1 Chronicles 8-9-10-11, Bible Highlights: week starting october 19

Highlights From Bible Reading: 1 Chronicles 8-11. Information for personal study.

Read and listen to the reading of the Bible in JW.org:

Research for Highlights of : 1 Chronicles 8-11

(1 CHRONICLES 8:29)

“The father of Gibʹe•on, Je•iʹel, lived in Gibʹe•on. His wife’s name was Maʹa•cah.”

(1 CHRONICLES 8:33)

“Ner became father to Kish; Kish became father to Saul; Saul became father to Jonʹa•than, Malʹchi-shuʹa, A•binʹa•dab, and Esh•baʹal.”

*** it-1 pp. 19-20 Abiel ***
ABIEL
(A•biʹel) [(My) Father Is God].
1. A son of Zeror, and descendant of Becorath and Aphiah, of the tribe of Benjamin. A comparison of 1 Chronicles 8:29-33 and 9:35-39 with 1 Samuel 9:1, 2 and 14:50, 51 gives basis for believing that Abiel is also called “Jeiel” in the Chronicles account, since Jeiel is there shown to be the father of Ner, who became the father of Kish, Saul’s father. First Samuel 14:50, 51 also shows Abiel (or Jeiel) to be the father of Ner. The record in Chronicles indicates that Jeiel (or Abiel) had nine other sons, of whom one was named Kish, and this older Kish would thus be the uncle of the son of Ner who bore the same name.
Assuming Abiel and Jeiel both to be names of the same person, we arrive at a genealogy such as is set forth in this chart.
[Chart]
(For fully formatted text, see publication)
Aphiah (a descendant of Benjamin)
Becorath
Zeror
Abiel or Jeiel
Abdon Zur Kish Baal Ner Nadab Gedor Ahio Zechariah Mikloth
(Zecher)
Abner Kish
Saul
Therefore, when we read at 1 Samuel 9:1 that Kish (that is, the second Kish, the father of Saul) was “the son of Abiel,” it appears that the meaning is that he was the grandson of Abiel, as is often the case in Bible genealogy where one or more links in the genealogy are simply omitted.

*** it-1 p. 20 Abiel ***
The record in 1 Chronicles (8:33; 9:39) seems quite definite in presenting Ner as the immediate father of the second Kish, and this is clearly the more explicit of the two accounts.—See KISH Nos. 2 and 3.

*** it-1 p. 228 Baal ***
The bad connotation that appears to have become attached to the Hebrew word baʹʽal because of its association with the degraded worship of Baal is thought by some to be the reason the writer of Second Samuel used the names “Ish-bosheth” and “Mephibosheth” (boʹsheth means shame) instead of “Eshbaal” and “Merib-baal.”—2Sa 2:8; 9:6; 1Ch 8:33, 34; see ISH-BOSHETH.

*** it-1 p. 1224 Ish-bosheth ***
ISH-BOSHETH
(Ish-boʹsheth) [meaning “Man of Shame”].
Evidently the youngest of Saul’s sons, his successor to the throne. From the genealogical listings it appears that his name was also Eshbaal, meaning “Man of Baal.” (1Ch 8:33; 9:39) However, elsewhere, as in Second Samuel, he is called Ish-bosheth, a name in which “baal” is replaced by “bosheth.” (2Sa 2:10) This Hebrew word boʹsheth is found at Jeremiah 3:24 and is rendered “shameful thing.” (AS, AT, JP, NW, Ro, RS) In two other occurrences baʹʽal and boʹsheth are found parallel and in apposition, in which the one explains and identifies the other. (Jer 11:13; Ho 9:10) There are also other instances where individuals similarly had “bosheth” or a form of it substituted for “baal” in their names, as, for example, “Jerubbesheth” for “Jerubbaal” (2Sa 11:21; Jg 6:32) and “Mephibosheth” for “Merib-baal,” the latter being a nephew of Ish-bosheth.—2Sa 4:4; 1Ch 8:34; 9:40.
The reason for these double names or substitutions is not known. One theory advanced by some scholars attempts to explain the dual names as an alteration made when the common noun “baal” (owner; master) became more exclusively identified with the distasteful fertility god of Canaan, Baal. However, in the same Bible book of Second Samuel, where the account of Ish-bosheth appears, King David himself is reported as naming a place of battle Baal-perazim (meaning “Owner of Breakings Through”), in honor of the Lord Jehovah, for as he said: “Jehovah has broken through my enemies.” (2Sa 5:20) Another view is that the name Ish-bosheth may have been prophetic of that individual’s shameful death and the calamitous termination of Saul’s dynasty.

