1Ch 9:17-21 | KD | STEP | “The doorkeepers, Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, Ahiman, and their brethren: Shallum the chief.” The service was so divided among the four just named, that each along with his brethren performed the duty of watching by one of the four sides and chief entrances of the temple (cf. and ), and these four were consequently heads of those divisions of the Levites to whom was committed the duty of the watch. In , on the contrary, the doorkeepers mentioned are Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren, 172 (men); but the other two chiefs named in the Chronicle are there omitted, while in the Chronicle no number is given. Here the agreement between the two registers ceases. In the Chronicle there follows first of all, in , some remarks on the service of the doorkeepers; and then in the duties of the Levites in general are spoken of; and finally, in and we have subscriptions. In Nehemiah, on the other hand, we find in the statement that the remaining Israelites, priests, and Levites dwelt in their cities; and after some statements as to the service of the Levites, the enumeration of these cities is introduced. In glancing back over the two catalogues, it is seen that the differences are at least as great as the coincidences. But what conclusions are we to deduce from that fact? Bertheau thinks “from this it is certain that both catalogues cannot have been drawn up independently of each other,” and “that both have been derived from one and the same source, which must have been much more complete, and much richer in names, than our present catalogues; cf. Movers, S. 234.” We, however, judge otherwise. The discrepancies are much too great to allow us to refer them to free handling by epitomizers of some hypothetical more detailed catalogue, or to the negligence of copyists. The coincidence, in so far as it actually exists, does not justify us in accepting such far-fetched suppositions, but may be satisfactorily explained in another way. It consists indeed only in this, that in both registers, (1) sons of Judah and Benjamin, priests and Levites, are enumerated; (2) that in each of these four classes of the inhabitants of Jerusalem some names are identical. The first of these coincidences clearly does not in the least prove that the two catalogues are derived from the same source, and treat of the same time; for the four classes enumerated constituted, both before and after the exile, the population of Jerusalem. But neither does the identity of some of the names prove in the slightest degree the identity of the two catalogues, because the names denote, partly classes of inhabitants, and partly heads of fathers'-houses, i.e., of groups of related households, which did not change with each generation, but sometimes continued to exist for centuries; and because, à priori , we should expect that those who returned from exile would, as far as it was possible, seek out again the dwelling-places of their pre-exilic ancestors; and that consequently after the exile, on the whole, the same families who had dwelt at Jerusalem before it would again take up their abode there. In this way the identity of the names Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin in the two catalogues may be accounted for, as these names do not denote persons, but classes of priests, which existed both before and after the exile. A similar explanation would also apply to the names of the doorkeepers Akkub and Talmon ( ; ), as not merely the priests, but also the other Levites, were divided for the service according to their fathers'-houses into classes which had permanent names (cf. 1 Chron 25 and 26). Of the other names in our register only the following are identical: of the Benjamites, Sallu the son of Meshullam ( ; ); of the priests, Adaiah ( ; ), with almost the same ancestors; and of the Levites, Shemaiah and Mattaniah (1Ch 9:10.; , ). All the other names are different; and even if among the priests Maasiai ( ) should be identical with Amashai ( ), and among the Levites Bakbakkar and Obadiah ( and ) with Bakbukiah and Abda ( ), we cannot identify the sons of Judah, Uthai and Azaiah (1Ch 9:4.), with Athaiah and Maaseiah (Neh 11:4.), for their ancestors are quite different. The similarity or even the identity of names, were it in two or three generations, cannot of itself prove the identity of the persons, as we have already seen, in the genealogy of the line of Aaron 1Ch 6:3.), that, e.g., the series Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok recurs at various times; cf. 1Ch 6:11. and 1Ch 6:12. Everywhere in the genealogical lines the same names very often recur, as it was the custom to give the children the names of their ancestors; cf. Tob. 1:9, Luk 1:59. Win. bibl. R. W . ii. S. 133; Hävern. Einl . ii. 1, S. 179f. But if, on the one hand, the identity of these names in the two catalogues is not at all a valid proof of the identity of the catalogues, and by no means justifies us in identifying similarly-sounding names by supposing errors of transcription, on the other hand we must hold that the register refers to the pre-exilic population of Jerusalem, both because of the wide discrepancies in all points, and in accordance with the introductory statements in 1Ch 9:2. This interpretation is also demanded by the succeeding remarks in reference to the service of the Levites, since they throughout refer to the pre-exilic time.

