Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Chronicles 7:12

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

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

Ir ] In 1Ch 7:7 Iri.

Hushim, the sons of Aher ] In Gen 46:23 (cp. Num 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.”

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Shuppim also, and Huppim, called Muppim and Huppim, Gen 46:21, also Hupham and Shupham, Num 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 Gen 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, Jdg 18; for which reason many interpreters conceive this tribe is omitted in the numbering of the scaled persons, Re 7.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

12. Shuppim also, and HuppimTheyare called Muppim and Huppim (Ge46:21) and Hupham and Shupham (Nu26:39). They were the children of Ir, or Iri (1Ch7:7).

and Hushim, the sons“son.”

of Aher“Aher”signifies “another,” and some eminent critics, taking”Aher” as a common noun, render the passage thus, “andHushim, another son.” Shuppim, Muppim, and Hushim are pluralwords, and therefore denote not individuals, but the heads of theirrespective families; and as they were not comprised in the aboveenumeration (1Ch 7:7; 1Ch 7:9)they are inserted here in the form of an appendix. Some render thepassage, “Hushim, the son of another,” that is, tribe orfamily. The name occurs among the sons of Dan (Ge46:23), and it is a presumption in favor of this being the truerendering, that after having recorded the genealogy of Naphtali (1Ch7:13) the sacred historian adds, “the sons of Bilhah, thehandmaid, who was the mother of Dan and Naphtali.” We naturallyexpect, therefore, that these two will be noticed together, but Danis not mentioned at all, if not in this passage.

1Ch7:13. OF NAPHTALI.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir,…. The same with Iri, 1Ch 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 Ge 46:21 but his great-grandchildren, and are the same with Shupham and Hupham, from whom families of the tribe of Benjamin sprung, Nu 26:39 the Targum calls them the inhabitants of a city, but of what is not said, unless Geba should be meant, 1Ch 8:6 and

Hushim, the sons of Aher: either the same with Aharah, the third son of Benjamin, 1Ch 8:1 or Ahiram, Nu 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, Ge 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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

1Ch 7:12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, “And Shuppim and Huppim, sons of Ir,” would seem, if we may judge from the cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. And besides, (1) the names occur in Gen 46:21 among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Num 26:39, among the families of Benjamin, one called from , and another from , are introduced; we must consequently hold to be an error for or . And (2) the name is most probably identical with in 1Ch 7:7. The peculiar forms of those names, viz., , seem to have arisen from an improper comparison of them with in 1Ch 7:15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim and Shuppim of 1Ch 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 (1Ch 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 is found in Gen 46:23 as that of Dan’s only son, who, however, is called in Num 26:42 , and who founded the family of the Shuhami. But as the names and are again met with in 1Ch 8:8, 1Ch 8:11 among the Benjamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our and that family.

The word , 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 (Gen 46:27) is called a son of Dan, and that further, in the enumeration of the tribes in Gen 46 and Num 26, Dan follows after Benjamin; that in Gen 46 Dan stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, and that in our chapter, in 1Ch 7:13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately; and that the closing words of this verse, “ sons of Bilhah, ” can, according to Gen 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 was introduced as the son of Dan. Moreover, from the word , “ 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. Judg. 17f. The name is avoided, he says, in our chapter, in 1Ch 6:61 and 1Ch 6:69, and is named only in 1Ch 2:2 among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in 1Ch 12:35. The conjecture, therefore, is forced upon us, that , “ Hushim the son of the other, ” viz., of the other son of Bilhah, whose name he wished to pass over in silence, stands for . 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, and , to the similarly-sounding , 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 1Ch 2:2 and 1Ch 12:35, but also in 1Ch 27:22. The omission of the tribe of Dan in 1Ch 6:61, 1Ch 6:69, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages; for in 1Ch 6:61 the words, “ Ephraim and of the tribe of Dan, ” and after 1Ch 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 1Ch 6:61 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in 1Ch 6:69 the names of two cities are also omitted, where even Berth. cannot suppose any “ dislike. ” When Berth. quotes Jdg 18:30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, where under the Keri the name is supposed to be concealed, he has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage has been altered into 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 at the end of 1Ch 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 would have to be referred to both, the conj. could not have been omitted before . 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. 1Ch 7:6, 1Ch 7:14, 1Ch 7:30. is found only before , 1Ch 7:20, because Ephraim and Manasseh are closely connected, both continuing to form the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold , 1Ch 7:13, without cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that includes also the sons of Dan is at once disposed of.)

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament