Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76 59
Levites, the Nethinim and the descendants of Solomon’s servants and in Jerusalem
lived certain of the sons of Judah and of the sons of Benjamin”.113
The Chr. has made some changes in his version. He omitted “the sons of
‏(ראשי המדינה)‏ Province” Solomon’s servants”, he changed “the chiefs of the
into “the first to dwell again” ‏)היושבים הראשונים)‏ 114 and added the sons of
Ephraim and Manasseh to the dwellers of Jerusalem, although their names do
not appear in the list itself.115 The Nethinim are left in the heading as a mere
survival, they are mentioned, but in the list itself the verses which give some
details relating to them (Neh. xi 21) are omitted in Chr.
b) It was stated above that Ezr. viii 20 traces the origin of the Nethinim to
David’s times. We have also assumed that the sons of Solomon’s servants were
actually those remnants of the Canaanite population which were taken by
Solomon as forced levy workers. In this connection we do have in Chr. a divergent
and interesting information. The Chr. attributes the origin of these levy
workers not to the days of Solomon but to the Davidic period: 1. 1 Chr. xxii 2:
“David commanded to gather together the aliens (Heb: ‏(גרים who were in the
land of Israel and he set stonecutters to prepare dressed stones for building
the house of God”. 2. 2 Chr. ii 16: “Then Solomon took a census of all the aliens
(Heb: ‏(גרים who were in the land of Israel after the census of them which David
his father has taken . . . Seventy thousand of them he assigned to bear burden,
eighty thousand to quarry in the hill country and three thousand and six hundred
as overseers to make the people work”.
A comparison of these verses with 2 Chr. ii 2, viii 7-9 and 1 Ki. v. 29-30,
ix 20-22, reveals that it is the “remnant of the Amorites” which are described
here, but they are traced back to the days of David. The inevitable conclusion
is that the Chr. does recognize such a group, which is traced back both to
the days of David and Solomon. The fact itself is attested to both by Chr. and
Ezr.-Neh. but the difference between them is therefore more prominent.
113) The affinities between the two headings are obscured because of the inconsistencies of the
translation, and are much clearer in Hebrew. For example, in 1 Chr. ix 2 בעריהם“‏ ‏”באחוזתם is
translated: “In their possessions in their cities”, In Neh. xi 3 בעריהם“‏ ‏”באחוזתו is translated “on his
property in their towns” of ישבו מן בני יהודה ומן בני בנימין“‏ ‏“ובירושלים is translated in Chr.: “and
some or the people of Judah, Benjamin, etc., dwelt in Jerusalem” and the same is translated in
Neh.: “and in Jerusalem lived certain of the sons of Judah and of the sons of Benjamin”.
114) Cf. below, p. 355.
115) The Chr.’s attitude to the people of northern Israel is also a matter which needs some revision.
In any case, cf. 1 Chr. xii, 2 Chr. xi 16-17, xv 9, xxviii 9ff., xxx 1ff.