brothers of Uri, or his cousins in nearer or remoter degree, as indeed is every means of a more accurate determination of the degrees of relationship. Both בּן and הוליד in genealogies mark only descent in a straight line, while intermediate members of a family are often omitted in the lists. Instead of בּן־חוּר, בּני־חוּר might have been expected, as two sons are mentioned. The singular בּן shows that the words are not to be fused with the following into one sentence, but, as the Masoretic punctuation also shows, are meant for a superscription, after which the names to be enumerated are ranged without any more intimate logical connection. For the three names are not connected by the w copul. They stand thus: “sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah; Shobal...Salma...Hareph.” Shobal is called father of Kirjath-jearim, now Kureyet el Enab (see on Jos 9:17). Salma, father of Bethlehem, the birth-place of David and Christ. This Salma is, however, not the same person as Salma mentioned in 1Ch 2:11 and Rth 4:20 among the ancestors of David; for the latter belonged to the family of Ram, the former to the family of Caleb. Hareph is called the father of Beth-Geder, which is certainly not the same place as Gedera, Jos 15:36, which lay in the Shephelah, but is probably identical with Gedor in the hill country, Jos 15:58, west of the road which leads from Hebron to Jerusalem (vide on 1Ch 12:4). Nothing further is told of Hareph, but in the following verses further descendants of both the other sons of Hur are enumerated.
Verse 52
Shobal had sons, המּנחות חצי הראה. These words, which are translated in the Vulgate, qui videbat dimidium requietionum, give, so interpreted, no fitting sense, but must contain proper names. The lxx have made from them three names, Ἀραὰ καὶ Αἰσὶ καὶ Ἀμμανίθ, on mere conjecture. Most commentators take הראה for the name of the man who, in 1Ch 4:2, is called under the name Reaiah, ראיה, the son of Shobal. This is doubtless correct; but we must not take הראה for another name of Reaiah, but, with Bertheau, must hold it to be a corruption of ראיה, or a conjecture arising from a false interpretation of המּנחות חצי by a transcriber or reader, who did not take Hazi-Hammenuhoth for a proper name, but understood it appellatively, and attempted to bring some sense out of the words by changing ראיה into the participle ראה. The המּנחתּי חצי ה in 1Ch 2:54 corresponds to our המּנחות חצי, as one half of a race or district corresponds to the other, for the connection between the substantive המּנחות and the adjective המּנחתּי
