It is easy to smile at the Chronicler’s belief that
piety is necessarily rewarded by worldly prosperity, and sin by
worldly misfortune. But, if the life and teaching of Jesus Christ have
led us to a deeper interpretation of life, that does not lessen the
virtue of the Chronicler in maintaining his faith in God’s justice and
vigilance, despite all the cruel evidences of the prosperity of the
wicked. His doctrine of reward and punishment was crude, but after
all he was striving, as best he knew how, to maintain the great
central conviction of religion that “all things work together for good to
them that love God.” Everywhere his work is dominated by the sense
of right and wrong, and a clear-eyed perception of the absolute
distinction between them. He brings all men and all things to a moral
and religious test. The imperishable worth of Chronicles will ever be
that it is the record of a man’s endeavour to present, in terms of
national experience, the eternal laws of the spiritual realm.

Finally, since the Chronicler was retelling the past in terms of the
present, we know that these beliefs of his were not rules applied in
theory to history and ignored in present practice. They were the
convictions by which his own soul lived. No one can afford to
despise a man who was prepared to walk by the light of such a faith
amid the difficulties and the perils which surrounded the enfeebled
Jerusalem of that age. As Curtis says, “it was under the tutelage of
men like the Chronicler that the Maccabees were nourished and the
heroic age of Judaism began.” We must not allow any distaste for
legalism in religion to blind us to the virtues of the post-exilic Jews.
The very rigidity of the ritual and the doctrine was essential to the
preservation of the nobler elements in the faith. In the memorable
words of Wellhausen (Prolegomena, pp. 497 f.), “At a time when all
nationalities, and at the same time all bonds of religion and national
customs were beginning to be broken up in the seeming cosmos and
real chaos of the Graeco-Roman Empire, the Jews stood out like a
rock in the midst of the ocean. When the natural conditions of
independent nationality all failed them, they nevertheless artificially
maintained it with an energy truly marvellous, and thereby preserved
for themselves, and at the same time for the whole world, an eternal
good.” Chronicles may justly claim to have played a part in that
extraordinary triumph.

§ 9. Name and Position in the Canon

Name. The Hebrew title is Dibhrē Hayyāmīm, literally The Acts
(or Sayings) of the Days. In the Greek Version (the Septuagint)
Chronicles was regarded as supplementary to Samuel and Kings,
and so received the title “[Books of] the Omitted Acts”
παραλειπομένων or “the Omitted Acts of the Kings (or Reigns) of
Judah.” This name, moreover, passed into the Latin Vulgate, “(Libri)
Paralipomenōn.” The title Chronicles seems to be due to a remark
made by St Jerome, who, in commenting on the Hebrew title, wrote
that the book might more appropriately be styled the “Chronicle of
the whole of sacred history” (Prologus in Libros Regum, edited by
Vallarsi, ix. 458). The use of the phrase is also suggested by a
similar expression (literally “the book of the Acts of the Days of...”)
found some twenty times in Kings, and commonly rendered “the
book of the chronicles of...” e.g. 1 Kings xiv. 19. On the whole,
Chronicles is a satisfactory title ¹.
 ¹ It is, however, open to the objection that an inexperienced
reader may make the mistake of supposing that these
references in Kings to “the book of the chronicles of the kings
of Israel [Judah]” are references to the canonical Chronicles.

Division. The division of Chronicles into two books (as in the

English Versions) probably originated in the Septuagint (LXX.); the
MSS. a and b both mark the division. It entered the English Version
through the Latin Vulgate. On the other hand, Rabbinical evidence
(Talmud, Baba Bathra 15a; and the Masōrah) and the Christian
Fathers testify that among the Hebrews the book was undivided: so
Origen (apud Eusebius Church History vi. 25, 2) and Jerome
(Domnioni et Rogatiano).

Position in Canon. In the English Version Chronicles stands next

after Kings, the Historical Books being grouped together. This
arrangement was derived from the Septuagint through the Latin
Vulgate. The order of the Hebrew Bible is different. There the books
are arranged in three sections, of which the first contains the Books
of the Pentateuch, the second includes the Historical Books from
Joshua to Kings, while the third (Hebrew “Kĕthūbhīm”) contains
Chronicles. The books of this third section seem to have been the
last to receive Canonical Authority among the Jews. Kings thus
appears to have been taken into the Canon before Chronicles.