(1 CHRONICLES 8:34)

“And Jonʹa•than’s son was Merʹib-baʹal. Merʹib-baʹal became father to Miʹcah.”

*** it-1 p. 228 Baal ***
The bad connotation that appears to have become attached to the Hebrew word baʹʽal because of its association with the degraded worship of Baal is thought by some to be the reason the writer of Second Samuel used the names “Ish-bosheth” and “Mephibosheth” (boʹsheth means shame) instead of “Eshbaal” and “Merib-baal.”—2Sa 2:8; 9:6; 1Ch 8:33, 34; see ISH-BOSHETH.

*** it-2 p. 379 Merib-baal ***
MERIB-BAAL
(Merʹib-baʹal) [possibly, Contender Against Baal; or, Baal Makes a Legal Defense].
Grandson of King Saul, son of Jonathan, and the father of Micah. (1Ch 8:33, 34) This is apparently another name for Mephibosheth. Other persons also had two names, such as Eshbaal, also called Ish-bosheth.—Compare 2Sa 2:8 with 1Ch 8:33.
The name Merib-baal is found in two somewhat different Hebrew forms (Merivʹ baʹʽal and Meri-vaʹʽal) at 1 Chronicles 9:40. The first form is also used at 1 Chronicles 8:34.

(1 CHRONICLES 9:11)

“Az•a•riʹah son of Hil•kiʹah son of Me•shulʹlam son of Zaʹdok son of Me•raʹioth son of A•hiʹtub, a leader of the house of the true God,”

*** it-1 p. 225 Azariah ***
23. One of the priests who lived in Jerusalem following the exile. (1Ch 9:11) In a parallel list (Ne 11:11) the name is Seraiah. Possibly the same as No. 22 above.

(1 CHRONICLES 9:18)

“and until then he was at the king’s gate to the east. These were the gatekeepers of the camps of the Levites.”

*** it-1 p. 897 Gate, Gateway ***
Temple Gates. East Gate. Nehemiah’s reconstruction account tells us that the keeper of the East Gate shared in the repair work. (Ne 3:29) Thus the East Gate is not designated as a gate in Jerusalem’s wall, as some have thought. The East Gate may have been approximately in line with the Inspection Gate in the city wall. This gate is evidently the one mentioned in 1 Chronicles 9:18 as “the king’s gate to the east,” being the gate where the king went into or came out from the temple.

(1 CHRONICLES 9:19)

“And Shalʹlum son of Koʹre son of E•biʹa•saph son of Korʹah, and his brothers of his paternal house, the Korʹah•ites, were over the duties of the service, the doorkeepers of the tent, and their fathers had been over the camp of Jehovah as the keepers of the entryway.”

*** it-2 p. 185 Kore ***
1. A Kohathite Levite “of the sons of Asaph” and a descendant of Korah. (Ex 6:16, 18, 21; 1Ch 9:19; 26:1) Shallum, one of “the doorkeepers of the tent,” is described as “the son of Kore the son of Ebiasaph the son of Korah,” at 1 Chronicles 9:19. This text does not mention all the generations between Shallum and Ebiasaph, but the names given belong in this one genealogy. First Chronicles 26:1 calls the gatekeeper Meshelemiah “the son of Kore.”

(1 CHRONICLES 9:22)

“All those selected as gatekeepers at the thresholds numbered 212. They were in their settlements by their genealogical enrollment. David and Samuel the seer appointed these to their office of trust.”

*** it-2 p. 851 Samuel ***
The days of Samuel brought additional reverses for the Philistines (1Sa 7:13, 14) and proved to be a period marked by outstanding Passover celebrations. (2Ch 35:18) Samuel also seems to have worked out some arrangement for the Levite gatekeepers, and his arrangement may have served as a basis for the organization put into operation by David. (1Ch 9:22) From his home at Ramah in the mountainous region of Ephraim, Samuel annually made a circuit of Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah, judging Israel at all these places. (1Sa 7:15-17) Never did he abuse his position. His record was without blame. (1Sa 12:2-5) But his sons, Joel and Abijah, perverted justice.—1Sa 8:2, 3.

