WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

PROPER METHODOLOGY FOR APPROACHING BIBLICAL GENEALOGIES:THE VIABILITY OF ASSUMING THEIR HISTORICAL RELIABILITY

SUBMITTED TO PROF. KELLYIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

OT799: STUDIES IN OT GENEALOGIES

BY DEAN CHIADECEMBER 13, 2013

INTRODUCTION

A widening gulf has appeared before the scholarly and ecclesial enterprise of biblical exegesis.

The methodologies of the Academy and of the Church have continued to diverge and drift apart

from one another. As a result, any biblical interpreter can no longer assume his methodological

approach to Scripture to be shared, let alone appreciated and understood, by others in his field.

What may be considered a legitimate paper for one group may be considered irrelevant or

unhelpful for the other. Thus, before any proper exegesis can begin, one ought to explain and

defend one’s methodology and approach to Scripture.

For this paper on proper methodology for approaching the biblical genealogies, the

following questions must be answered: How ought we to read and understand biblical

genealogies? What are the form and the function of such genealogies? What literary purpose do

they serve? Does it matter if they are historically reliable? Do they mean to be?

Of course, behind methodological questions lie an interpreter’s agenda for studying the

Scriptures. What is the purpose of such an exercise? What questions does the interpreter have

that need to be answered? For some scholars, the question may be why the text is as it is, or how

this text helps us reconstruct Israel’s history. For the Church, the questions for the text may be

how this text ought to be read profitably for teaching, reproof, correcting, and training in

righteousness (1 Tim 3:16).

With questions and purposes for studying Scripture so diverse, it is essential for scholars

1

2

to lay out their own assumptions, agendas, and methods in order to help others understand what

scholars understand to be the purpose of their hermeneutical task. It is essential to discuss and

defend one’s purpose for exegesis, for the Preacher rightfully warns, “Of making many books

there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh” (Eccl 12:12 ESV).

Though I am primarily interested in the exegesis1 of the Scriptural text, I believe it is

important to lay out one’s hermeneutical methodology first. Thus in this paper, I will first discuss

my methodology as it relates to Scripture in general and to the genre of biblical genealogy in

particular.2 I will present then compare and critically evaluate other methodologies in light of my

own methodology, insisting on the historical reliability of biblical genealogies. I will then define

what it means for the biblical genealogies to be “historically reliable” and explore how my

methodology can be applied to potentially difficult passages in the genealogies of 1 Chron 1–9.

METHODOLOGY

Form, Genre, and Context

I approach the genealogies of 1 Chron 1–9 first and foremost as (part of) Christian Scripture.3 As

such, it is assumed to be divinely-inspired by a God who is sovereign over history and is thus

able to ensure that his Word is unified, without error, and internally consistent. If granted this

1 By exegesis, I mean the enterprise of interpreting the received form of Scriptural text holistically for the purpose of understanding what it meant (and still means) to its intended audience, the people of God (be it a post-exilic Israelite or a present-day Christian living thousands of years after Christ’s death and resurrection).

2 This paper will therefore deal less readily with the theology or literary purposes of genealogies. As such, works that may be important for understanding the literary or theological purposes of biblical genealogies but less relevant to my discussion of methodology will be given little to no treatment.

3 This includes all of the Hebrew Bible (commonly referred to as the Old Testament) and the Greek New Testament of the Christian Church.

3

assumption, it will not be difficult to suppose that the biblical genealogies can be (and indeed

are) inerrant④ and infallible, though it is beyond the scope of this paper to define further the

metaphysics of God, Creation, and divine inspiration.⑤

While this may seem quaint or inappropriate to discuss within scholarly papers, it is in

everyone’s best interest to lay out the assumptions driving my own hermeneutic. Interpreters all

approach Scripture with their own agendas and presuppositions, and these assumptions, held

consciously or otherwise, affect how the text is read and how empirical data is interpreted and

evaluated. Thus, it is most expedient to state explicitly the assumptions implicitly held.

A robust understanding of Scriptural inspiration will not conflict with but will rather take

seriously the historical-embeddedness of Scripture as it was revealed in a specific time and

culture. Thus, inspiration will not be used to somehow lift a text out of its social and cultural

context. The Hebrew Scriptures are truly situated in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Therefore

comparative analysis of other ANE literature can frequently be of tremendous help.

However, much caution must be exercised in dealing with comparative analysis. The

usefulness and applicability of comparable texts must be carefully and critically assessed for at

least two reasons. First of all, the book of Chronicles is an Israelite book. Secondly, this specific

collection of canonical books are distinctly (and uniquely) inspired literature. It also goes

without saying that texts of similar forms or genres are not necessarily bound by the same rules

④ Theologian John Frame’s definition of inerrancy is helpful here. He writes in John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (A Theology of Lordship ④; Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2010), “[I]nerrant language makes good on its claims. When we say that the Bible is inerrant, we mean that the Bible makes good on its claims” (17④, emphasis original). Thus careful attention ought to be paid to what the Chronicler is communicating and claiming to be true in the genealogies. The idea is that the inspired author is trustworthy and neither willfully nor unwittingly misleads. But it does not mean that the biblical text can mean whatever any other modern reader think it ought to mean; truth-claims do not (and need not) operate only according to modern-day presuppositions.

⑤ For more on inspiration, see Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible

④

or conventions. If most ANE genealogies have a certain feature X, one may naturally expect the

genealogies of Chronicles to share feature X. But it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that

the biblical genealogies must necessarily include feature X as well.

Therefore, if one assumes that Chronicles belongs to an inspired and unified canon of

Scripture, its primary interpretive context lies in the rest of the Christian Scriptures.6

Comparative literature are thus only of secondary value and their hermeneutical weight placed

behind the controlling hermeneutic of Scripture itself as a whole.7 Again, it must be emphasized

that comparative literature do not actually share in the same Israelite culture, and they certainly

do not share in Scripture’s quality of divine inspiration. My hermeneutical approach to Scripture,

therefore, is situated firmly in a long tradition of Christian interpretation and may at times be at

odds with much of the current scholarly establishment. This is not a polemical comment, but

rather one of clarification and orientation.

Hermeneutical Approach to Scripture

When approaching the 1 Chron 1–9 as Christian Scripture, then, I adopt, a priori, a charitable

hermeneutic of trust and humility, one that allows the text to speak authoritatively to its readers.