‏ 1 Chronicles 9:17-21

1Ch 9:17 “The doorkeepers, Shallum, Akkub, Talmon, Ahiman, and their brethren: Shallum the chief.” The service was so divided among the four just named, that each along with his brethren performed the duty of watching by one of the four sides and chief entrances of the temple (cf. 1Ch 9:24 and 1Ch 9:26), and these four were consequently heads of those divisions of the Levites to whom was committed the duty of the watch. In Neh 11:20, on the contrary, the doorkeepers mentioned are Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren, 172 (men); but the other two chiefs named in the Chronicle are there omitted, while in the Chronicle no number is given. Here the agreement between the two registers ceases. In the Chronicle there follows first of all, in 1Ch 9:18-26, some remarks on the service of the doorkeepers; and then in 1Ch 9:26-32 the duties of the Levites in general are spoken of; and finally, in 1Ch 9:32 and 1Ch 9:34 we have subscriptions. In Nehemiah, on the other hand, we find in 1Ch 9:20 the statement that the remaining Israelites, priests, and Levites dwelt in their cities; and after some statements as to the service of the Levites, the enumeration of these cities is introduced.

In glancing back over the two catalogues, it is seen that the differences are at least as great as the coincidences. But what conclusions are we to deduce from that fact? Bertheau thinks “from this it is certain that both catalogues cannot have been drawn up independently of each other,” and “that both have been derived from one and the same source, which must have been much more complete, and much richer in names, than our present catalogues; cf. Movers, S. 234.” We, however, judge otherwise. The discrepancies are much too great to allow us to refer them to free handling by epitomizers of some hypothetical more detailed catalogue, or to the negligence of copyists. The coincidence, in so far as it actually exists, does not justify us in accepting such far-fetched suppositions, but may be satisfactorily explained in another way. It consists indeed only in this, that in both registers, (1) sons of Judah and Benjamin, priests and Levites, are enumerated; (2) that in each of these four classes of the inhabitants of Jerusalem some names are identical. The first of these coincidences clearly does not in the least prove that the two catalogues are derived from the same source, and treat of the same time; for the four classes enumerated constituted, both before and after the exile, the population of Jerusalem. But neither does the identity of some of the names prove in the slightest degree the identity of the two catalogues, because the names denote, partly classes of inhabitants, and partly heads of fathers'-houses, i.e., of groups of related households, which did not change with each generation, but sometimes continued to exist for centuries; and because, à priori, we should expect that those who returned from exile would, as far as it was possible, seek out again the dwelling-places of their pre-exilic ancestors; and that consequently after the exile, on the whole, the same families who had dwelt at Jerusalem before it would again take up their abode there. In this way the identity of the names Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, and Jachin in the two catalogues may be accounted for, as these names do not denote persons, but classes of priests, which existed both before and after the exile. A similar explanation would also apply to the names of the doorkeepers Akkub and Talmon (1Ch 9:17; Neh 11:19), as not merely the priests, but also the other Levites, were divided for the service according to their fathers'-houses into classes which had permanent names (cf. 1 Chron 25 and 26). Of the other names in our register only the following are identical: of the Benjamites, Sallu the son of Meshullam (1Ch 9:7; Neh 11:7); of the priests, Adaiah (1Ch 9:12; Neh 11:12), with almost the same ancestors; and of the Levites, Shemaiah and Mattaniah (1Ch 9:10.; Neh 11:15, Neh 11:17). All the other names are different; and even if among the priests Maasiai (1Ch 9:12) should be identical with Amashai (Neh 11:13), and among the Levites Bakbakkar and Obadiah (1Ch 9:16 and 1Ch 9:15) with Bakbukiah and Abda (Neh 11:17), we cannot identify the sons of Judah, Uthai and Azaiah (1Ch 9:4.), with Athaiah and Maaseiah (Neh 11:4.), for their ancestors are quite different. The similarity or even the identity of names, were it in two or three generations, cannot of itself prove the identity of the persons, as we have already seen, in the genealogy of the line of Aaron 1Ch 6:3.), that, e.g., the series Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok recurs at various times; cf. 1Ch 6:11. and 1Ch 6:12. Everywhere in the genealogical lines the same names very often recur, as it was the custom to give the children the names of their ancestors; cf. Tob. 1:9, Luk 1:59. Win. bibl. R. W. ii. S. 133; Hävern. Einl. ii. 1, S. 179f. But if, on the one hand, the identity of these names in the two catalogues is not at all a valid proof of the identity of the catalogues, and by no means justifies us in identifying similarly-sounding names by supposing errors of transcription, on the other hand we must hold that the register refers to the pre-exilic population of Jerusalem, both because of the wide discrepancies in all points, and in accordance with the introductory statements in 1Ch 9:2. This interpretation is also demanded by the succeeding remarks in reference to the service of the Levites, since they throughout refer to the pre-exilic time. 1Ch 9:18 The duties of the Levites. - 1Ch 9:18. The first half of this verse, “And until now (is he) in the king’s gate eastward,” must be referred to Shallum (Berth.). To imagine a reference to all the doorkeepers, “until now are they,” does