(1 CHRONICLES 9:26)

“There were four chief gatekeepers in the office of trust. They were Levites, and they were in charge of the chambers and of the treasuries of the house of the true God.”

*** w05 10/1 p. 9 par. 8 Highlights From the Book of First Chronicles ***
9:26, 27. The Levite gatekeepers occupied an office of great trust. They were given the key to the entrance to the holy areas of the temple. They proved to be reliable in opening the gates each day. We have been entrusted with the responsibility of reaching out to the people in our territory and helping them to come to worship Jehovah. Should we not prove to be just as dependable and trustworthy as the Levite gatekeepers?

*** w88 12/1 p. 21 Graduation of the 85th Gilead Class—A Joyful Occasion ***
Curiosity was aroused when the chairman announced the theme of the next speaker, F. D. Songer of the Factory Committee: “A Unique Trust and a Special Key.” Songer drew his comments from 1 Chronicles 9:26, 27 and what is said there about the Levite gatekeepers. ‘Their office was one of unique trust,’ explained Songer. They had the key—the implement expressing the very power of control over entrance to the holy areas of the temple. They were reliable, opening the gates dependably each morning. In conclusion, Songer told the graduates: ‘You have been given a unique trust and a special key, as it were, with which to open up, morning by morning, to those seeking entrance to the courtyards of true worship. Guard that trust well and use that key dependably.’

(1 CHRONICLES 9:27)

“They would spend the night in their stations all around the house of the true God, for they cared for the guard service and were in charge of the key and would open up the house from morning to morning.”

(1 CHRONICLES 9:33)

“These were the singers, the heads of the paternal houses of the Levites in the chambers, those set free from other duties; for by day and by night it was their responsibility to be on duty.”

*** it-2 pp. 452-453 Music ***
Considerable importance was attached to the singing at the temple. This is evident from the many Scriptural references to the singers as well as from the fact that they were “set free from duty” common to other Levites in order to devote themselves wholly to their service. (1Ch 9:33)

(1 CHRONICLES 9:35)

“The father of Gibʹe•on, Je•iʹel, lived in Gibʹe•on. His wife’s name was Maʹa•cah.”

(1 CHRONICLES 9:39)

“Ner became father to Kish; Kish became father to Saul; Saul became father to Jonʹa•than, Malʹchi-shuʹa, A•binʹa•dab, and Esh•baʹal.”

*** it-1 pp. 19-20 Abiel ***
ABIEL
(A•biʹel) [(My) Father Is God].
1. A son of Zeror, and descendant of Becorath and Aphiah, of the tribe of Benjamin. A comparison of 1 Chronicles 8:29-33 and 9:35-39 with 1 Samuel 9:1, 2 and 14:50, 51 gives basis for believing that Abiel is also called “Jeiel” in the Chronicles account, since Jeiel is there shown to be the father of Ner, who became the father of Kish, Saul’s father. First Samuel 14:50, 51 also shows Abiel (or Jeiel) to be the father of Ner. The record in Chronicles indicates that Jeiel (or Abiel) had nine other sons, of whom one was named Kish, and this older Kish would thus be the uncle of the son of Ner who bore the same name.
Assuming Abiel and Jeiel both to be names of the same person, we arrive at a genealogy such as is set forth in this chart.
[Chart]
(For fully formatted text, see publication)
Aphiah (a descendant of Benjamin)
Becorath
Zeror
Abiel or Jeiel
Abdon Zur Kish Baal Ner Nadab Gedor Ahio Zechariah Mikloth
(Zecher)
Abner Kish
Saul
Therefore, when we read at 1 Samuel 9:1 that Kish (that is, the second Kish, the father of Saul) was “the son of Abiel,” it appears that the meaning is that he was the grandson of Abiel, as is often the case in Bible genealogy where one or more links in the genealogy are simply omitted.

*** it-1 p. 20 Abiel ***
The record in 1 Chronicles (8:33; 9:39) seems quite definite in presenting Ner as the immediate father of the second Kish, and this is clearly the more explicit of the two accounts.—See KISH Nos. 2 and 3.