When an interpretive problem or supposed disharmony arises in the text, effort is exerted by the

interpreter to understand the text and its historical and literary context better in order to grasp the

(deeper) unity of the text that is assumed, a priori, to be there. In cases of hermeneutical

difficulty, it is assumed that the interpreter lacks a fuller knowledge, is in error, or approaches the

Scriptures wrongly, and not that the Scriptural text is incoherent, inconsistent, or lacks literary

6 This includes the Greek New Testament.

7 This hermeneutic principle is commonly known as “Scripture interpreting Scripture.”

⑤

(or theological) unity.⑧

With this hermeneutic, one is assured that whenever interpretation is involved, one is

always exegeting the received text itself and not some “Ur-text” or some hypothetical process of

redaction. This stands in great contrast to source-critical hermeneutical methods that approach

the text with distrust and seek to reconstruct (sometimes speculative) redactional layers and

histories behind the text and refusing to treat the text as a (intentional) literary unity.9 Critical

approaches in actuality provide little value in exegeting the text itself as we have received it.

Unfortunately, difficulties in the text are not properly engaged or wrestled with but are instead

explained away using various historical reconstructions, many of which are quite speculative.

At best, such methodologies (which require just as many if not more a priori assumptions

about history, sociology, and geopolitics) can only claim to explain how the text came to be what

it came to be, and not what the text actually means or how it functions—much less what it means

for us today. Thus, any diachronic method that seeks to “go behind” the text should be employed

cautiously and always with its immediate hermeneutical value in mind.

From another perspective, one must be prepared to engage in actual hermeneutics and

interpretation that respects and is faithful to the text itself. The Scriptural interpreter must guard

against using easy historical reconstructions as a convenient crutch to explain away interpretive

difficulties or to impose a hermeneutic foreign to the text itself. Having laid out my

methodology, I will now show how that overarching hermeneutic applies in practice to

⑧ Though by unity, one need not imply monochromatism. Literary unity in the text is not opposed to polyphonic or multiperspectival meaning.

9 Because my approach is in many regards deeply incompatible with much of modern biblical criticism andstands in great contrast to much of critical methodology, it may naturally be deemed insufficiently critical or less-than-adequate in addressing modern critical questions and concerns. I am fully cognizant of the potential methodological dissonance.

6

genealogies. But the definition of terms is in order.

Definition of Terms

Many biblical scholars follow Robert Wilson’s seminal work, Genealogy and History in the

Biblical World.10 We will use Wilson’s helpful definitions, which are also widely applicable not

only to genealogies in biblical studies but also in ancient Near Eastern studies and general

anthropological studies:

GENEALOGY. “A written or oral expression of the descent of a person or persons from an ancestor or ancestor.”

SEGMENTED GENEALOGY. A genealogy that “expresses more than one line of descent froma given ancestor.”

LINEAR GENEALOGY. A genealogy that “expresses only one line of descent from a given ancestor.”11

We will now see how my methodology will be used when interpreting biblical genealogies.

Hermeneutical Approach to Biblical Genealogies

Biblical genealogies are assumed to be inspired and therefore trustworthy and credible. This

naturally leads to the issue of historicity of the Chronicles accounts. Are they historically

accurate? Do they need to be? These questions in turn require further questions be addressed.

Does the Chronicler think his genealogies are historically reliable? Does he intend to present his

genealogies as historically reliable? Does it matter whether or not his audience assumes them to

be historically reliable?

10 Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale Near Eastern Researches 7; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997).

11 Ibid., 9. This distinction between segmented and linear genealogies is widely used by anthropologists, though different nomenclature may be used. See ibid., n. 16.

7

The answers to these questions actually determine how one views data and how one

interprets the theological message of Chroniclers and its meaning for us today. Therefore, one

cannot naively assume a “tabula rosa” posture and expect to get identical results with someone

else, for data must be evaluated and interpreted. Following my hermeneutic, I believe that yes,

the Chronicler presents his genealogies as historically reliable. This is assumed out of charity for

the text, for nowhere within the text does the author suggest that he is presenting anything

contrary to fact.

Later in this paper, I will clarify what “factual” and/or “historically reliable” entails more

specifically and address some potential difficulties within 1 Chron 1–9.12 For now, we will focus

on these broader questions of intention and historicity for now. Some have argued, however, that

“fact” and “historical reliability” are loaded terms and probably unhelpful criteria for ANE

genealogies. (I disagree, unsurprisingly.) We will look at different approaches to the question of

biblical genealogies in current scholarship.

VARIOUS APPROACHES TO BIBLICAL GENEALOGIES

Historical Reliability and Date of Provenance

In his introduction, Wilson surveys biblical scholarship and notes that the biblical genealogies

were generally considered as historically reliable up until the close of the nineteenth century.13

One line of reasoning that arose from anthropological findings was that because genealogies

were frequently observed in tribal groups to highlight social and political relationships, they were

12 See the section below titled “BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE FACTUAL OR HISTORICALLY RELIABLE?”.

13 Wilson, Genealogy and History, 1–2.

⑧

therefore of “little historiographic value.”1④ A second argument came from literary critics who

saw that the sources behind the genealogical information was significantly later than the actual

events themselves.

The late provenance of these genealogical sources meant that the genealogies themselves

were automatically factually suspect. That is, documents that are deemed late are therefore

unreliable simply by virtue of their late date. This is, however, clearly an untenable assumption

with no real support. Julius Wellhausen was a chief proponent of this view.1⑤ Wilson calls out

scholars for their unquestioning acceptance of Wellhausen’s thesis, one based not only on the

Documentary Hypothesis (which has yet to secure a scholarly consensus),16 but also on the

unfounded (and thus fallacious) assumption that a late date necessitates inaccuracy and

unreliability.

Martin Noth’s statement is reflective of those who largely agree with Wellhausen’s

sentiment:

[The Chronicler] was too far removed chronologically from the events which he relates for us to regard him as an historical witness in his own right. He can therefore be consulted by a historian only when he is demonstrably, or at least probably, working on the basis of older literary sources. . . .There is at present a definite predominating tendency to be generous in assuming the existence of such sources.17

Behind Noth’s approach lies not only the insistence that only ancient sources are reliable, but a

fundamentally critical stance that is deeply suspicious that scholars can assume a reliable source 1④ Ibid., 2.

1⑤ For his work on the genealogies in 1 Chron 1–9, see Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridian Books, 19⑤7), 211–227. Naturally, his approach would apply to genealogies in other parts of Scripture, as the Documentary Hypothesis is applied to much of the Hebrew Bible.

16 For an example of a scholarly critique of the Documentary Hypothesis, see R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup ⑤3; Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 199④).

17 Martin Noth, The Chronicler’s History (JSOTSup ⑤0; Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 19⑧7), ⑤0.

9

behind material in Chronicles that may difficult to verify independently. This, naturally, is at

odds with my own hermeneutic at a fundamental level.

Even scholars who differ with Wellhausen on how much material within the genealogies

is historical accept uncritically the same argument that the earlier the source, the more likely it is

to be historical.1⑧ (By virtue of this assumption, modern scholarship ought to be treated much

more lightly, given the much greater distance between the scholar and the recorded history than

the Chronicler!)