In the Hebrew Bible the “Kĕthūbhīm” (Hagiographa) are usually

arranged thus:—first the Poetical Books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job),
next the Five Rolls or Megillōth (Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther), and lastly the three books Daniel, Ezra‒
Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This is the usual Hebrew tradition,
though it is surprising to find Ezra (which begins with the closing
verses of Chronicles) put before Chronicles. The wording of Matthew
xxiii. 35, however, “From the blood of Abel the righteous (see
Genesis iv. 10 f.) unto the blood of Zachariah (see 2 Chronicles xxiv.
20 ff.)” suggests that as early as our Lord’s day Chronicles was
regarded as the last, just as Genesis was the first, book of the
Hebrew Canon. It is probable, therefore, that Chronicles found its
way into the Canon after Ezra‒Nehemiah, the latter book being
needed to represent the post-exilic period of the history, whereas
Chronicles covered ground already occupied by the books of Samuel
and Kings.
 § 10. Text and Versions of Chronicles
Text. The Hebrew (Masoretic) text in Chronicles is, on the whole,
well preserved, although by no means free from textual errors
(compare 1 Chronicles vi. 28). Many of these occur, as one would
expect, in the lists of proper names. Olstead (in the American
Journal of Semitic Languages, October 1913) has given reasons for
holding that occasionally the original text of Chronicles may have
suffered from assimilation to the text of Samuel‒Kings. Further, we
note a few phrases and passages which seem to be scribal additions
(see § 3, p. xxii). An interesting scribal omission of late date is noted
on 2 Chronicles xxviii. 20. In passages which are parallel to the older
canonical books Chronicles has occasionally preserved a superior
reading, e.g. 1 Chronicles xx. 4, Hebrew and LXX. “there arose war
at Gezer” = 2 Samuel xxi. 18, “there was again war ... at Gob”; or
again, 1 Chronicles viii. 53, “Eshbaal” = 2 Samuel ii. 8 “Ishbosheth”;
or compare 1 Chronicles xiv. 14, note on go not up.

Versions. (1) Greek Versions. What is commonly called the

Septuagint (LXX.) of Chronicles is now recognised to be not the
original LXX., but a later Greek translation, which most scholars
(especially Torrey, Ezra Studies) consider to be the rendering of
Theodotion. [For criticism of the view that it is Theodotion’s rendering
see the article by Olstead mentioned above.] In the main this
rendering is a close reproduction of the Masoretic text, and of little
value except for determining the official Hebrew text of the second
century. The old LXX., unfortunately, no longer exists for 1
Chronicles i.‒2 Chronicles xxxiv.; but for 2 Chronicles xxxv., xxxvi. it
has been preserved in 1 Esdras i.—a fact of great good fortune, not
merely for the textual criticism of that passage, but for the light it
sheds on the relations and characteristics of the Greek Versions.
 (2) The Old Latin Version was made from the old LXX. which is
now lost except for the last two chapters of Chronicles, as stated
above. It would therefore be of great value for criticism, but alas! only
a few fragments survive.

The later Latin Version, the Vulgate, made by Jerome, is of small

value, as it represents only the official Hebrew text.

(3) The Syriac Version, known as the Peshitṭa, is of even smaller

value for textual criticism. Unlike the close rendering of other books
in the Peshitṭa, Chronicles constantly has the characteristics of a
paraphrase rather than a translation. One example will suffice. For
“Joel the chief and Shaphat the second,” 1 Chronicles v. 12, the
Peshitṭa has “And Joel went forth at their head and judged them and
taught them the scriptures well.” The Peshitṭa is further noteworthy
for curious omissions (and substitutions), e.g. 2 Chronicles iv. 10‒22;
xi. 5‒xii. 12 (for which 1 Kings xii. 25‒30, followed by 1 Kings xiv. 1‒
9, is substituted).

For further information regarding the text and versions of

Chronicles, see the edition by Curtis, pp. 35 ff.

§ 11. Literature
Of the more recent literature on Chronicles the following is a list
of the principal works which have been consulted in the preparation
of this volume.

J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena (1885), especially chapter vi.

W. H. Bennett, The Books of Chronicles in the Expositor’s Bible

(1894).

F. Brown, Chronicles in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (1898).

W. R. Smith and S. R. Driver, Chronicles in the Encyclopaedia
Biblica (1899).

I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Chronik (1901).

R. Kittel, Die Bücher der Chronik (1902).

C. F. Kent, Israel’s Historical and Biographical Narratives (Student’s

Old Testament, 1905).

W. R. Harvie-Jellie, Chronicles in the Century Bible (1906).

E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, Chronicles (the International Critical

Commentary, 1910).

