Page:The Books of Chronicles (1916).djvu/66

2, Seth, Enosh; Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared; Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

hand the Jew who could successfully trace his ancestry in the great lists knew himself indubitably a member of the chosen people and was confident of his part in the covenantal grace and in all those hopes which the faith of Israel inspired and sustained.

(2) The practical aspect of these lists was thus essentially connected with high religious sentiment. They were an expression of the continuity of Israel, a declaration that the Present was one with the Past, a witness and an assurance of the unfailing grace of Israel's God. The genealogies therefore are in perfect harmony with the spirit and purpose of the Chronicler's work—see the Introd. § 6.

(3) Finally, in the lists of place-names and genealogies of inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, various facts of great historical interest are preserved—see Introd. § 7, pp. xlvii f. and (e.g.) ii. 42 note.

Ch. i. contains the genealogies of the earliest age, showing the origin of the nations. It concludes with a list of the chiefs of Edom. The names are those given in the genealogies of Gen. i.—xxxvi., but the lists are abbreviated to the utmost by the omission of statements of relationship. Evidently the Chronicler was able to assume that theconnection between the names was a matter of common knowledge.

1—4 (cp. Gen. v. 3—32).

1. Seth Noah] This genealogy of ten antediluvian patriarchs follows Gen. v. 3—32 (P), the "Sethite" line as compared with Gen. iv. 17—24 (J) where the descent is traced through Cain. There is some ancient connection between the list and the Babylonian tradition of ten kings before the Flood (see Ryle, Genesis, pp. 88 ff. in this series). For the symbols J and P, see the Introd. p. xx.

Enosh] A poetical word which, like Adam in prose writings, was used as a generic term for "man."

3. Enoch] Heb. Ḥanôkh. In ver. 33 the same name is more correctly rendered Hanoch, but the R.V. not unwisely has here retained the famous name in the form (derived through the Vulgate from the LXX.) with which the A.V. has made us familiar; cp. Gen. iv. 17, and v. 21.

5—23.

The table which follows is taken from Gen. x. 2—29. It is geographical rather than ethnological, i.e. neighbouring nations are regarded as having the same descent. The world as then known is divided into three areas of which that in the north and west is assigned to the Sons of Japheth (5—7), the southern to the Sons of Ham, and the middle and eastern to the Sons of Shem (17—23). Had the arrangement been according to actual descent the Semitic Zidonians, for instance, would not be described as the offspring of Ham (ver. 13).