Not only are sources at times notoriously hard to date with great precision or

confidence,19 early sources can just as easily be inaccurate, and late sources can also be quite

accurate. That scholars cannot locate an earlier source does not mean that there is no early

source, or that the text is therefore unreliable. To insist on such fallacious arguments is to border

on scholarly arrogance.20 Indeed, Noth concedes that merely dating a text in no way guarantees

its historical accuracy.

Concerning the genealogical lists of 1 Chron 2:9–1⑤ and 6:3④–3⑧ as a particular example,

Noth remarks:

It would not be surprising if in the post-exilic period such genealogies were developed artificially on the basis of some older, inherited material, and so became the subject of wider interest; it is equally understandable that [the Chronicler] should have considered

1⑧ See Wilson, Genealogy and History, ④–7.

19 Besides, there hardly seems to be a scholarly consensus on the dating of Chronicles, which calls into question the exact degree of precision and certainty one can be in dating biblical books. See, for example, Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman, eds., What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? (Winona Lakes, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011).

20 To be fair, such a charitable hermeneutic requires a great deal of trust and humility toward the text. It is not irrelevant, therefore, that I consider Chronicles a divinely-inspired text. Of course, it should be noted, the doctrine of inspiration does not in any way conflict with the ordinarily ordained means of careful maintenance and use of earlier source material. However, one should note that as inspired text, when it is written is not determinative of its authenticity, as the possibility for direct divine revelation (sometimes disdainfully labeled “dictation”) should not be ruled out; it is impossible to either disprove methodologically (just as it is impossible to prove either).

10

them genuine and used them for his own purposes.21

That is, early sources could still be faulty inaccurate. And later sources can also just as easily

fabricate genealogies based on earlier sources. The question, then, can not be about the date of

the text. One could even argue that it never was. The question, in the end, is one of trust. Is it

possible to trust the Chronicler and his sources? Because scholars like Noth treat the sources

with what seems to be a priori suspicion, the need is perhaps felt to make sense of the current set

of genealogies preserved in Chronicles.

The Doomed Quest for Reconstructing Sources

One might justifiably ask if it is even possible to ascertain with a high degree of accuracy and

certainty the sources behind the Chronicler’s text, let alone the question of whether or not this

enterprise (doomed from the start, in my opinion) actually matters! For if one examines Noth’s

argumentation concerning the genealogies of 1 Chron 1–9,22 it may be difficult to understand

what exactly Noth is claiming and, to a greater extent, how he can possibly arrive at his claims

with such confidence, unless one already shares most or all of his presuppositions. In short, his

work is confusing and not very persuasive.

One must eventually ask what the point of this search for sources is, particularly if

sources deemed early may likely be considered unreliable anyway? Can this rightly be

considered interpretation of the text? What is the determined hermeneutic value of this exercise

(in futility)? Perhaps scholars have already assumed that the Scriptural text is untrustworthy (and

21 Noth, The Chronicler’s History, ⑤1.

22 Ibid., 36–3⑧, as a short sample reflective of Noth’s understanding.

11

therefore its history of Israel is therefore suspect),23 and so the question source critics want

answered is how this text came to be what it is and how it can possibly square with their own

assumed reconstructed history of Israel.

However valuable scholars may judge this quest to explain the text before them to be, this

scholarly endeavor, I contend, cannot properly be considered exegesis or hermeneutics. The

questions scholars ask of the text are not questions of what it means, but rather how it has come

to be (especially given the fact that we “know” these genealogies cannot be right). The questions

are so foreign to the text as we have received it that whatever answers may surface will find little

relevance or meaning to the interpretation of the text, to the question of what the text means.

This is not to disparage the quality of scholarship of such source critics as such. Rather,

the assumptions and questions of many scholars is so foreign to the text-world itself that such

approaches to the text cannot properly claim to be exegesis or hermeneutics. It would seem then

that, given the current state of scholarship (one in which scholars largely distrust the text and its

construction of Israel’s history), only approaches that seek to understand the text as it is received

as coherent and meaningful can hope to supply any hermeneutical insight. Wilson, however,

challenges the fundamental historiographic nature of genealogies, arguing that genealogies were

not considered a historiographic genre (at least not by our standards today).

Genealogies as Reflecting Social Reality

The historicity of the genealogies is challenged by most biblical scholars today, many of whom 23 Though for a robust methodological defense of the Bible as a reliable historical source in constructing

a/the history of Israel, see part I (chs. 1–⑤) of Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2003). One major point is that a text’s literary, theological, or idealogical purpose cannot by itself invalidate its historical reliability. A strong bias or partisan agenda on the part of the author is insufficient evidence for proving poor historicity. This is, in many ways, basic historiography.

12

largely follow Robert Wilson’s hermeneutical stance,2④ which is summarized below:

[Biblical, ANE, and oral] genealogies are not normally created for the purpose of conveying historical information. They are not intended to be historical records. Rather, . . . genealogies seem to have been created and preserved for domestic, politico-jural, and religious purposes, and historical information is preserved in the genealogies only incidentally.2⑤ [emphasis mine]

To understand genealogies properly, the careful exegete must, supposedly, move beyond the

2④ This is the view commonly held by many biblical scholars who doubt that genealogies can (or intend to) provide historically accurate information. See, for example, W. Boyd Barrick, “Genealogical Notes on the ‘House ofDavid’ and the ‘House of Zadok’,” JSOT 96 (2001): 29–⑤⑧, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; Roddy Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 1④; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 19⑧6), 7; Mark Chavalas, “Genealogical History as ‘Charter’: A Study of Old Babylonian Period Historiography and the Old Testament,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context. (ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 199④), 103–12⑧; Diana Edelman, “The Asherite Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7:3–④0,” Biblical Research 33 (19⑧⑧): 13–23, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; Diana Edelman, “The Manassite Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7:1④–19: Form and Source,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly ⑤3, no. 2 (1991): 179–201, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; Craig Y. S. Ho, “The Stories of the Family Troubles of Judah and David: A Study of Their Literary Links,” VT ④9, no. ④ (1999): ⑤1④–31, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; Marshall D. Johnson The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (SNTSMS ⑧; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969); Gary N. Knoppers, “Shem, Ham and Japheth: The Universal and the Particular in the Genealogy of Nations,” in TheChronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (ed. M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 13–31; Antti Laato, “The Levitical Genealogies in1 Chronicles ⑤–6 and the Formation of Levitical Ideology in Post-Exilic Judah,” JSOT 62 (199④): 77–99, ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; Yigal Levin, “From Lists to History: Chronological Aspects of the Chronicler’s Genealogies.” JBL 123, no. ④ (200④): 601–36, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; Yigal Levin, “Understanding Biblical Genealogies,” CurBS 9 (2001): 11–④6, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; Yigal Levin, “Who Was the Chronicler’s Audience? A Hint from His Genealogies,” JBL 122, no. 2 (2003): 229–④⑤, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; Nadav Na aman, “Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s ʼGenealogies of Asher and Ephraim,” JSOT ④9 (1991): 99–111, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com; William L. Osborne, “The Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9” (Ph.D. diss., The Dropsie University, 1979); Gerrie Snyman, “A Possible World of Text Production for the Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2.3–④.23,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (ed. M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 32–60; James T. Sparks, The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 200⑧), ⑤–23. But see Israel Finkelstein, Israel, “The Historical Reality Behind the Genealogical Lists in 1 Chronicles,” JBL 131, no. 1 (2012): 6⑤–⑧3, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com. See also Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Internal Consistency and Historical Reliability of the Biblical Genealogies,” VT ④0, no. 2 (1990): 1⑧⑤–206. Rendsburg sees remarkable internal consistency within Scripture, though he allows for minor doctoring of genealogical material. For a fascinating article written from an anthropological perspective, see Karin R. Andriolo, “A Structural Analysis of Genealogy and Worldview in the Old Testament,” American Anthropologist 7⑤, no. ⑤ (1973): 16⑤7–69, freely available online:http://dx.doi.org/10.1⑤2⑤/aa.1973.7⑤.⑤.02a002⑧0. While not explicit, Andriolo’s view seems consistent with the one that does not require genealogies to be historically accuracy. For a scholarly view that is cautiously open to Wilson’s view, see John H. Walton, “Genealogies,” DOTHB: 309–316.

13

question of—much less the need for—historical reliability.

For the very purpose of genealogies is to reflect current social reality (at least at the time

of writing for a written genealogy. Genealogies, then, seem by design to be quasi-historical (with

fluidity and flexibility being desirable), for to be meaningful, they must be constantly updated in

order to reflect social power structures and hierarchies.

Wilson notes, “Every society is in a constant state of flux. When genealogies are used to

express social relationships, the genealogies must change when the social structure changes. ”26 It

would seem that not only is a genealogist allowed to fabricate or massage historical details when

it is expedient, but he is expected to do so. One may feel, however, that such a position requires a

lot of cognitive dissonance.

Wilson’s position, taken to the logical extreme, seems to suggest strongly that the ancient

“original” audience(s) of the biblical genealogies were either quite stupid and oblivious to the

actual purposes of genealogies, or they do not care about the historicity of their genealogies. But

here lies the conflict for Wilson. The question Wilson wants to solve is the apparent differences

in parallel genealogical accounts in the Bible.

For Wilson to explain apparent differences, he has only three options available: 1)

parallel genealogical accounts are all historically accurate (properly defined) and can thus be

harmonized to some extent responsibly, 2) error is involved somewhere, or 3) genealogies are not

meant to be historically reliable as defined by modern historians.

Option one is perhaps intellectually untenable for Wilson (for if it were tenable, why not

2⑤ Wilson, Genealogy and History, 199.

26 Robert R. Wilson, “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’: Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies,” BA ④2, no. 1 (1979): 12, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

1④

hold to it, as it is the simplest explanation and thus most likely true by the principle of Occam’s

razor). Concerning option two, Wilson acknowledges the possibility of unintentional error.

Drawing on modern anthropological studies (and the largely untested assumption that modern

oral genealogies are quite comparable with ancient written genealogies),27 he suggests that error

may arise from a faulty understanding of relationships or from memory lapses.2⑧

This is methodologically suspect. Despite the many apparent similarities, similarity in

form does not necessitate similarity in purpose or method. Also, despite the similarities, modern

oral genealogies are, well, modern and oral, and are therefore quite dissimilar from biblical,

enscripturated (that is, written) genealogies. Wilson admits the weakness of this connection, but

the obvious bears explicit restatement. There exists a wide chronological and cultural gap

between ancient Hebrew culture and modern day tribal societies.

At any rate, we simply do not have access to any ancient oral genealogies. Obvious

though it may sound, written genealogies are not oral genealogies! If anything, written

genealogies need not be memorized, as written documents are quite easily archived and exhibit

much greater permanency and reliability than oral sources. Written genealogies would have

therefore drawn tremendous attention and care during the process of codification. Also, it is

almost certain that the Chronicler based his own work off earlier, canonical Scripture29 found in

Genesis–2 Kings. The other biblical genealogies would have offered ready comparison to the

27 Wilson, “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’,” 1⑧. Cf. Robert R. Wilson, “Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” JBL 9④, no. 2 (197⑤): 1⑧⑧, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com. In his conclusion, Wilson insists that proposed forms and functions of biblical genealogies must be rooted in analagous forms and functions in modern tribal society, though he provides little to noconvincing methodological support for why it must be so.

2⑧ Ibid., 11–13. Also Wilson, Genealogy and History, ⑤⑤.

29 Recall that scripture means “that which is written.”

1⑤

Chronicler’s own, so the probability of error and mistakes cropping up would be quite small.

Wilson’s remarks, at any rate, should be treated lightly as mere concession statements of what

may be possible but improbable.30

So with options one and two ruled out, Wilson must agree essentially with option three,

that genealogies are not meant to (and thus need not) be historically accurate. When dealing with

parallel genealogical accounts (that is, accounts that cover the same people), Wilson repeats his

own thesis as the answer: “It is frequently the case that each genealogy has its own legitimate

function and accurately expresses a particular aspect of social reality. Apparently conflicting

genealogies may all be recognized as accurate when their individual functions are understood.”31

There are a few methodological problems with this.

First, what may be recognized as accurate has not be sufficiently demonstrated to be the

case for Israel’s genealogies. Indeed, Wilson’s insistence on the acceptability of genealogical

fluidity (differences between “conflicting genealogies”) hinges on their being flexible, oral

genealogies (which seems to border on circular argumentation). Different functions for

genealogies, Wilson contends, can explain supposed differences in genealogical forms, but these

different social functions can only be effective in oral genealogies so as to be constantly updated!

Wilson explains:

All of these facts seem to support our earlier suggestion that only oral segmented lineage genealogies can function effectively in the social or political spheres. Segmented genealogies functioning in these spheres must constantly change in order to represent the changing shape of the lineage, and such changes occur most easily at the oral level. The genealogies are frozen when they are set down in writing, and this freezing inhibits their 30 For even when Wilson states that there may be a lot of historical information present incidentally,

genealogies still cannot be used to reconstruct Israel’s actual history. In a footnote, he essentially equates “believ[ing] the genealogies to be important historiographic sources” with “us[ing] them uncritically to reconstruct Israelite history” in Wilson, “Old Testament Genealogies,” 171, n. ⑧.