*** it-1 p. 1224 Ish-bosheth ***
ISH-BOSHETH
(Ish-boʹsheth) [meaning “Man of Shame”].
Evidently the youngest of Saul’s sons, his successor to the throne. From the genealogical listings it appears that his name was also Eshbaal, meaning “Man of Baal.” (1Ch 8:33; 9:39) However, elsewhere, as in Second Samuel, he is called Ish-bosheth, a name in which “baal” is replaced by “bosheth.” (2Sa 2:10) This Hebrew word boʹsheth is found at Jeremiah 3:24 and is rendered “shameful thing.” (AS, AT, JP, NW, Ro, RS) In two other occurrences baʹʽal and boʹsheth are found parallel and in apposition, in which the one explains and identifies the other. (Jer 11:13; Ho 9:10) There are also other instances where individuals similarly had “bosheth” or a form of it substituted for “baal” in their names, as, for example, “Jerubbesheth” for “Jerubbaal” (2Sa 11:21; Jg 6:32) and “Mephibosheth” for “Merib-baal,” the latter being a nephew of Ish-bosheth.—2Sa 4:4; 1Ch 8:34; 9:40.
The reason for these double names or substitutions is not known. One theory advanced by some scholars attempts to explain the dual names as an alteration made when the common noun “baal” (owner; master) became more exclusively identified with the distasteful fertility god of Canaan, Baal. However, in the same Bible book of Second Samuel, where the account of Ish-bosheth appears, King David himself is reported as naming a place of battle Baal-perazim (meaning “Owner of Breakings Through”), in honor of the Lord Jehovah, for as he said: “Jehovah has broken through my enemies.” (2Sa 5:20) Another view is that the name Ish-bosheth may have been prophetic of that individual’s shameful death and the calamitous termination of Saul’s dynasty.

(1 CHRONICLES 9:40)

“And Jonʹa•than’s son was Merʹib-baʹal. Merʹib-baʹal became father to Miʹcah.”

*** it-2 p. 379 Merib-baal ***
The name Merib-baal is found in two somewhat different Hebrew forms (Merivʹ baʹʽal and Meri-vaʹʽal) at 1 Chronicles 9:40. The first form is also used at 1 Chronicles 8:34. Indicating similar identity is the fact that Mephibosheth had a boy named Mica and Merib-baal had a son named Micah. (Compare 2Sa 9:12 with 1Ch 9:40.) The forms “Mica” and “Micah” are due merely to a slight variation in the Hebrew spelling of these names.

(1 CHRONICLES 10:1)

“Now the Phi•lisʹtines were fighting against Israel. And the men of Israel fled from before the Phi•lisʹtines, and many fell slain on Mount Gil•boʹa.”

*** it-1 p. 746 Time of David ***
Gilboa (Mt.) 1Ch 10:1-6

(1 CHRONICLES 10:10)

“Then they put his armor in the house of their god and fastened his skull to the house of Daʹgon.”

*** it-1 p. 151 Archaeology ***
Of particular interest was the discovery of certain Canaanite temples at Beth-shan. First Samuel 31:10 states that the Philistines put King Saul’s armor “in the house of the Ashtoreth images, and his corpse they fastened on the wall of Beth-shan,” while 1 Chronicles 10:10 says “they put his armor in the house of their god, and his skull they fastened to the house of Dagon.” Two of the temples unearthed were of the same time period and one gives evidence of being the temple of Ashtoreth, while the other is thought to be that of Dagon, thus harmonizing with the above texts as to the existence of two temples in Beth-shan.

*** it-1 p. 304 Beth-shean ***
Beth-shean was in the possession of the Philistines at the time of the reign of King Saul, and following Saul’s defeat at adjacent Mount Gilboa the Philistine victors placed Saul’s armor in “the house of the Ashtoreth images” and his head on the house of Dagon, and hung the dead bodies of Saul and his sons on the wall of Beth-shan (Beth-shean), evidently on the interior side facing the city’s public square. Courageous and daring Israelites of Jabesh-gilead, about 20 km (12 mi) away on the other side of the Jordan, retrieved the bodies, perhaps penetrating the city at night in order to do so.—1Sa 31:8-13; 2Sa 21:12; 1Ch 10:8-12.
In harmony with the above account, in the excavations at Tell el-Husn the ruins of two temples were uncovered, one of which is considered to be the temple of Ashtoreth, while the other, farther to the S, is suggested by some to be the temple of Dagon.