S. R. Driver, Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 517‒540 (8th

edition 1909).

W. R. Smith and S. A. Cook, Chronicles in the Encyclopaedia

Britannica (1910).

C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910).

A. T. Olstead, Source Study and the Biblical Text in the American

Journal of Semitic Languages (October, 1913).

Students interested in the Hebrew text should consult Kittel’s

edition of the Old Testament in Hebrew; Kittel’s Chronicles in Hebrew
in The Sacred Books of the Old Testament (edited by P. Haupt);
Torrey’s Ezra Studies, and the commentary by Curtis and Madsen
mentioned above; also Arno Kropat, “Die Syntax des Autors der
Chronik,” in the Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
(Beihefte) xvi. (1909).

N.B. The commentary on Chronicles according to the text of the

Authorised Version was edited in this series by the Rev. Professor
W. E. Barnes, D.D., in 1899. For this new edition which is based on
the Revised Version the present writer is entirely responsible. He
desires here to acknowledge the courtesy of Professor Barnes who
has kindly permitted the retention of notes from the first edition.

W. A. L. E.

September 1st, 1915.

 THE FIRST BOOK OF
THE CHRONICLES

Chapters I.‒IX. GENEALOGIES.

Chapter I.
The Genealogies of the Peoples.

The historical narrative of the books of Chronicles commences in

chapter x. with the record of the defeat and death of King Saul on Mt
Gilboa.

The first nine chapters are occupied almost entirely by a series of

genealogical lists. Starting from the primeval age, the line is traced
from Adam to the origin of Israel, showing its place among the
nations of the ancient world. Attention is then confined to the
descendants of Israel, amongst whom the genealogies of Judah
(particularly, the line of David), of Levi, and of Benjamin, are given
prominence. Finally the ancestry of Saul, and a list of inhabitants of
Jerusalem is recorded.

The modern reader is inclined to regard these statistics as the

least important section of the book, but the fact that the bare lists of
names are so foreign to our taste should serve at least as a valuable
warning of the difference between our outlook and that of the
Chronicler. It is in the highest degree important to understand the
motives which caused the Chronicler to give these lists of names as
the fitting introduction to the history, since the same motives operate
throughout the book and determine the standpoint from which the
entire history is considered.

(1) In the first place the genealogies were not recorded by the
Chronicler simply for the archaeological interest they possess. They
served a most practical purpose, in that they helped to determine for
the Jewish community of the Chronicler’s time what families were of
proper Levitical descent and might claim a share in the privileges
pertaining thereto, and—on a wider scale—what families might justly
be considered to be the pure blood of Israel. How serious the
consequences entailed by the absence of a name from such lists
might be is well illustrated by Ezra ii. 61‒63 (= Nehemiah vii. 63‒65),
“the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz ... sought their
register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they
were not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put away
from the priesthood.” On the other hand the Jew who could
successfully trace his ancestry in the great lists knew himself
indubitably a member of the chosen people and was confident of his
part in the covenantal grace and in all those hopes which the faith of
Israel inspired and sustained.

(2) The practical aspect of these lists was thus essentially

connected with high religious sentiment. They were an expression of
the continuity of Israel, a declaration that the Present was one with
the Past, a witness and an assurance of the unfailing grace of
Israel’s God. The genealogies therefore are in perfect harmony with
the spirit and purpose of the Chronicler’s work—see the Introduction
§ 6.

(3) Finally, in the lists of place-names and genealogies of

inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, various facts of great historical
interest are preserved—see Introduction § 7, pp. xlvii f. and (e.g.) ii.
42 note.

Chapter i. contains the genealogies of the earliest age, showing

the origin of the nations. It concludes with a list of the chiefs of
Edom. The names are those given in the genealogies of Genesis i.‒
xxxvi., but the lists are abbreviated to the utmost by the omission of
statements of relationship. Evidently the Chronicler was able to
assume that the connection between the names was a matter of
common knowledge.

1‒4 (compare Genesis v. 3‒32).

A Genealogy from Adam to the Sons of Noah.

¹A DAM, Seth, Enosh; ²Kenan, Mahalalel,

Jared;
1. Seth ... Noah] This genealogy of ten antediluvian patriarchs
follows Genesis v. 3‒32 (P), the “Sethite” line as compared with
Genesis iv. 17‒24 (J) where the descent is traced through Cain.
There is some ancient connection between the list and the
Babylonian tradition of ten kings before the Flood (see Ryle,
Genesis, pp. 88 ff. in this series). For the symbols J and P, see the
Introduction p. xx.