31 Wilson, “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’,” 13.

16

functioning. In written form, then, we may expect segmented genealogies either to have no function at all or to have functions that do not require formal change.32

Wilson is essentially forced to conclude that these genealogies cannot have any social or

political functions that his position requires them to have, or else his thesis would be unable to

explain the written genealogies found in the Bible. For it is undeniable that Wilson and other

modern scholars simply do not possess any means by which to access Israel’s ancient, oral

genealogies! Scholars today have access only to ancient, written genealogies and modern oral

genealogies.

Furthermore, Israel’s genealogies were quite unique in the ANE world, Wilson readily

admits: “The Bible provides examples of both linear and segmented genealogies, and in this

respect the biblical genealogies are more closely parallel to the genealogies in the

anthropological material than to those in the Near Eastern material, which contains very few

segmented genealogies.”33 For most societies in ancient Mesopotamia were ruled by a centralized

government. “Thus,” Wilson notes, “we would not expect segmented lineage genealogies to have

been used politically in Mesopotamia, and in fact very few of them have been preserved"

[emphasis mine].3④

Excursus: The Quest for the Source of Israel’s Twelve Tribal Names

Wilson is honest in revealing a significant weakness inherent to his own position. For if

32 Wilson, Genealogy and History, 19⑧. This passage was written in the context of discussing Gen 36, whose function is an enigma for Wilson (and so is probably “included for purely historiographic purposes” (199)), and the existence of Israel’s twelve-tribe genealogies, which is also an enigma for Wilson.

33 Ibid., 196.

3④ Ibid.

17

there must be a clear, social function in order to understand the purpose of genealogies, then his

approach is unable to account for the existence of Israel’s twelve-tribe genealogy, which

continues to exist well after Israel was ruled by a centralized monarchy.3⑤ He starkly admits:

Our analysis of the genealogies has not been able to shed any light on the origin of the listof twelve names that was one of the two sources of the twelve-tribe genealogy. The traditional character of the list is indicated by the fact that the compiler of the genealogy included the list in its entirety, even though some of the names in the list had ceased to exist as political entities in his own day. In addition, the compiler apparently did not feel free to tamper directly with the received dogma that all of the people mentioned in the listwere in some way equal to each other, for he continued to list them all as brothers, and heintroduced status differences into the list only indirectly by assigning the brothers to different mothers. Thus the history of the twelve-tribe list remains in darkness, and it is apparent that the problem cannot be solved on genealogical grounds alone.36

If I may be so bold to suggest, perhaps the problem can be solved not on genealogical grounds,

but on methodological grounds. Namely, the problem is easily solved if there existed a historical

Israel (Jacob), who did indeed father twelve sons! Indeed, the question of historicity can never

actually be far from the interpreter of biblical genealogies. For sooner or later, the creativity of

scholars will be stretched to the limit and will be unable to explain adequately the genealogical

phenomena before them (short of affirming their historical veracity).

Inconsistency in Wilson’s Approach to Genealogies as Reflecting Social Reality

Wilson contends that genealogies may not be historical and may even contradict one

another; yet earlier he argues that historicity was nevertheless important (if not vital) for

genealogies:

A society may knowingly manipulate a genealogy, and rival groups within the society may advance conflicting tendentious genealogies, but once the society agrees that a

3⑤ Wilson, Genealogy and History, 196.

36 Ibid., 19⑤.

1⑧

particular version of the genealogy is correct, that version is cited as historical evidence to support contemporary social configurations. Only the fact that genealogies are considered to be accurate historical records permits them to be used as charters. 37 [emphasis mine]

So the question of historicity may not have been discussed, but it was certainly on the mind of

the Chronicler and on his readers.3⑧ It is thus not difficult to explain why “there is a tendency for

genealogies originally created for particular purposes to be understood by later tradents as

historically accurate sources. . . . [Biblical] genealogies . . . were apparently viewed as historical

sources by the Chronicler and by writers in the intertestamental and New Testament periods.”39

BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE FACTUAL OR HISTORICALLY RELIABLE?

I have been insisting all along that the biblical genealogies ought be considered factual

and historical. But what does that look like in practice? I must note, of course, that no scholar

actually claims that historical sources cannot, by virtue of their historicity, be consciously

manipulated for ideological or literary purposes. It remains to be proven, however, that such

manipulation is done with disregard for history. As stated above, partisan or

theological-motivated accounts of history can still be historically reliable. Therefore, we need not

37 Wilson, Genealogy and History, ⑤④–⑤⑤. With this in mind, it is uncertain how “genealogies may be accurate in the spheres in which they are functioning but not in other spheres” (200). For if they were considered inaccurate, then they could be easily discredited as illegitimate and summarily ignored! The authority of genealogieslies precisely in their historical veracity and trustworthiness. Non-historical genealogies would therefore be useless and therefore non-functional.

3⑧ Indeed, might the silence on historicity simply be because it was assumed from the start? That is, historicity was such a deep-level assumption that it wasn’t even questioned? And giventhe paucity of historical data (outside of these biblical genealogies) available to us today, scholars ought to be circumspect and cautious in their conclusions. For example, in Genealogy and History, Wilson suggests that the genealogies in the Chronicler were originally shorter, separate genealogies simply because most linear genealogies in the ANE discovered today “rarely extend beyond a depth of ten to twelve generations” (197). But it is unclear why this must be (or is likely) the case.

39 Wilson, Genealogy and History, 199–200.

19

be surprised that parts of the genealogies often times have been presented in a very intentional

matter.

In addition, scholars who actually subscribe to the historicity of the genealogical accounts

in Scripture also have no need to suggest that there remains no difficulties whatsoever in our

approach. Rather, I have attempted so far in this paper to lay out the (what I believe to be

massive) difficulties for those who do not assume genealogical historicity. Thus, scholars of the

bible and its genealogies ought to approach the text (and the scholarly enterprise in general) with

proper humility and charity.

I will now attempt to define positively what I mean when I say that biblical genealogies

are “historically reliable.” I will then apply my own hermeneutic to a few passages in 1 Chron

1–9 that some may consider to pose significant challenges to my own approach.④0

What Does Sonship and Fatherhood Mean?

A common word that shows up in biblical genealogies is the Hebrew word, בן, which is usually

glossed as “son.” This is because in most cases, it describes someone who is the biological son of

a father. However, we must understand that even in a modern, Western context, the word “son”

can also mean someone who is adopted. That is, “son” can refer to someone who is legally if not

also biologically related to his father. I believe there may be legitimate examples of this in the

Chronicler’s genealogies.④1

Multi-Generational Sonship

④0 I do not intend in the slightest to suggest that my paper has definitively solved any particular issue or thatit comes close to addressing every possible difficulty that may arise for biblical scholars in dealing with this ancient text.

