1 Chronicles 7:12

Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir, and Hushim, the sons of Aher.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(12) Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir.—Literally, and Shuppim and Huppim sons of Ir; Hushim sons of Aher. The copulative and suggests that “Shuppim and Huppim” are other Benjamite clans thrown in at the end of the account. We have seen (see Note on 1Chronicles 7:6-11) that Genesis 46:21 names “Muppim and. Huppim” as sons of Benjamin, and that Numbers 26 has “Snephupham and Hupham” corresponding to the same pair of names. Lastly, 1Chronicles 8:5 mentions “Shephupham and Huram” among the sons of Bela, son of Benjamin. It is clear that “Muppim” is a mere slip of the pen for “Shuppim,” to which the name Shephupham is really equivalent. From Shephupham, according to Numbers 26, sprang the clan of the “Shuphami” (Shuphamite), as from “Hupham” the clan of the Huphami. Shupham and Hupham are quite natural variants of Shuppim and Huppim. The “Huram” of 1Chronicles 8:5 is a scribe’s error for “Hupham.” Shuppim and Huppim, called sons of Benjamin in Genesis and Numbers, and sons of Bela in 1 Chronicles 8, are here called “sons of Ir;” 1Chronicles 7:7 above informs us that Ir or Iri (? the Irite) was a son of Bela. There is no more contradiction here than there would be in calling the same person a son of David, son of Judah, and son of Abraham.

Hushim, the sons of Aher.—The name Hushim (a plural form) recurs at 1Chronicles 8:8; 1Chronicles 8:11, as a Benjamite clan. Aher looks like a variant of the Ahiram of Numbers, and the Ahrah of 1 Chronicles 8, and perhaps of the Ehi-Rosh of Genesis. From this it would appear that the whole verse is an appendix to the genealogy of Benjamin. The word Aher, however, happens to mean another, and if the reading were certain (comp. the variants Ahiram, Ahrah, &c), would be very singular as a proper name. The clause has been rendered “Hushim. sons of another;” and this odd expression has been taken to be a veiled reference to the tribe of Dan, whose name is omitted in the present section. Genesis 46:23, “And the sons of Dan, Hushim,” a statement occurring like the present clause between that of the sons of Benjamin and the sons of Naphtali, is cited in support of this view. This last coincidence is certainly remarkable; but the following considerations are decidedly adverse to the view in question: 1. Numbers 26:42 calls the offspring of Dan, Shuham, not Hushim, though there also Dan follows Benjamin. 2. Dan is, indeed, omitted here, but so also is Zebulun, just as Gad and Asher are omitted in 1Chronicles 27:16-22; and Naphtali here has only one verse 3. The chronicler’s dislike of the tribe of Dan is probably an unfounded supposition, suggested by some accidental omissions; he has mentioned that tribe by name in 1Chronicles 2:2; 1Chronicles 12:35; 1Chronicles 27:22. If the omission in the present list be neither accidental nor due to imperfect MSS., it may be ascribed to later editors of the book. (Comp. Judges 18 and Revelation 7:5-8.)

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

7:1-40 Genealogies. - Here is no account either of Zebulun or Dan. We can assign no reason why they only should be omitted; but it is the disgrace of the tribe of Dan, that idolatry began in that colony which fixed in Laish, and called it Dan, Jud 18 and there one of the golden calves was set up by Jeroboam. Dan is omitted, Re 7. Men become abominable when they forsake the worship of the true God, for any creature object.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

The lists here are remarkably different from those in marginal references Probably the persons here mentioned were not literally "sons," but were among the later descendants of the founders, being the chief men of the family at the time of David's census.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

12. Shuppim also, and Huppim—They are called Muppim and Huppim (Ge 46:21) and Hupham and Shupham (Nu 26:39). They were the children of Ir, or Iri (1Ch 7:7).

and Hushim, the sons—"son."

of Aher—"Aher" signifies "another," and some eminent critics, taking "Aher" as a common noun, render the passage thus, "and Hushim, another son." Shuppim, Muppim, and Hushim are plural words, and therefore denote not individuals, but the heads of their respective families; and as they were not comprised in the above enumeration (1Ch 7:7, 9) they are inserted here in the form of an appendix. Some render the passage, "Hushim, the son of another," that is, tribe or family. The name occurs among the sons of Dan (Ge 46:23), and it is a presumption in favor of this being the true rendering, that after having recorded the genealogy of Naphtali (1Ch 7:13) the sacred historian adds, "the sons of Bilhah, the handmaid, who was the mother of Dan and Naphtali." We naturally expect, therefore, that these two will be noticed together, but Dan is not mentioned at all, if not in this passage.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Shuppim also, and Huppim, called Muppim and Huppim, Genesis 46:21, also Hupham and Shupham, Numbers 26:39.

