sons of [1]Shemer; Ahi, and Rohgah, Jehubbah, and Aram. 35And the [2]sons of Helem his brother; Zophah, and Imna, and Shelesh, and Amal. 36The sons of Zophah; Suah, and Harnepher, and Shual, and Beri, and Imrah; 37Bezer, and Hod, and Shamma, and Shilshah, and Ithran, and Beera. 38And the sons of Jether; Jephunneh, and Pispah, and Ara. 39And the sons of Ulla; Arah, and Hanniel, and Rizia. 40All these were the children of Asher, heads of the fathers' houses, choice and mighty men of valour, chief of the princes. And the number of them reckoned by genealogy for service in war was twenty and six thousand men.
8And Benjamin begat Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third; 2Nohah the fourth, and
34, 35. Shemer . . . Helem] Read perhaps Shomer . . . Hotham, to agree with ver. 32.
40. twenty and six thousand] In xii. 36 the men of war of Asher are reckoned at forty thousand (cp. Num. i. 41, xxvi. 47, where still higher reckonings are given). The numbers here and in vv. 5, 7, 9, 11 (as well as in ver. 2, which see) are perhaps supposed to refer to the time of David. The numbers may be based on family traditions, but no important conclusions ought to be drawn from them.
Ch. VIII. 1—40 (cp. vii. 6—12). The Genealogy of Benjamin.
1—40. Various indications combine to show that the names in this list reflect post-exilic conditions. It has generally been compared with the "Benjamite" genealogy in vii. 6—12 which was supposed to express the relationships and strength of the tribe at the time of David. If, however, according to the view adopted in this volume, the passage vii. 6—12 is in reality a genealogy of Zebulun, comparison between it and this list is futile. Such parallels as can justly be made between the names in the two lists are due to the Benjamite colouring which has been imparted to vii. 6—12 after the initial error in vii. 6 turned the "sons of Zebulun" into "Benjamin."
This, the real genealogy of Benjamin, unfortunately presents not a few problems for which as yet no convincing solution can be offered. The difficulties are due in large measure to the corrupt state of the text in several verses: esp. vv. 6—14.
1. Benjamin begat . . .] Cp. Gen. xlvi. 21.
firstborn] = Becher in Gen. xlvi. 21. In the unvocalised Heb. text the noun and proper name are represented by the same letters, B K R.
Ashbel] lit. "man of Baal." Cp. note on Eshbaal, ver. 33.
2. Nohah . . . Huram] the list is assuredly based on Gen. xlvi. 21 and