20

It is also clear from Scriptural evidence that in dealing with genealogies, בן can denote a

descendant who may be more than one generation removed. Outside Chronicles, we see this use

evidently in passages such as Gen 10:21; 31:2⑧, ④3; 32:1; ④6:1⑤, 1⑧, 22, 2⑤. To gloss בן as

“descendant” may help us understand the multi-generational aspect of בן, but we must be careful

not to make it seem therefore less intimate. Indeed, both sons and grandsons were seen, to a

certain extent, as (close as actual) sons.

In Chronicles, we see this multi-generational usage of “son” clearly in 1 Chron ④:1,

where Judah’s sons include both literal sons and also grandsons. Thus when genealogies leave

out names (exhibiting the phenomenon many scholars call “telescoping”), it should not be

surprising or alarming. When we affirm that Chronicler intends to tells the truth, we can certainly

allow him to intentionally leave out certain names for his own literary purposes. He needs to tell

us the truth, but not the whole truth, only nothing but the truth.④2 This extended semantic range

for בן also applies to the understanding of fatherhood (cf. Gen 31:3⑧, ④3; 32:1). The Israelites’

understanding of family is certainly dissimilar to the modern-day (Western) assumption of

families as primarily nuclear ones.

This understanding of the concept of sonship does mean that sometimes we have to be

④1 For what it is worth, I believe that one way to “harmonize” the genealogical accounts of Jesus in in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is to suggest that Matthew and Luke may both trace legitimate but different parentagelines from David to Zerubbabel, and from Zerubbabel to Joseph. It is quite possible that Zerubbable and Joseph can legitimately be considered the son of more than one father (not biologically, of course), whether through some sort of adoption process or through something like levirate marriage. I do not have any clear evidence for this, but this possibility certainly cannot be ruled out.

④2 It is widely recognized that biblical genealogies usually place special emphasis on the seventh and/or tenth positions in genealogies, both linear and segmented. In 1 Chron 2:1⑤, one of David’s brothers is omitted so thatDavid would be in the seventh position. This was intentional for the Chronicler, especially when he seems to write toan audience who knew the accounts of Israel from Genesis to 1 Kings. Cf. Mark Boda, 1–2 Chronicles (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary ⑤a; Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale, 2010), ⑤2.

21

discerning in how we construct our genealogies, and we must be tentative in our conclusions. For

example, let us examine the genealogy of the “sons” of Seir in 1 Chron 1:3⑧–④2. Though v. 3⑧

lists seven names (Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan), it may be that, given

our understanding of the semantic flexibility of בן, only five are literal sons of Seir, with Anah,

the son of Zibeon, as a grandson of Seir, and Dishon, the son of Anah as a great-grandson of Seir

(cf. vv. ④0–④1). However, it would be presumptuous to insist that Anah and Dishon cannot be

brothers④3 of Lotan. For it is equally possible that they have nephews who share their names. It is

not uncommon even for people today to reuse names within the family. However, there may be

yet another possibility. Seir may refer to a historical person; it may also refer to a place. In this

case, it may be possible that the sons of Seir are not biological siblings but are rather

geographical kin.

Geographical Sonship

Genealogies become more complex for modern readers when they realize that many names in

genealogies are also geographical place names. Thus proper scholarly care and humility is

required to reconstruct history using biblical genealogies. One need not insist that any names that

are known geographical locations cannot also refer to an actual person, but neither can one insist

that genealogies are only about specific persons.

This may be an important insight for understanding how ancient peoples understood their

own identity. Their land matters. People defined themselves by their land in addition to their

ethnicity. Kinship could be found in geographical if not necessarily biological closeness. This is

④3 On a side note, see 1 Chron 6:2④ [EV 6:39] for a use of “brother” to denote a distant relative or cousin.

22

clear from the many land promises that God gives to his people in addition to his promises of

seed. We also see much Scripture dedicated to the allocation of tribal and familial lands.

More importantly, land and geography were intimately connected to and relevant for

Israel’s genealogies.④④ In the case of other passages in 1 Chron 1–9 dealing with villages and

cities, when a person is the “father” of a city, we may understand the word to function as

“founder;” “sons” of a place name could simply refer to those who inhabited that area (cf. 1

Chron 2:⑤1–⑤2).

Geographical, Not Ethnic Unity for Israel

Location and geography was therefore important to Israel’s self-consciousness. Perhaps we can

understand Israel not as a religious and ethnic unity, but rather a religious and geographical unity.

Many Gentiles escaped Egypt and crossed the Red Sea with Israel (Exod 12:3⑧). Yet surely they

had to be eventually categorized into respective tribes in order to be placed in Israel’s camp (and

then be allocated land in Canaan upon conquest). Being included in genealogy was for the

purpose of geography.④⑤

From the angle of geographical proximity and unity, one can understand then how Israel

can view itself as a political entity that need not be ethnically pure.④6 For example, Caleb, son of

Jephunneh, the faithful spy representing Judah in surveying the Promised Land (Num 13:6; 1④:6;

④④ Cf. Gen 10:20, 31. Among many other places in the Chronicler’s genealogies, see, for example, 1 Chron ④:2⑧–33 (especially note the connection between cities and genealogies in v. 33), 39–④3; ⑤:16–17. In v. 17, geographical information was important enough to be recorded in genealogies.

④⑤ In a way, location and geography are still important for Christians today. Christ is after all, understood asthe new Jerusalem, a geographical metaphor. Geographical unity is still required for Israel (the Church) in the new covenant, but it is fulfilled in Christ as the location or locus for our worship (cf. John ④:20–21).

23

3④:19), was a Kenizzite (Num 32:12; Josh 1④:6, 1④).④7 Yet he is considered a bona-fide Judahite;

he is grafted into Judah’s genealogy in 1 Chron ④:1⑤. We see, of course, that Chronicles is not the

only place in which biblical writers recorded Gentile adoption into the covenant community of

Israel. And precisely because the Chronicler has nothing to hide and is generally accepting of (or

is at least far from being vehemently against) foreigners in the covenant community of Israel,

one should be hesitant to suppose that the Chronicler felt the necessity to legitimate foreigners

and graft them in after the fact. He clearly seems to interested in presenting historical fact, and he

feels no need to defend any ideal of ethnic purity within Judah or Israel. With this in mind, let us

approach the case of Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dar[d]a④⑧ in 1 Chron 2:6.

Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Darda in 1 Chron 2:6

These four names in 1 Chron 2:6 are linked with the four wise men who are listed in 1 Kgs ⑤:11

[EV ④:31]. Gary N. Knoppers suggests that these were actually non-Israelites who were passed

off as Judahite (by virtue of their wisdom?).④9 But short of Canaanite-sounding names for

Knoppers, this position is unsubstantiated. It may very be that these wise men four are indeed

④6 See Gary N. Knoppers, “Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah,” JBL 120, no. 1 (2001): 1⑤–30, ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com. It is striking that the genealogies for Judah would be so open about Judah’s own ethnic inclusivity in a late Persian setting (cf. pp. 22, 30). Knoppers writes, “The complex evidence provided by the Judahite genealogy augurs against postulating simplistic notions about Judean self-definition in the Persian period” (30). See also H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 61. The accounts of mixed ethnic marriages and the inclusion of other sordid and less-than-flattering details in Judah’s genealogy strongly support its genuineness and historicity.

④7 That is, he was of non-Israelite blood, though we do not if this is from his father or mother. Cf. Gen 1⑤:19.

④⑧ The dropped dalet in the Chronicler’s genealogy is likely due to scribal haplography.

④9 Knoppers, “Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity,” 23. No reason is given for why this might be the case.

2④

descendants of Judah through Zerah. In this case, Ezrahite (in 1 Kgs ⑤:11) may simply be another

spelling for Zerahite.⑤0 Perhaps they were already long dead during the time of David and

Solomon (with Mahol occupying an intermediary generation). But holding this view would

require distinguishing between Ethan the Ezrahite of Kings and Chronicles and Ethan the

Ezrahite of Ps ⑧9, who speaks of King David (short of insisting on the divine revelation of

David’s name to Ethan or suggesting a late addition of the name David).

Another possibility would be that these four wise men were contemporaries with King

David and Solomon, and what we have in 1 Chron 2:6 is a lot of generations omitted, with

Mahol fitting somewhere between Zerah and the four wise men. In this case, the Ethan’s of 1

Kgs ⑤:11, 1 Chron 2:6, and Ps ⑧9 are all one and the same person. Perhaps the Heman of Kings

and Chronicles is also Heman the Ezrahite of Ps ⑧⑧, the one preceding Ethan’s song. Ethan and

Heman would then be wise singers, and Calcol and Darda would be their equally wise but less

musically gifted brothers.

However, this harmonization is not without its difficulties. For the Ethan of Ps ⑧9 and the

Heman of Ps ⑧⑧ seem more likely to fit with the Levitical singers from the clan of Merari and

from the clan of Kohath, respectively (cf. 1 Chron 6:1⑧–23, 29–32 [EV 6:33–3⑧, ④④–④7]).⑤1 This

seems to make sense of the psalms, given that book 3 of the Psalter (Pss 73–⑧9) are all poems by

Levites (with Asaph beginning in Ps 73 and his two “brothers”⑤2 closing for Pss ⑧⑧ and ⑧9).

If Ethan the Ezrahite of Ps ⑧9 is the Levitical Ethan in 1 Chron 6 (and presumably 1 Kgs

⑤0 So Martin J. Selman, 1 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 199④), 96.

⑤1 According to 1 Chron 6:1⑧, Heman would be a descendant of Samuel himself.

⑤2 Cf. 1 Chron 6:2④.

2⑤

⑤:11 (and the Heman of Ps ⑧⑧ is the same one in 1 Kgs ⑤:11), then we have two likely options.

One is that Ethan was an Ezrahite (or Zerahite), and that all four Ethans (1 Kgs ⑤:11; 1 Chron

2:6; 6:29; Ps ⑧9) are one and the same. In this case, we would have to posit that perhaps Ethan

(the Zerahite) of Judah and Heman (the Zerahite) of Judah were adopted into Levitical families

(perhaps by being consecrated to temple service like Samuel or otherwise).⑤3

The other likely option is to suggest that the four names in 1 Chron 2:6 do not actually

refer to the same four people in 1 Kgs ⑤:11.⑤④ Citing Gesenius, B. J. E. Van Noort posits “planted

or rooted” as the definition of Ezrahite.⑤⑤ In this case, the Ezrahites Ethan and Heman of 1 Kgs

⑤:11 would be the very same singers of Pss ⑧⑧ and ⑧9 listed in 1 Chron 6. Calcol and Darda, then

would be the sons of Mahol, who would presumably be unrelated to Zerah of Judah.⑤6

It may be, then, that the Chronicler somehow wanted to link Zerah’s offspring in 1 Chron

2:6 literarily with the wise men of 1 Kgs ⑤:11 for some reason unclear to scholars today. We see

the Chronicler’s creative use of names to make literary links, such as in the renaming of David’s

wife Bathsheba to Bathshua to connect David with Judah (who had a wife named Bathshua),⑤7 or

with another Caleb/Chelubai (not the Kenizzite Caleb, son of Jephunneh in 1 Chron ④:1⑤)

naming his daugther Achsah (1 Chron 2:④9),⑤⑧ or with the play on words that renames Achan

⑤3 This would not count as ahistorical fabrication of facts or posthumous “legitimization.” Rather, the Chronicler would be recording the historical fact of Levitical adoption.

⑤④ See, for example B. J. E. Van Noort, “Who Was Heman’s Father?,” Contradicting Bible Contradictions. Online: http://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=1⑤26.

⑤⑤ Ibid.

⑤6 Ibid. Though perhaps it may be possible if unlikely that Mahol is a descendant of Zerah.

⑤7 Boda, 1–2 Chronicles, ⑤3. Cf. 1 Chron 2:3–④; 3:⑤.

⑤⑧ Of course, it may also be possible that both Caleb’s have chosen to name their daughters Achsah independently.

26

Achar (disaster).⑤9

In the end, I slightly favor the latter of these two workable solutions: either one

distinguishes between the people mentioned in 1 Kgs ⑤:11 and 1 Chron 2:6 (noting the link

between Ezrahites in 1 Kings and Pss ⑧⑧–⑧9), or one treats the word “Ezrahite” more generically,

perhaps as a general term (for “patron”?),60 and see the Ethan the Ezrahite (and Heman) of 1 Kgs

⑤:11 and 1 Chron 2:6 as different than the Levitical singers of 1 Chron 6 and Pss ⑧⑧–⑧9. But

there is another potential difficulty with another “Levite,” Samuel himself.

Is Samuel a Levite or an Ephraimite?

The question is raised when comparing Samuel’s lineage in 1 Sam 1:1 and 1 Chron 6:1⑧–23. In 1

Sam 1:1, Samuel’s father is called an Ephraimite, living in the land of Ephraim (in Zuph?).61 But

in 1 Chron 6:1⑧–23, his lineage is traced through Elkanah to Levi himself, making him a Levite.

