1 Chronicles 4:21-23

II. — SONS OF SHELAH, THIRD SON OF JUDAH,
1 Chronicles 4:21 (omitted by Syriac version).

The Shelanite clans were not noticed in 1 Chronicles 2 (See Genesis 38:5 and 1 Chronicles 2:3.)

(21) Er. — This Er who founded Lecah is, of course, distinct from Er “the firstborn of Judah.” Lecah is unknown. Mareshah, a town in the lowlands of Judah, is connected with Caleb (1 Chronicles 2:42). Such statements are not contradictory. At different periods different tribal divisions might have been settled in the same city. The present statement need only mean that Mareshah was a Shelanite foundation.

The families of the house of them that wrought fine linen. — “The clans of the house of Byssus work at Beth-Ashbea.” Beth-Ashbea is an unknown place. It was the seat of some Shelanite houses engaged in growing flax and weaving linen. Such industries in ancient times were confined to hereditary guilds, which jealously guarded their methods and trade secrets.

(22) Jokim. — Comp. Jakim (1 Chronicles 8:9). Both are probably equivalent to Joiakim (Jehoiakim).

Chozeba. — Perhaps Chezib (Genesis 38:5), called Achzib (Joshua 15:44), the birthplace of Shelah; now the ruins of Kesâba. It was a town of the Shephelah.

And Joash, and Saraph, who had the dominion in Moab. — The passage is obscure, because we know nothing further of Joash and Saraph. The LXX. render the whole verse: “And Joakim, and men of Chozeba, and Joas, and Saraph, who settled in Moab;” adding the meaningless words, καὶ�. The word rendered “had the dominion” occurs sixteen times, and in twelve cases at least means “to marry.” Probably Isaiah 26:13; Jeremiah 3:14; Jeremiah 31:32 are not exceptions. The right translation here, therefore, would seem to be “who married Moab,” a metaphor expressing settlement in that country (LXX., κατῴκησαν).

And Jashubi-lehem. — We have here a vestige of some form of the verb shûb (“to return”), as the LXX. (ἀπέστρεψεν) indicates; and “lehem” (Heb., lahem) may either signify “to them,” or represent the second half of the name Bethlehem. Reading (with one MS.) wayyâshûbû, we might translate, and they returned to themselves, i.e., to their Judæan home. (Comp. the story of the sojourn of Elimelech and his family in Moab, and the return of Naomi to Judah.) But Bêth might easily have fallen out before lahem, and if so, the statement is, and they returned to Bethlehem — another point of likeness to the story of the Book of Ruth. (2) Others render, “Reduced Moab and requited them” (way-yashîbû lahem); referring the notice to a supposed subjugation of Moab by two chieftains of Judah. (3) Others, again, have proposed: “Who married into Moab, and brought them home (wives).” (Comp. the story of Mahlon and Chilion in Ruth.) The Vulg. translates all the proper names, and continues: “Qui principes fuerunt in Moab, et qui reversi sunt in Lahem.” (Comp. also Ezra 2:6.)

And these are ancient things. — And the events are ancient, that is, those just recounted.