(1 CHRONICLES 10:13)

“Thus Saul died for the unfaithfulness he had shown against Jehovah because he had not obeyed the word of Jehovah, also for consulting a spirit medium”

*** it-1 pp. 637-638 Divination ***
Man’s natural desire to know the future is satisfied when he worships and serves his Grand Creator, for through God’s channel of communication He lovingly reveals ahead of time what it is good for man to know. (Am 3:7) However, when men turn away from Jehovah and become alienated from the only One who knows the end from the beginning, they easily fall victim to spiritistic demon influence. Saul is such a striking example, one who at first looked to Jehovah for knowledge of future events but who, after being cut off from all contact with God because of his unfaithfulness, turned to the demons as a substitute for divine guidance.—1Sa 28:6, 7; 1Ch 10:13, 14.

*** it-2 p. 1028 Spiritism ***
The Commentary on the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (1973, Vol. II, First Samuel, p. 265), refers to the Greek Septuagint at 1 Chronicles 10:13, which has added the words “and Samuel the prophet answered him.” (Bagster) The Commentary supports the view that is implied by these uninspired words in the Septuagint,

(1 CHRONICLES 11:7)

“Then David took up residence in the stronghold. That is why they called it the City of David.”

*** it-1 p. 591 David, City of ***
This site was very suitable for a “stronghold,” since it was protected by deep valleys on three sides, on the W the Tyropoeon Valley, and on the E the Kidron Valley, which joins the Valley of Hinnom at the southern end of the spur. (1Ch 11:7) The city required major protection only from the N, and here the ridge became even narrower, making an attack extremely difficult.

*** it-2 p. 41 Jerusalem ***
It seems that the Jebusites at that time had their city on the southern end of the eastern spur. They were confident of the impregnability of their fortress city, with its natural defenses of steep valley walls on three sides and, probably, special fortifications on the north. It was known as “the place difficult to approach” (1Ch 11:7), and the Jebusites taunted David that even ‘the blind and the lame of the city’ could hold off his attacks. But David conquered the city, his attack being spearheaded by Joab, who evidently gained entry into the city by means of “the water tunnel.” (2Sa 5:6-9; 1Ch 11:4-8)

(1 CHRONICLES 11:11)

“This is the list of David’s mighty warriors: Ja•shoʹbe•am the son of a Hachʹmon•ite, the head of the three. He brandished his spear over 300 slain at one time.”

*** w05 10/1 p. 10 par. 3 Highlights From the Book of First Chronicles ***
11:11—Why is the number of slain 300 and not 800 as in the parallel account at 2 Samuel 23:8? The head of David’s three most valiant men was Jashobeam, or Josheb-basshebeth. The other two mighty men were Eleazar and Shammah. (2 Samuel 23:8-11) The reason for the difference in the two accounts may well be that they refer to different deeds performed by the same man.

*** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***
JOSHEB-BASSHEBETH
(Joʹsheb-bas•sheʹbeth).
The head one of David’s three most outstanding mighty men. (2Sa 23:8) At 1 Chronicles 11:11 he is called Jashobeam, which is probably the more correct form. There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four. Additionally, each of the three mighty men has one of his deeds credited to him, so if the overpowering of the 800 were attributed to someone else, there would be no deed credited here to Josheb-basshebeth (Jashobeam).—See JASHOBEAM No. 2.
There is a possibility that the deed ascribed to Josheb-basshebeth at 2 Samuel 23:8 is not the same as that mentioned at 1 Chronicles 11:11. This may explain why the Samuel account speaks of 800 slain, whereas the Chronicles account refers to 300 slain.

(1 CHRONICLES 11:17)

“Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle•hem!””

*** it-1 p. 300 Bethlehem ***
Later, as a fugitive, David longed for a drink of water from a cistern at Bethlehem, then the site of a Philistine outpost. (2Sa 23:14, 15; 1Ch 11:16, 17) It may be noted that three wells are still found on the N side of the town.

(1 CHRONICLES 11:18)

“At that the three forced their way into the camp of the Phi•lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle•hem and brought it to David; but David refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah.”