Some suggest that Samuel’s service in the temple has allowed his (originally Ephraimite)

genealogy to be grafted in to Levi’s.62 In other words, is it possible that by virtue of his temple

service that the Levites adopted Samuel into their genealogy, in a way not unlike Caleb, son of

Jephunneh? Perhaps. But Caleb’s adoption into Judah did not entail his genealogy being grafted

in. Jephunneh receives no Judahite link.

⑤9 Boda, 1–2 Chronicles, ④2.

60 See Van Noort quote Gethsenius in “Who Was Heman’s Father?.”

61 Zuph may very well be a place name (cf. 1 Sam 9:⑤). However, the land of Zuph may also mean the landbelonging to a person named Zuph, which may better explain Samuel’s genealogy in 1 Chron 6:1⑧–23.

62 So Boda, 1–2 Chronicles, 72: “Either the Chronicler understood Elkanah as a Levite living within the boundaries of Ephraim or, more likely, that the gift of Samuel to the Tabernacle at Shiloh officially brought Samuel’slineage into the tribe of Levi.”

27

More likely, then, is the simple and elegant solution that Elkanah and Samuel were actual

Levites living in the land of Ephraim. If the Chronicler’s genealogy is accurate, then Samuel was

a Kohathite, and certain Kohathite clans received territories from Ephraim, including Shechem,

which was not far from Shiloh (1 Chron 6:⑤1–⑤2 [EV 6:66–67]). Samuel’s Levitical lineage

would also explain why Hannah offered Samuel to the temple in the first place.63 That Samuel

was actually the grandfather of Heman also fits chronologically with Heman being a lead singer

for King David.

CONCLUSION

There may still be many difficulties in the genealogies of 1 Chron 1–9. However, I have shown

how my methodology can ably solve certain hermeneutical “problems.” Even if the reader finds

my arguments unconvincing, perhaps the reader can still come away with more humility toward

the text, recognizing that the modern exegete has little historical data immediately relevant to

written Israelite genealogies and that any methodological stance that assumes suspicion has its

own set of hermeneutical problems.

Of course, there is no denying that my willingness to trust such an ancient text is directly

related to my belief in the Hebrew Scriptures as part of God’s divine revelation for his people. I

recognize that many scholars may not share my presupposition. However, I contend that in the

spirit of critical scholarship scholars should also be critical of their critical stance toward

Scripture. I hope that this paper may cause scholars to rethink and reevaluate their methodologies

toward the Bible and intentionally employ them for the purpose of elucidating the biblical text

and clarifying what it meant and continues to mean.

63 I forget where I received this insight. It may or may not have been from Martin Selman’s commentary.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andriolo, Karin R. “A Structural Analysis of Genealogy and Worldview in the Old Testament.” American Anthropologist 7⑤, no. ⑤ (1973): 16⑤7–69. Online (freely accesible): http://dx.doi.org/10.1⑤2⑤/aa.1973.7⑤.⑤.02a002⑧0.

Barrick, W. Boyd. “Genealogical Notes on the ‘House of David’ and the ‘House of Zadok’.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001): 29–⑤⑧. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

Ben Zvi, Ehud and Diana V. Edelman, eds. What Was Authoritative for Chronicles?. Winona Lakes, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Boda, Mark. 1–2 Chronicles. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary ⑤a. Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale, 2010.

Braun, Roddy. 1 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commentary 1④. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 19⑧6.

Chavalas, Mark. “Genealogical History as ‘Charter’: A Study of Old Babylonian Period Historiography and the Old Testament.” Pages 103–12⑧ in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context. Edited by A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 199④.

Edelman, Diana. “The Asherite Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7:3–④0.” Biblical Research 33 (19⑧⑧):13–23. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

———. “The Manassite Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7:1④–19: Form and Source.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly ⑤3, no. 2 (1991): 179–201. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

Finkelstein, Israel. “The Historical Reality Behind the Genealogical Lists in 1 Chronicles.” Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 1 (2012): 6⑤–⑧3. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Word of God. A Theology of Lordship ④. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2010.

2⑧

29

Ho, Craig Y. S. “The Stories of the Family Troubles of Judah and David: A Study of Their Literary Links.” Vetus Testamentum ④9, no. ④ (1999): ⑤1④–31. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series ⑧. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Knoppers, Gary N. “Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120, no. 1 (2001): 1⑤–30. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

———. “Shem, Ham and Japheth: The Universal and the Particular in the Genealogy of Nations.” Pages 13–31 in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 371. New York: T&T Clark, 2003.

Laato, Antti. “The Levitical Genealogies in 1 Chronicles ⑤–6 and the Formation of Levitical Ideology in Post-Exilic Judah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 62 (199④): 77–99. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

Levin, Yigal. “From Lists to History: Chronological Aspects of the Chronicler’s Genealogies.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. ④ (200④): 601–36. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

———. “Understanding Biblical Genealogies.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 9 (2001): 11–④6. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

———. “Who Was the Chronicler’s Audience? A Hint from His Genealogies.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 2 (2003): 229–④⑤. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

Na aman, Nadav. “Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogies of Asher and ʼEphraim.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament ④9 (1991): 99–111. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

Noth, Martin. The Chronicler’s History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series ⑤0. Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 19⑧7.

Osborne, William L. “The Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9.” Ph.D. diss., The Dropsie University, 1979.

30

Provan, Iain, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Rendsburg, Gary A. “The Internal Consistency and Historical Reliability of the Biblical Genealogies.” Vetus Testamentum ④0, no. 2 (1990): 1⑧⑤–206. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

Selman, Martin J. 1 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 199④.

Snyman, Gerrie. “A Possible World of Text Production for the Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2.3– ④.23.” Pages 32–60 in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein.Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 371. New York: T&T Clark, 2003.

Sparks, James T. The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 200⑧.

Van Noort, B. J. E. “Who Was Heman’s Father?.” Contradicting Bible Contradictions. Online: http://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=1⑤26.

Walton, John H. “Genealogies.” Pages 309–316 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Edited by Bill T. Arnold & H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 200⑤.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 19④⑧.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian Books, 19⑤7.

Williamson, H. G. M. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Journal for the Study ofthe Old Testament: Supplement Series ⑤3. Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press, 199④.

Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. Yale Near Eastern Researches 7.New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997.

———. “Between ‘Azel’ and ‘Azel’: Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies.” Biblical Archaeologist ④2, no. 1 (1979): 11–22. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

31

———. “Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research.” Journal of Biblical Literature 9④, no. 2 (197⑤): 169–⑧9. ATLAReligion Database with ATLASerials. Online: http://web.ebscohost.com.

I understand and have not violated the seminary’s position on plagiarism. ~Dean Chia