Enosh] A poetical word which, like Adam in prose writings, was

used as a generic term for “man.”

³Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; ⁴Noah, Shem,

Ham, and Japheth.
3. Enoch] Hebrew Ḥanôkh. In verse 33 the same name is more
correctly rendered Hanoch, but the Revised Version not unwisely
has here retained the famous name in the form (derived through the
Vulgate from the LXX.) with which the Authorized Version has made
us familiar; compare Genesis iv. 17, and v. 21.
 5‒23.
The Genealogy of the Nations.

The table which follows is taken from Genesis x. 2‒29. It is

geographical rather than ethnological, i.e. neighbouring nations are
regarded as having the same descent. The world as then known is
divided into three areas of which that in the north and west is
assigned to the Sons of Japheth (5‒7), the southern to the Sons of
Ham, and the middle and eastern to the Sons of Shem (17‒23). Had
the arrangement been according to actual descent the Semitic
Zidonians, for instance, would not be described as the offspring of
Ham (verse 13).

The passage, when analysed, divides as follows: 5‒9 (a general

table of the descendants of Japheth and Ham), 10‒16 (an appendix
to the descendants of Ham), 17 (a general table of the descendants
of Shem), 18‒23 (an appendix to the descendants of Shem). Of
these four sections, the general tables, verses 5‒9 and 17, belong to
the “Priestly” narrative of the Hexateuch, whilst the two appendices,
verses 10‒16, 18‒23, are from the earlier narrative known as J. For
a full examination of the many interesting questions raised by this
account of the origin of the nations known to the Israelites the reader
must be referred to the commentaries on Genesis where such
discussion is appropriate (see Ryle, Genesis, in this series; or more
fully Skinner, Genesis, pp. 188 ff.). Here a few remarks of a general
character must suffice.

With the exception of Nimrod the names are those of nations and
tribes (e.g. Madai [Medes], Javan [Greeks]) or countries (e.g.
Mizraim [Egypt]) or cities (Zidon). The names are eponymous: that is
to say “each nation is represented by an imaginary personage
bearing its name, who is called into existence for the purpose of
expressing its unity, but is at the same time conceived as its real
progenitor”; and the relations existing or supposed to exist between
the various races and ethnic groups are then set forth under the
scheme of a family relationship between the eponymous ancestors.
This procedure may seem strange to us but it was both natural and
convenient for a period when men had not at their disposal our
scientific methods of classification. It must have been specially easy
for Semites, like Israel, who in everyday life were accustomed to call
a population the “sons of” the district or town which they inhabited.
But in truth the practice was widespread in antiquity, and, if a parallel
is desired, an excellent one may be found in the Greek traditions
respecting the origins of the several branches of the Hellenic race.
Whether the ancients believed that these eponymous ancestors
really had lived is somewhat uncertain. Probably they did, although
such names as Rodanim (verse 7) and Ludim (verse 11) where the
name is actually left in a plural form (as we might say “Londoners”)
makes it difficult to doubt that in some cases the convention was
conscious and deliberate. The notion that the chief nations of
antiquity were differentiated from one another within some three
generations of descent from a common ancestor, Noah, is plainly
inaccurate. Equally untenable is the primary conception assumed in
this table that the great races of mankind have come into being
simply through the expansion and subdivision of single families.

It must not be imagined that these facts in any way destroy the
value of the table. Historically, it is a document of great importance
as a systematic record of the racial and geographical beliefs of the
Hebrews. Its value would be increased could we determine precisely
the period when it was originally drawn up, but unfortunately it is not
possible to do so with certainty. Arguments based on the
resemblance between this table and the nations mentioned in the
books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are inconclusive; nor does the fact
that the general tables (verses 5‒9, 17) now form part of P, the
“Priestly” document, help us greatly, for we cannot argue from the
date of the document as a whole to the date of its component laws or
traditions, which of course may be much earlier. Religiously, the
worth of this table is to be seen in the conviction of the fundamental
unity of the human race, which is here expressed. The significance
of this may best be felt if we contrast the Greek traditions which
display a keen interest in the origins of their own peoples but none at
all in that of the barbarians. Ancient society in general was vitiated
by failure to recognise the moral obligation involved in our common
humanity. Even Israel did not wholly transcend this danger, and its
sense of spiritual pre-eminence may have taken an unworthy form in
Jewish particularism; but at least, as we here see, there lay beneath
the surface the instinct that ultimately the families of the earth are
one, and their God one.