not suit 1Ch 9:24-26, according to which the doorkeepers kept guard upon all the four sides. The eastern gate of the temple was called the king’s gate, because by this gate the king went in and out to the temple; cf. Eze 46:1-2; Eze 41:3. The remark, “until now is Shallum watcher,” etc., presupposes the existence of the temple at the time of the preparation of this register, and points to the pre-exilic time. Against this Bertheau has raised the objection that the name king’s gate may have been retained even in the post-exilic times for the eastern gate. This must of course be in general admitted, but could only be accepted if it were proved that Shallum lived after the exile. This proof Bertheau obtains by taking the words, “until now is Shallum in the king’s gate,” to mean, “that, according to the ancient arrangement, Shallum, the chief of all the doorkeepers, had still to guard the eastern entrance; according to which Shallum would be the collective designation of the whole series of the chiefs of the doorkeepers who lived from David’s time till after the exile;” but the words cannot be thus interpreted. Such an interpretation cannot be made plausible by identifying the name Shallum with Meshelemiah or Shelemiah, to whose lot it fell in the time of David to be doorkeeper to the eastward (1Ch 26:1, 1Ch 26:14); for in doing so, we would overlook the fact that in 1Ch 9:21 of our chapter also he bears the name Meshelemiah. The circumstance that both Shallum and Meshelemiah are called Ben-Kore, of the sons of Abiasaph, by no means justifies the identification of these two quite different names; for it is neither necessary nor probable that בּן should here be taken in its narrower sense, and Kore regarded as the immediate father of both. The name קרא is repeated in the family of the east doorkeepers, as we learn from 2Ch 31:14, where it is stated that this office was held by a Kore ben Jimna. “These (who are named in 1Ch 9:17) are the doorkeepers for the camp of the sons of Levi” (of the Levites), - an antiquated expression, bringing to remembrance the time of Moses, when the Levites, on the journey through the wilderness, were encamped about the tabernacle (Num 3:21.). 1Ch 9:19 1Ch 9:19 gives more exact information as to Shallum’s person and his official position. He, the descendant of Kore, the son (descendant) of Abiasaph, a Korahite, and his brethren according to his father's-house (i.e., called brethren because they, like him, belonged to the father's-house of Korah), were over the work of the service, viz., keepers of the thresholds of the tent, i.e., of the house of God, of the temple, which, according to the ancient custom, was called tent, because God’s house was formerly a tent-the tabernacle. “And his fathers (the ancestors of Shallum) were by the encampment of Jahve, guardians of the entrance.” With these words the author of this register goes back into the ancient time; and we learn that Shallum’s ancestors, of the father's-house of the Korahite Abiasaph, had held the office of guardian of the entrance to the house of God from the time of the conquest of Canaan and the setting up of the tabernacle in Shiloh. The remark in 1Ch 9:20, that Phinehas the son of Eleazar was prince over them in time past, points to the same period. In the book of Joshua and the older books there is no record of the matter; but since the Korahites were descended through Ishhar from Kohath, and the Kohathites held, according to Num 4:4., the first place among the servants of the holy place, and were responsible for the holiest vessels, we cannot doubt that the statement here rests upon accurate historical tradition. The “encampment of Jahve” is the holy place of the tabernacle, the dwelling of Jahve in the midst of His people. This designation also is derived from the circumstances of the Israelites in their wandering in the Arabian desert, and is likewise employed in 2Ch 31:2 in reference to Solomon’s temple; but in our verse the tabernacle is intended. It had only one entrance, מבוא, the guarding of which was entrusted to the above-mentioned Korahites. 1Ch 9:20

Phinehas was prince over them, not as high priest, but during the high-priesthood of his father Eleazar, i.e., in the time of Joshua, just as Eleazar, under the high-priesthood of Aaron in the time of Moses, had the oversight of the keepers of the holy place, as prince of the princes of Levi (Num 3:32). The words עמּו יהוה do not contain a historical remark, “Jahve was with him,” for then the conjunction w would stand before it, as in 1Ch 11:9; they are a blessing - “Jahve be with him” - in reference, probably, to the covenant of peace entered into with him and his descendants by Jahve (Num 25:11-13). 1Ch 9:21 1Ch 9:21 is quite unconnected with the preceding context, the conjunction w being omitted, and its contents also present considerable difficulties. Zechariah, the son of Meshelemiah, can only be the Zechariah who is mentioned in 1Ch 26:2 as the first-born of Meshelemiah, and who lived in the time of David; for at the time when David divided the porters into classes, there fell to him the lot towards midnight, i.e., the duty of waiting at the door on the north side of the holy place (1Ch 26:14). With this, indeed, the general statement of our verse, “he was porter of the door (or the entrance) of the tent of the covenant,” is not inconsistent. But what purpose does this general statement serve? With what design is Zechariah, and he alone, mentioned? We have no means of giving a definite answer to this question; but he may perhaps be named as being the person who, before David’s division of the Levites into classes was carried out, had charge of the porters’ service in the tabernacle. But even if this conjecture be accepted as well grounded, the abrupt way in which it is mentioned still remains enigmatical.