1Ch 4:38-43 | KD | STEP | “These mentioned by their names were princes in their families; whose fathers'-houses had increased to a multitude. And they went,” etc. בשׁמות הבּאים, properly “those who have come with their names,” i.e., those who have been mentioned by name; for בּוא with בּ = to come with, is to bring something in, to introduce: cf. Psa 71:16. This formula is synonymous with בשׁמות הכּתוּבים, ; but we cannot consider it, as J. H. Mich., Berth., and others do, identical in meaning with בשׁמות נקּבוּ אשׁר, ; Num 1:17, etc. The predicate to אלּה is נשׂיאים, and הבּאים is a relative sentence, more accurately defining the subject אלּה. Princes in their families are not heads of families, but heads of fathers'-houses, into which the families had divided themselves. בּית־אבות is not construed with the plural, as being collective (Berth.), but as the plural of the word בּית־אב: cf. Ew. §270, c .

‏ 1 Chronicles 4:38-43

1Ch 4:38 “These mentioned by their names were princes in their families; whose fathers'-houses had increased to a multitude. And they went,” etc. בשׁמות הבּאים, properly “those who have come with their names,” i.e., those who have been mentioned by name; for בּוא with בּ = to come with, is to bring something in, to introduce: cf. Psa 71:16. This formula is synonymous with בשׁמות הכּתוּבים, 1Ch 4:41; but we cannot consider it, as J. H. Mich., Berth., and others do, identical in meaning with בשׁמות נקּבוּ אשׁר, 1Ch 12:31; Num 1:17, etc. The predicate to אלּה is נשׂיאים, and הבּאים is a relative sentence, more accurately defining the subject אלּה. Princes in their families are not heads of families, but heads of fathers'-houses, into which the families had divided themselves. בּית־אבות is not construed with the plural, as being collective (Berth.), but as the plural of the word בּית־אב: cf. Ew. §270, c. 1Ch 4:39-40

The princes named “went westward from Gedor to the east side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks.” גדר מבוא does not mean the entrance of Gedor (Mich., Berth., and others); but is, as the corresponding מזרח, “rising” of the sun, i.e., east, requires, a designation of the west, and is abridged from השּׁמשׁ מבוא, as in statements with reference to places מזרח is used instead of השּׁמשׁ מזרח. The locality itself, however, is to us at present unknown. So much is clear, that by Gedor, the Gedor mentioned in Jos 15:58, situated in the high lands of Judah, north of Hebron, cannot be intended, for in that district there is no open valley stretching out on either hand; and the Simeonites, moreover, could not have carried on a war of conquest in the territory of the tribe of Judah in the reign of Hezekiah. But where this Gedor is to be sought cannot be more accurately determined; for הגּיא is certainly not “the valley in which the Dead Sea lies, and the southern continuation of that valley,” as Ewald and Berth. think: that valley has, in the Old Testament, always the name הערבה. From the use of the article, “the valley,” no further conclusion can be drawn, than that a definite valley in the neighbourhood of Gedor is meant. ^{▼▼The lxx have rendered גדר by Γεράρ, whence Ewald and Bertheau conclude that גדר is a transcriber’s error for גרר. But a slip of the pen which would make the Gerar so famed in the history of the patriarchs into Gedor is à priori not very probable; and the defective writing גדר, while Gedor in the high lands is written גּדור, cannot be adduced, as Bertheau thinks, in support of the hypothesis, since Gedor even in 1Ch 4:18 is written defectively. It is decisive against Gerar, that the dwelling-places of the Simeonites demonstrably did not extend till towards sunset (westward) from Gerar, for the cities assigned to them all lie to the east of Gerar.}

Even the further statements in 1Ch 4:30, with regard to the district, that they found there fat and good pasture, and that the land extended on both sides (i.e., was wide), and at rest and secure, because formerly the Hamites dwelt there, and the statement of 1Ch 4:41, that the Simeonites found the Meunim there, and smote them, give us no firm foothold for the ascertainment of the district referred to. The whole Negeb of Judah has been as yet too little travelled over and explored by modern travellers, to allow of our forming any probable conjecture as to Gedor and the wide valley stretching out on both sides. The description of the Hamite inhabitants, וּשׁלוה שׁקטת, reminds us of the inhabitants of the ancient Laish (Jdg 18:7, Jdg 18:27). Those צם מן are people from Ham, i.e., Hamites, and they may have been Egyptians, Cushites, or even Canaanites (1Ch 1:8). This only is certain, that they were a peaceful shepherd people, who dwelt in tents, and were therefore nomads. לפנים, “formerly,” before the Simeonites took possession of the land. 1Ch 4:41

The above-mentioned Simeonite princes, with their people, fell upon the peaceful little people of the Hamites in the days of Hezekiah, and smote, i.e., destroyed, their tents, and also the Meunites whom they found there. The Meunites were strangers in this place, and were probably connected with the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of Wady Musa (cf. on 2Ch 20:1 and 2Ch 26:7), who dwelt in tents as nomads, with the Hamites in their richly pastured valley. ויּחרימם, and they destroyed them utterly, as the Vulgate rightly renders it, et deleverunt; and J. H. Mich., ad internecionem usque eos exciderunt. The word החרים, to smite with the curse, having gradually lost its original religious signification, came to be used in a wider sense, to denote complete extirpation, because all accursed persons were slain. Undoubted examples are 2Ch 20:23; 2Ch 32:14; 2Ki 19:11; Isa 37:11; and it is to be so understood here also. ^{▼▼Bertheau ignores this secondary use of the word, and has drawn from יחרימם the extremely wide inference, that the Simeonites, impelled by holy enthusiasm, arising from the wondrous deliverance of Judah from the attack of the Assyrian power, and the elevation of feeling which it produced in the community, and filled with the thought awakened by the discourses of the great prophets, that the time had come to extend Israel’s rule, and to bring the conquered peoples under the curse, just as was done in the time of Joshua, had undertaken this war of annexation. But there is unfortunately not a single trace of this enthusiastic thought in the narrative of our verse, for it knows no other motive for the whole undertaking than the purely earthly need to seek and find new pasture lands.} “Until this day,” i.e., till the composition of the historical work used by the author of the Chronicle, i.e., till the time before the exile. 1Ch 4:42-43

A part of the Simeonites undertook a second war of conquest against Mount Seir. Led by four chiefs of the sons of Shimei (cf. 1Ch 4:27), 500 men marched thither, smote the remainder of the Amalekites who had escaped, and they dwell there to this day (as in 1Ch 4:41). מהם is more accurately defined by שׁ מבּני, and is therefore to be referred to the Simeonites in general, and not to that part of them only mentioned in 1Ch 4:33 (Berth.). From the circumstance that the leaders were sons of Shimei, we may conclude that the whole troop belonged to this family. The escaped of Amalek are those who had escaped destruction in the victories of Saul and David over this hereditary enemy of Israel (1Sa 14:48; 1Sa 15:7; 2Sa 8:12). A remnant of them had been driven into the mountain land of Idumea, where they were smitten, i.e., extirpated, by the Simeonites. It is not said at what time this was done, but it occurred most probably in the second half of Hezekiah’s reign.