5‒7 (= Genesis x. 2‒4).

The Sons of Japheth.

⁵The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog,

and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and
Meshech, and Tiras.
5. The sons of Japheth] The writer begins with the northern
peoples.

Gomer] to be identified with the Gimirrai of the Assyrian

monuments, the Κιμμέριοι of the Greeks, who migrated from South
Russia into Asia Minor (Pontus and Cappadocia) under the pressure
of the Scythians (Herodotus I. 103; IV. 11, 12; compare Ezekiel
xxxviii. 6, Revised Version).

Magog] In Ezekiel xxxviii. 2 (Revised Version) judgement is

denounced on “Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh,
Meshech, and Tubal” who is represented as accompanied in his
migration by the “hordes” of Gomer and Togarmah (verse 6), “all of
them riding upon horses” (verse 15). Magog represents therefore
one of several tribes of northern nomads, possibly the Scythians.

Madai] i.e. Media or the Medes. Of the many allusions in the Old
Testament to this famous people, the first is found in 2 Kings xvii. 6;
compare also Isaiah xiii. 17; Jeremiah xxv. 25; Esther i. 3; Daniel i. 9.
The Median Empire dates from the 7th century b.c., but the Medes
are referred to by Assyrian inscriptions of the 9th century, at which
time they seem to occupy the mountainous regions to the south and
south-west of the Caspian Sea. They were the first Aryan race to
play an important part in Semitic history.
 Javan] the Ionians, a branch of the Greek peoples. They were
already settled in the Aegean islands and on the west coast of Asia
Minor at the dawn of Greek history. Being a seafaring nation and
having a slave-trade with Tyre (Ezekiel xxvii. 13; Joel iii. 6 [Hebrew
iv. 6 “Grecians”]), they became known to Israel at an early date. In
some late passages of the Old Testament (e.g. Zechariah ix. 13;
Daniel viii. 21, xi. 2) Javan denotes the world-power of the Greeks,
established by the conquests of Alexander the Great and maintained
in part by his successors, in particular the Seleucid kings of Syria.

Tubal, and Meshech] compare Isaiah lxvi. 19; Psalms cxx. 5.

They are mentioned together Ezekiel xxvii. 13, xxxii. 26, xxxviii. 2, 3,
xxxix. 1; and are to be identified with the Τιβαρηνοί and Μοσχοί of
Herodotus III. 94, who are the “Tabali” and “Muski” of the
monuments. In the time of the later Assyrian Empire they lived as
neighbours in the country north-east of Cilicia, but at a later period
the Τιβαρηνοί (Tubal) lived in Pontus, and the Μοσχοί (Meshech)
further East towards the Caspian. (The Meshech of this verse is to
be distinguished from the Meshech son of Shem mentioned in verse
17.)

Tiras] Not the Thracians (so Josephus Antiquities of the Jews I.

6), but most probably the Tyrseni, a piratical people frequenting the
coasts and islands of the north Aegean. They are mentioned among
the seafarers who assailed Egypt in the reign of Merenptah.

⁶And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and

Diphath ¹, and Togarmah.
¹ In Genesis x. 3, Riphath.

6. Ashkenaz] In Jeremiah li. 27 “the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni,

and Ashkenaz” are to be summoned against Babylon. The home of
the Ashkenaz is therefore somewhere in the neighbourhood of
Ararat (Armenia); and they are apparently the Asguza of the
monuments, and perhaps may be identified with the Scythians.
 Diphath] The LXX., Vulgate and some Hebrew MSS. have
Riphath (so also Genesis x. 3), which is to be preferred. The identity
of the place or people is not yet ascertained.

Togarmah] Perhaps in Armenia, but the evidence is inconclusive.

That it was a neighbour of Gomer, Tubal, and Meshech appears
probable from Ezekiel xxvii. 14, where Togarmah is mentioned as
trading with Tyre in horses and mules. Compare also Ezekiel xxxviii.
6, and the note above on Magog.

⁷And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish,

Kittim, and Rodanim ¹.
¹ In Genesis x. 4, Dodanim.

7. Elishah] Ezekiel (xxvii. 7) addressing Tyre, “Blue and purple

from the isles of Elishah was thine awning.” Elishah has not been
identified with certainty. It has been supposed to be Carthage.
Another suggestion is Alashiya (of the Tell el-Amarna Letters) which
may be a Cilician district, or perhaps rather Cyprus; compare the
note on Kittim below.