The sons of Aher; but divers take the Hebrew word aher for a common, not proper name, and render the words thus, another son, or the son of another family or tribe, to wit, of Dan, as may be gathered,

1. From Genesis 46:23, where Hushim is mentioned as the only son of Dan, where also the word sons is used of that one man, as it is here.

2. From the clause of the next verse, the sons of Bilhah, who was mother both to Dan and Naphtali.

3. Because otherwise the genealogy of Dan is quite left out.

4. From the word another, which is used in the Hebrew writers to design an abominable thing which the writer disdained to mention; whence they call a swine, which to them was a very unclean and loathsome creature, another thing. And it must be remembered that the tribe of Dan had made themselves and their memory infamous and detestable by that gross idolatry, which began first and continued longest in that tribe, Jud 18; for which reason many interpreters conceive this tribe is omitted in the numbering of the scaled persons, Re 7.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir,.... The same with Iri, 1 Chronicles 7:7 so that these were not sons of Benjamin, as they seem to be, if they are the same with Muppim and Huppim in Genesis 46:21 but his great-grandchildren, and are the same with Shupham and Hupham, from whom families of the tribe of Benjamin sprung, Numbers 26:39 the Targum calls them the inhabitants of a city, but of what is not said, unless Geba should be meant, 1 Chronicles 8:6 and

Hushim, the sons of Aher: either the same with Aharah, the third son of Benjamin, 1 Chronicles 8:1 or Ahiram, Numbers 26:38, though some read the words, "the sons of another"; whom they suppose to be Dan, who otherwise is omitted; and Hushim is the only son of Dan, Genesis 46:23, where the same plural word is used as here; who, they think, is called another, by way of detestation, that tribe being guilty of gross idolatry; but he rather seems to belong to Benjamin.

Geneva Study Bible

Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir, and Hushim, the sons of {f} Aher.

(f) Meaning that he was not the son of Benjamin, but of Dan Ge 46:23.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

12. Shuppim also, and Huppim] These names appear in Numbers 26:39 as Shephupham and Hupham, and in 1 Chronicles 8:5 as Shephuphan and Huram.

Ir] In 1 Chronicles 7:7 Iri.

Hushim, the sons of Aher] In Genesis 46:23 (cp. Numbers 26:42), the sons of Dan; Hushim. In Chron. the word Dan is replaced by Aher, either the Chronicler himself or some copyist having found Dan illegible. The word Aher (lit. “another”) is used in non-Biblical Hebrew to designate “a certain [unnamed] person.”

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 12. - Shuppim... and Huppim. These two, called (Numbers 36:39) "Shupham and Hupham," and 1 Chronicles 8:5 "Shephuphan and Huram," are mentioned (Genesis 46:21) as among those who went down with Jacob into Egypt, are called "Muppim and Huppim," and are described as "sons of Benjamin." They are here described as sons of Iri, or Ir, which would make them great-grandsons of Benjamin, a thing impossible. Hushim, the sons of Aher. Nothing can be said with confidence of either of these names. The Hushim of Genesis 46:23 (called Shuham, Numbers 26:42) are expressly given as a family of Dan, while the Hushim of 1 Chronicles 8:8, 11, is manifestly the name, not of a family, but of an individual, and that a woman. Bertheau takes the opportunity of urging, in connection with this name, that Dan is not entirely omitted in our work of Chronicles! But his foundation is surely far too slender to build upon. Bertheau and Zockler (in Lange, 'Alt. Test.') would translate אַחֵר "another," or "the other," instancing not very pertinently, Ezra 2:31, and referring the allusion to Dan. He also thinks that this is corroborated by the expression, "the sons of Bilhah," in the next verse. 1 Chronicles 7:12

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

1 Chronicles 7:12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, "And Shuppim and Huppim, sons of Ir," would seem, if we may judge from the ו cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. And besides, (1) the names וחפּים מפּים occur in Genesis 46:21 among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Numbers 26:39, among the families of Benjamin, one called שׁוּפמי from שׁפוּפם, and another חוּפמי from חוּפם, are introduced; we must consequently hold מפּים to be an error for שׁפם or שׁוּפם. And (2) the name עיר is most probably identical with עירי in 1 Chronicles 7:7. The peculiar forms of those names, viz., וחפּם שׁפם, seem to have arisen from an improper comparison of them with וּלשׁפּים לחפּים in 1 Chronicles 7:15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim and Shuppim of 1 Chronicles 7:15 belong to the Manassites. Here, therefore, two other families descended from the Benjamite Ir or Iri would seem to be mentioned, which may easily be reconciled with the purpose (1 Chronicles 7:6) to mention none of the Benjamites but the descendants of Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further statement, "Hushim, sons of Aher," is utterly enigmatical. The name חשׁים is found in Genesis 46:23 as that of Dan's only son, who, however, is called in Numbers 26:42 שׁוּחם, and who founded the family of the Shuhami. But as the names חוּשׁים and חשׁים are again met with in 1 Chronicles 8:8, 1 Chronicles 8:11 among the Benjamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our חשּׁם and that family.