*** w12 11/15 p. 6 pars. 12-13 “Teach Me to Do Your Will” ***
Consider what happened when David expressed his craving for “a drink of the water from the cistern of Bethlehem.” Three of David’s men forced their way into the city—then occupied by the Philistines—and brought back the water. However, “David did not consent to drink it, but poured it out to Jehovah.” Why? David explained: “It is unthinkable on my part, as regards my God, to do this! Is it the blood of these men that I should drink at the risk of their souls? For it was at the risk of their souls that they brought it.”—1 Chron. 11:15-19.
13 David knew from the Law that blood should be poured out to Jehovah and not eaten. He also understood why this should be done. David knew that “the soul of the flesh is in the blood.” However, this was water, not blood. Why did David refuse to drink it? He appreciated the principle behind the legal requirement. To David, the water was as precious as the blood of the three men. Therefore, it was unthinkable for him to drink the water. Instead of drinking it, he concluded that he should pour it out on the ground.—Lev. 17:11; Deut. 12:23, 24.

(1 CHRONICLES 11:19)

“He said: “It is unthinkable on my part from the standpoint of my God to do this! Should I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives? For it was at the risk of their lives that they brought it.” So he refused to drink it. These are the things that his three mighty warriors did.”

(1 CHRONICLES 11:20)

“A•bishʹai the brother of Joʹab became head of another three; he brandished his spear over 300 slain, and he had a reputation like the three.”

*** w05 10/1 p. 10 par. 4 Highlights From the Book of First Chronicles ***
11:20, 21—What was Abishai’s standing with respect to the three principal mighty men of David? Abishai was not one of the three mightiest men who served David. However, as stated at 2 Samuel 23:18, 19, he was the head of 30 warriors and was more distinguished than any of them. Abishai’s reputation rivaled that of the three principal mighty ones because he performed a mighty act similar to that of Jashobeam.

(1 CHRONICLES 11:21)

“Of the other three, he was more distinguished than two of them, and he was their chief; yet he did not attain to the rank of the first three.”

(1 CHRONICLES 11:25)

“Although he was distinguished even more than the thirty, he did not attain to the rank of the three. However, David appointed him over his own bodyguard.”

*** it-1 p. 1010 Guard ***
The Hebrew word mish•maʹʽath, meaning, basically, “hearers” and rendered “subjects” in Isaiah 11:14, is used to refer to David’s bodyguard (2Sa 23:23; 1Ch 11:25) and to the bodyguard of Saul, over which David had been chief.—1Sa 22:14.

(1 CHRONICLES 11:27)

“Shamʹmoth the Haʹro•rite, Heʹlez the Pelʹo•nite,”

*** it-1 pp. 1038-1039 Harodite ***
HARODITE
(Haʹrod•ite) [Of (Belonging to) Harod].
A resident of Harod or a person living near a place called Harod. The term is applied to Shammah and Elika, two of David’s mighty men. (2Sa 23:8, 25) If “Shammah” and “Shammoth” are the same person, then the use of “Harorite” at 1 Chronicles 11:27 is possibly a scribal error for “Harodite,” the change perhaps arising from the similarity between the Hebrew letters “r” (ר) and “d” (ד).

(1 CHRONICLES 11:38)

“Joel the brother of Nathan, Mibʹhar the son of Hagʹri,”

*** it-2 p. 390 Mibhar ***
MIBHAR
(Mibʹhar) [from a root that means “choose”].
Son of Hagri; one of the mighty men of David’s military forces. (1Ch 11:26, 38) Some have suggested that there is a discrepancy in the text at 1 Chronicles 11:38 because Bani the Gadite, not Mibhar, is mentioned in a parallel list at 2 Samuel 23:36. They hold that Mibhar is an alteration of the Hebrew for “from Zobah” and that the final words of 1 Chronicles 11:38 resulted because of reading ben-hagh•riʹ (son of Hagri) for ba•niʹ hag•ga•dhiʹ (Bani the Gadite). This remains conjectural.

(1 CHRONICLES 11:44)

“Uz•ziʹa the Ashʹte•rath•ite, Shaʹma and Je•iʹel, the sons of Hoʹtham the A•roʹer•ite;”

*** it-1 p. 178 Aroerite ***
AROERITE
(A•roʹer•ite) [Of (Belonging to) Aroer].
An inhabitant of one of the cities named Aroer. At 1 Chronicles 11:44 Hotham, the father of two of David’s mighty men named Shama and Jeiel, is referred to as an Aroerite. His sons’ association with David may place their father’s home city in the territory of Judah.—See AROER No. 3.

Search this Blog

Wiki Didactic