1Ch 9:17 | 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

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.