Manasseh’s Genealogies: Why They Change Between Numbers, Joshua, and Chronicles

For more on biblical genealogies, see Aaron Demsky, “Reading Biblical Genealogies,” TheTorah.com (2016); Yigal Levin, “Understanding Biblical Genealogies,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 9 (2001): 11-46; Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978).

Abraham Malamat, “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies”, JAOS 88 (1968): 137–156; idem, “Tribal Societies: Biblical Genealogies and African lineage Systems,” Archives Europeennes de Sociologie 14 (1972): 126-136.

The Samaria ostraca show how the two systems worked together. See Arye Bornstein, “מנהל וכלכלה של ארץ מנשה לאור ניתוח מחודש של חרסי שומרון” [The Economy of the Manassite Territory in Light of the Samaria Ostraca], in מחקרי יהודה ושומרון: דברי הכנס הראשון, תשנ”א—1991 [Judea and Samaria Research Studies: Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting—1991], ed. Zev H. Erlich and Yaacov Eshel (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1992), 61–121 [Hebrew].

An interesting example is the genealogy in Exod 6: 14-26, which begins to count the first three son of Jacob and their immediate offspring. When getting to Levi, however, we find an enhanced linear genealogy down to Moses and Aaron and the latter’s children.

For a discussion of the daughters of Zelophehad from a historical geographic perspective, see Aaron Demsky, “The Daughters of Zelophehad: A Historical Geographic Approach,” TheTorah.com (2019).

Even in the LXX text, which has only “father of Gilead,” this is the plain meaning.

The slight difference in name—Iezer in Numbers and Abiezer here—likely reflects a simple variant, as אי appears to be a shortened form of אבי (my father) in some names. For example, Jezebel (איזבל) is likely a shortened form of Abizebel (אביזבל), meaning “my (divine) father is majestic.” Another example is the name Ichabod (איכבוד), which likely derives from Abichabod (אביכבוד), meaning, “my (divine) father is glorious.” In this latter case, the text (1 Sam 4:21) gives the name a popular etymology “lack of glory” to fit the storyline.

See, for example, the children of Hagar and Qeturah, Gen 25:5-6; and Jephthah, Judges 11: 1—2).

See, for example, the NRSV and NJPS translations, both of which suggest:

The sons of Manasseh: Asriel, whom his Aramean concubine bore; she bore Machir the father of Gilead.

To make this work, they need both verbs “she bore” to refer to the Aramean concubine. This is also the reading of the LXX.

This seems to be the intention of KJV as well:

The sons of Manasseh; Ashriel (sic), whom she bare: but his concubine the Aramitess bare Machir the father of Gilead.

The Vulgate also assumes two different mothers, but it solves the translation problem by ignoring the first “she bore” entirely:

It is even possible that the Vulgate here assumes that Ezriel and not Manasseh is the father of Machir.

The inexplicable nature of the text led to a few scribal errors that only contribute to its unreadability. In order to overcome these textual difficulties, attention must be paid to the structure of the unit and the technical terms used by the biblical genealogist, such as אח/אחות, literally “brother/ sister,” here “kinsman/kinswoman,” or השני/ אחיו, literally “the second/his brother” when listing consecutive siblings. This attentiveness will help in decoding the text and aid in recognizing scribal errors or misunderstandings. See Aaron Demsky, “שמות פרטיים עבריים חדשים שנולדו בתקופת בית שני” [New Hebrew Names in the Second Temple Period in Light of Biblical Exegesis], Mekharei Giv`ah (Give`at Washington) 4 (2017): 15–29.

See Aaron Demsky, “The Boundary of the Tribe of Dan (Joshua 19:41-46)”, in (eds.) Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi M. Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 261–284. Here the author of this geographic list moves from east to west by citing clusters of towns along the parallel Nahal Soreq and Nahal Aiyalon that defined the territory of Dan.

This last sentence v. 17b indicates the end or summary statement of the Transjordanian line.

See also the names שְׁפוּפָן, Shephuphan, and חוּרָם, Ḥuram, in 1 Chronicles 8:5, also variant spellings for these same two clans. The Muppim form might be due to the confusion of the two letters shin and mem. Note that in the old Hebrew script the shin and the head of mem(without the tail) are very close in form.

An onomastic phenomenon is the rhyming of filial pairs, as in Peresh and Sheresh or Ḥuppim/Muppim and Shuppim in this family. Other biblical examples are Eldad and Medad (Num 11:26), Oholah and Oholibah (Ezek 23:4,11), Quranic Harun wa Qarun (Aaron and Qorah), or generally Hansel and Gretel, Tweedle Di and Tweedle Dum, etc.

Bedan should be identified with `Ein Bedan at the headwater of Wadi Far`ah, northeast of Shechem. This would indicate the migration of an eastern family to the western side of the Jordan (or vice versa).

The vav before Shechem is also a scribal error, either because the scribe read אחיו as a personal name אחין, or it could simply have been a dittography earlier on (i.e., the scribe wrote the letter vav twice).

Compare the use of “the Manassite” in Deuteronomy 3:13 and 29:7.

I identify it with היהד mentioned in the Samaria ostraca (#51) and Kfar Yehudit known from the Byzantine period.

Of course, this genealogy would not mention the repopulation of the territory by transferred gentiles who probably assimilated with the remaining Israelites to become the later day Samaritans (2 Kgs 17:6, 24-41; Jer 41:5). The present-day Samaritan community claims decent from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.