The word אהר, alius, is not indeed found elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may notwithstanding be so here; when we might, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction w, take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another Benjamite family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Dan would be omitted from our chapter; but we must not allow that to lead us into arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Dan but also Zebulun is omitted.

(Note: Bertheau's judgment in the matter is different. Starting from the facts that חשׁים (Genesis 46:27) is called a son of Dan, and that further, in the enumeration of the tribes in Genesis 46 and Numbers 26, Dan follows after Benjamin; that in Genesis 46 Dan stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, and that in our chapter, in 1 Chronicles 7:13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately; and that the closing words of this verse, "sons of Bilhah," can, according to Genesis 46:25, refer only to Dan and Naphtali, and consequently presuppose that Dan or his descendants have been mentioned in our passage, - he thinks there can be no doubt that originally Danites were mentioned in our verse, and that חשׁם was introduced as the son of Dan. Moreover, from the word אהר, "the other," he draws the further inference that it may have been, according to its meaning, the covert designation of a man whose proper name fear, or dislike of some sort, prevented men from using, and was probably a designation of the tribe of Dan, which set up its own worship, and so separated itself from the congregation of Israel; cf. Judges 17f. The name is avoided, he says, in our chapter, in 1 Chronicles 6:61 and 1 Chronicles 6:69, and is named only in 1 Chronicles 2:2 among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in 1 Chronicles 12:35. The conjecture, therefore, is forced upon us, that אהר בּן חשּׁם, "Hushim the son of the other," viz., of the other son of Bilhah, whose name he wished to pass over in silence, stands for חשּׁם דן וּבני. The name Aher, then, had so completely concealed the tribe of Dan, that later readers did not mark the new commencement, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction, and had no scruple in adding the well-known names of the Benjamites, שׁפם and חפם, to the similarly-sounding חשׁם, though probably at first only in the margin. This hypothesis has no solid foundation. The supposed dislike to mention the name of Dan rests upon an erroneous imagination, as is manifest from the thrice repeated mention of that name, not merely in 1 Chronicles 2:2 and 1 Chronicles 12:35, but also in 1 Chronicles 27:22. The omission of the tribe of Dan in 1 Chronicles 6:61, 1 Chronicles 6:69, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages; for in 1 Chronicles 6:61 the words, "Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan," and after 1 Chronicles 6:69 a whole verse, have been dropped out in the copying. In neither of these verses can there by any idea of omitting the name Dan because of a dislike to mention it, for in 1 Chronicles 6:61 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in 1 Chronicles 6:69 the names of two cities are also omitted, where even Berth. cannot suppose any "dislike." When Berth. quotes Judges 18:30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, where under the Keri מנשׁה the name משׁה is supposed to be concealed, he has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage משׁה has been altered into מנשׁה from a foolish dislike, is one of the rabbinic caprices, which we cannot attribute as a matter of course to the authors of the biblical writings. With this groundless suspicion falls of itself the attempt which he bases upon it "to solve the enigma of our verse." If the words in question do really contain a remark concerning the family of Dan, we must suppose, with Ewald (Gesch. i. S. 242), that the text has become corrupt, several words having been dropped out. Yet the בּלהה בּני at the end of 1 Chronicles 7:13 is not sufficient to warrant such a supposition. Had the register originally contained not only the sons of Naphtali, but also the sons of Dan, so that בלהה בני would have to be referred to both, the conj. ו could not have been omitted before נפתּלי בּני. The want of this conjunction is, however, in conformity with the whole plan of our register, in which all the tribes follow, one after the other, without a conjunction; cf. 1 Chronicles 7:6, 1 Chronicles 7:14, 1 Chronicles 7:30. ו is found only before אפרים בּני, 1 Chronicles 7:20, because Ephraim and Manasseh are closely connected, both continuing to form the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold נף בני, 1 Chronicles 7:13, without ו cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that בלהה בני includes also the sons of Dan is at once disposed of.)