1Ch 9:1 | KD | STEP | “And all the Israelites were registered; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel, and Judah was led away to Babylon for her transgressions.” The lxx and Vulg. have erroneously connected ויהוּדה with the preceding words, and render, “in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah,” and then have translated the following words וגו הגלוּ arbitrarily. Not less incorrect is Bertheau’s opinion, that Israel here denotes only the tribes of the northern kingdom, because Israel is contrasted with Judah, and kings of Israel are spoken of, for both reasons are quite worthless. “The book of the kings of Israel” is cited in (cf. ), and is declared by Bertheau himself to be identical with the historical work cited as the “book of the kings of Israel and Judah” ( ; ; ), or as the “book of the kings of Judah and Israel” ( ; , and elsewhere). How then can it be inferred from the shortened title, “book of the kings of Israel,” that kings of the northern kingdom are spoken of? Then, as to the contrast between Israel and Judah, it might, when looked at by itself, be adduced in favour of taking the name in its narrower sense; but when we consider the grouping together in of “Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim,” we see clearly that Israel in incontrovertibly denotes the whole Israel of the twelve tribes. In , Israel is used in the same sense as in ; and the contrast between Israel and Judah, therefore, is analogous to the contrast “Judah and Jerusalem,” i.e., Israel is a designation of the whole covenant people, Judah that of one section of it. The position of our verse also at the end of the genealogies of all the tribes of Israel, and not merely of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom, requires that the name Israel should be understood to denote the whole covenant people. That forms the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so is properly the conclusion of the genealogies in 1 Chron 2-8, is so manifest that Bertheau cannot adduce a single tenable ground for his assertion to the contrary, that “the verse forms clearly quite a new beginning.” For the assertion, “We recognise in it a short introduction to the historical statements regarding the tribe of Judah or the Israelites after the exile,” cannot be adduced in support of his view, since it not only contradicts his former assertion that Israel here denotes the northern kingdom, but is also irreconcilable with the words of the verse. The statement, “Judah was led captive to Babylon for her transgressions,” corresponds to the statement 1Ch 5:25., 1Ch 6:15. But when, after this statement, our writer continues, “And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., the “former inhabitants” can only be those who dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any commentator, if the right interpretation of our passage were not obscured by the similarity of the register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem which follows to that contained in Neh 11, - a similarity which has led some to believe that both registers treat of the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. Bertheau, e.g., comes to the following decision as to the relation of our register, vv. 2-34, to that in : “As the result of the comparison, we have found that both registers correspond exactly in their plan, and agree as to all the main points in their contents.” The first point in this result has some foundation; for if we turn our attention only to the enumeration of chiefs dwelling in Jerusalem, then the registers in of our chapter and in are identical in plan. But if we consider the whole of the registers, as found in 1 Chron 9:2-34 and , we see that they do differ in plan; for in ours, the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is introduced by the remark, , “The former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities, were Israel, the priests,” etc., according to which the following words, , “And in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in opposition to this, to , where the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra is called the time of the former governors (הראשׁנים הפּחות), with whom Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later governor, to prove that according to that the former inhabitants in our passage may very well denote the inhabitants of the land in the first century of the restored community, he forgets that the governors were changed within short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily call his predecessors in the office “former governors;” while the inhabitants of the cities of Judah, on the contrary, had not changed during the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to allow of earlier and later inhabitants being distinguished. From the fact that the inhabitants “of their cities” are not contrasted as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the later, but that both are placed together in such a way as to exclude such a contrast, it is manifest that the conclusion drawn by Movers and Bertheau from , that the “former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities” are those who dwelt in Jerusalem before it was peopled by the inhabitants of the surrounding district, is not tenable. In Neh 11, on the contrary, the register is introduced by the remark, , “These are the heads of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem; and they dwelt in the cities of Judah, each in his possession in their cities, Israel, the priests,” etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the other cities of Judah, at that time, i.e., at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. To this corresponds the manner in which the register has been made out, as in vv. 3-24 the inhabitants of Jerusalem are enumerated, and in the inhabitants of the other cities. The register in our chapter, on the contrary, deals only with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vv. 3-19 a ), while in vv. 19 b -34 there follow remarks as to the duties devolving upon the Levites. No mention is made in the register of the inhabitants of other cities, or of Israelites, priests, and Levites, who dwelt in their cities outside of Jerusalem ( ), because all that was necessary had been already communicated in the preceding genealogies (1 Chron 2-8).