Tarshish] generally now identified with Tartessus, a Phoenician

town in the south of Spain. This is supported by the various
references to Tarshish as a Tyrian colony rich in minerals and far
from Palestine (see, e.g. Ezekiel xxvii. 12; Jonah i. 3; Psalms lxxii.
10; 2 Chronicles ix. 21). To identify it with Tarsus, the famous town in
Cilicia, is in some ways attractive, but is on the whole less probable.

Kittim] The inhabitants of Cyprus are meant, “Kittim” being

derived from Kition (modern Larnaca), the name of one of its oldest
towns. In later times Kittim (Chittim) is used vaguely of Western
islands (Jeremiah ii. 10; Ezekiel xxvii. 6) or nations; “the ships of
Kittim” (Daniel xi. 30) are the Roman ships; “the land of Chittim”
(Χεττιείμ, 1 Maccabees i. 1) is Macedonia (1 Maccabees viii. 5).
 Rodanim] No doubt the Rhodians are meant; their island was
celebrated even in the days of Homer. On the spelling Dodanim
(Revised Version margin; Genesis x. 4), compare the note on
Diphath above. The Hebrew letters r (‫ )ר‬and d (‫ )ד‬are easily
confused.

8, 9 (= Genesis x. 6, 7).
The Sons of Ham.

⁸The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put,

and Canaan.
8. The sons of Ham] The southern peoples are next enumerated.

Cush] The Hebrew name here transliterated Cush is several

times translated “Ethiopia” (e.g. 2 Kings xix. 9; Isaiah xviii. 1) no
doubt rightly. On the inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal frequent mention
is made of Ku-su (Ku-u-su) “Ethiopia” in connection with Mu-ṣur
“Egypt.” The Cushites were not Negroes but a brown race like the
modern Nubians (Soudanese). The “sons of Cush,” however, seem
to be tribes located mostly on the Arabian side of the Red Sea, verse
9 below.

Mizraim] is without doubt Egypt. In form the word may be dual,

and it is generally said to mean the two Egypts, Upper and Lower.

Put] This people is mentioned among the helpers of Egypt in

Jeremiah, in Ezekiel (twice), and in Nahum. In Ezekiel xxvii. 10 it
appears among the auxiliary troops of Tyre. Put used therefore to be
identified with the Libyans of the north coast of Africa, but more
probably it denotes the Punt of the Egyptian monuments, i.e. the
African coast of the Red Sea.

Canaan] the eponym of the pre-Israelitish population of Palestine

west of Jordan. Actual racial affinities are here disregarded or
unperceived, for the Canaanites (except the Philistines and
Phoenicians on the strip of coastland) were Semites and spoke a
language closely resembling Hebrew. That they are here reckoned
as Hamites and made a “brother” of Egypt is due perhaps in part to
the frequent dominations of Palestine by Egypt, but more probably to
the political and religious antagonism between Israel and the
Canaanites, which suggested that they ought to be most closely
associated with Egypt, Israel’s traditional oppressor. Note that in
Genesis ix. 25‒27 (where hostile feeling against Canaan is
prominent) “Canaan” is not said to be the son of Ham, but takes
Ham’s place as a son of Noah (Ryle, Genesis, p. 127).

⁹And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah,

and Sabta, and Raama, and Sabteca. And the
sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
9. the sons of Cush] According to some authorities Seba and
Havilah were tribes or districts on the African coast of the Red Sea,
whilst Sabta and Raama and Sabteca were in Arabia. It is somewhat
more probable that all (except Seba) were located on the Arabian
side of the Red Sea.

Seba] In Isaiah xliii. 3 and xlv. 14 Seba (the Sabeans) is

mentioned along with Egypt and Cush, and in Psalms lxxii. 10 along
with Sheba. Probably a district on the African side of the Red Sea is
meant.

Sheba, and Dedan] Also in verse 32, where see note. Sheba is
frequently mentioned in the Old Testament (e.g. Jeremiah vi. 20; 1
Kings x. 1 ff. = 2 Chronicles ix. 1 ff.; Isaiah lx. 6) as a distant land,
rich in gold, frankincense, and precious stones. It was a flourishing
and wealthy state, at one period (circa 700 b.c.) the centre of power
and civilisation in south Arabia. Dedan was probably a merchant
tribe, specially associated with Sheba (compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 13).

10‒16 (= Genesis x. 8‒18b).

Appendix. Other Descendants of Ham.