‏ 1 Chronicles 9:1

1Ch 9:1-2 “And all the Israelites were registered; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel, and Judah was led away to Babylon for her transgressions.” The lxx and Vulg. have erroneously connected ויהוּדה with the preceding words, and render, “in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah,” and then have translated the following words וגו הגלוּ arbitrarily. Not less incorrect is Bertheau’s opinion, that Israel here denotes only the tribes of the northern kingdom, because Israel is contrasted with Judah, and kings of Israel are spoken of, for both reasons are quite worthless. “The book of the kings of Israel” is cited in 2Ch 20:34 (cf. 2Ch 33:18), and is declared by Bertheau himself to be identical with the historical work cited as the “book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (2Ch 27:7; 2Ch 35:27; 2Ch 36:8), or as the “book of the kings of Judah and Israel” (2Ch 16:11; 2Ch 25:26, and elsewhere). How then can it be inferred from the shortened title, “book of the kings of Israel,” that kings of the northern kingdom are spoken of? Then, as to the contrast between Israel and Judah, it might, when looked at by itself, be adduced in favour of taking the name in its narrower sense; but when we consider the grouping together in 1Ch 9:10 of “Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim,” we see clearly that Israel in 1Ch 9:2 incontrovertibly denotes the whole Israel of the twelve tribes. In 1Ch 9:1, Israel is used in the same sense as in 1Ch 9:2; and the contrast between Israel and Judah, therefore, is analogous to the contrast “Judah and Jerusalem,” i.e., Israel is a designation of the whole covenant people, Judah that of one section of it. The position of our verse also at the end of the genealogies of all the tribes of Israel, and not merely of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom, requires that the name Israel should be understood to denote the whole covenant people. That 1Ch 9:1 forms the transition from the genealogies to the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so is properly the conclusion of the genealogies in 1 Chron 2-8, is so manifest that Bertheau cannot adduce a single tenable ground for his assertion to the contrary, that “the verse forms clearly quite a new beginning.” For the assertion, “We recognise in it a short introduction to the historical statements regarding the tribe of Judah or the Israelites after the exile,” cannot be adduced in support of his view, since it not only contradicts his former assertion that Israel here denotes the northern kingdom, but is also irreconcilable with the words of the verse. ^{▼▼Bertheau’s further remark, “1Ch 9:1 cannot have been written by our historian, because he did not consider it sufficient to refer his readers to the work he quotes from, but thought himself bound to communicate genealogical registers of the tribes of the northern kingdom (1 Chron 5-7), which he must have extracted from older registers prepared in the time of the kings (cf. 1Ch 6:1), perhaps even out of the work here named,” is quite incomprehensible by me. Notwithstanding repeated consideration of it clause by clause, I have not succeeded in comprehending the logic of this argument.}

The statement, “Judah was led captive to Babylon for her transgressions,” corresponds to the statement 1Ch 5:25., 1Ch 6:15. But when, after this statement, our writer continues, “And the former inhabitants which (lived) in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim; and in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., the “former inhabitants” can only be those who dwelt in their possessions before Judah was led captive into Babylon. This could hardly be misunderstood by any commentator, if the right interpretation of our passage were not obscured by the similarity of the register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem which follows to that contained in Neh 11, - a similarity which has led some to believe that both registers treat of the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. Bertheau, e.g., comes to the following decision as to the relation of our register, vv. 2-34, to that in Neh 11:3-24: “As the result of the comparison, we have found that both registers correspond exactly in their plan, and agree as to all the main points in their contents.” The first point in this result has some foundation; for if we turn our attention only to the enumeration of chiefs dwelling in Jerusalem, then the registers in 1Ch 9:4-17 of our chapter and in Neh 11:3-19 are identical in plan. But if we consider the whole of the registers, as found in 1 Chron 9:2-34 and Neh 11:3-24, we see that they do differ in plan; for in ours, the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is introduced by the remark, 1Ch 9:2, “The former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities, were Israel, the priests,” etc., according to which the following words, 1Ch 9:3, “And in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in opposition to this, to Neh 5:15, where the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra is called the time of the former governors (הראשׁנים הפּחות), with whom Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later governor, to prove that according to that the former inhabitants in our passage may very well denote the inhabitants of the land in the first century of the restored community, he forgets that the governors were changed within short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily call his predecessors in the office “former governors;” while the inhabitants of the cities of Judah, on the contrary, had not changed during the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to allow of earlier and later inhabitants being distinguished. From the fact that the inhabitants “of their cities” are not contrasted as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the later, but that both are placed together in such a way as to exclude such a contrast, it is manifest that the conclusion drawn by Movers and Bertheau from Neh 11:1, that the “former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities” are those who dwelt in Jerusalem before it was peopled by the inhabitants of the surrounding district, is not tenable. In Neh 11, on the contrary, the register is introduced by the remark, 1Ch 9:3, “These are the heads of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem; and they dwelt in the cities of Judah, each in his possession in their cities, Israel, the priests,” etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the other cities of Judah, at that time, i.e., at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. To this corresponds the manner in which the register has been made out, as in vv. 3-24 the inhabitants of Jerusalem are enumerated, and in 1Ch 9:25-36 the inhabitants of the other cities. The register in our chapter, on the contrary, deals only with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (vv. 3-19 a), while in vv. 19 b-34 there follow remarks as to the duties devolving upon the Levites. No mention is made in the register of the inhabitants of other cities, or of Israelites, priests, and Levites, who dwelt in their cities outside of Jerusalem (1Ch 9:2), because all that was necessary had been already communicated in the preceding genealogies (1 Chron 2-8).