“Adam, Sheth, Enosh,”
Seth. Protestants, “Sheth, Enosh, Kenan:” but in Genesis they agree with us, which shews that the translator of the two different books is different, and that there is a want of uniformity in the plan adopted by king James I. (Haydock) — The posterity of Cain is neglected, as it all perished in the deluge. (Calmet)
“Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”
Noe begot Sem, Cham, and Japheth. (Haydock) See Genesis x. The author passes lightly over some of the descendants of the two latter, as he had David’s genealogy principally in view.
“And the sons of Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. Riphath: or, Diphath as it is in some copies”
Riphath. Hebrew begins with D. (Calmet) — But the Protestants correct it (Haydock) according to the book of Genesis and the Septuagint. The two letters are very much alike.
“And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. Dodanim: or, Rodanim, according to some copies”
Dodanim. Hebrew has R, conformably to the Samaritan copy of Genesis, and the Septuagint translate the Rhodians. Yet Dodanim seems more accurate, (Calmet) and is retained by the Protestants. (Haydock)
“And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.”
Earth, first establishing the monarchy of Babylon, and building the castle. (Du Hamel)
“And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (of whom came the Philistines,) and Caphthorim.”
Philistines, a colony from Crete.
“The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech. Meshech: or, Mash”
Hus and Hul were the immediate sons of Aram, as well as….Mosoch, or Mes; (Genesis x. 23.; Calmet) so that there seems to be here some transposition. (Du Hamel)
“And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.”
Sale. The Roman Septuagint omits ver. 11 to 17, and ver. 18 to 24, having only, (17) “The sons of Sem, Ailam and Assur; (24) and Arphaxad, Sala.” (Haydock) — But the other copies here insert Cainan, as the father of Sale. See Genesis x. 24. (Calmet) — It is a matter of great doubt whether he ought not to be inserted, Luke iii. (Haydock)
“Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.”
Concubine. She was his lawful wife, but of an inferior degree, and such were called concubines. (Challoner) — She has the title of wife, Genesis xxv. 1. — And the sons of Dadan, &c., seems to be copied from Genesis, as the addition is not found in many Latin manuscripts, no more than in the Hebrew or Septuagint. (Calmet)
“The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. Zephi: or, Zepho”
And by. This serves to explain the difficulty; as Thamna would otherwise seem to be a daughter of Eliphaz, though we know she was his concubine, Genesis xxxvi. 12. (Haydock) — The Hebrew, Roman Septuagint, Syriac, and Latin, suppose that Thamna was the brother of Amalec; but the Alexandrian Septuagint has, “Now Thamna, the concubine of Eliphaz, bore Amalec.” Arabic, “And Thamna, who was the concubine of Eliphaz, the son of Esau, bore him Amalec,” which seems to be the true reading. (Kennicott) — Hebrew, “And Timna and Amalek,” (Protestants; Haydock) which confounds the sense. (Mariana) (Du Hamel)
“And the sons of Seir; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan.”
Seir, not Esau, but the Horrite, (Genesis xxxvi. 20.; Menochius) which is added in order to explain the origin of Thamna. (Du Hamel)
“The sons of Shobal; Alian, and Manahath, and Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon; Aiah, and Anah.”
Dison. We must add Oolibama, Genesis xxxvi. 25.
“The sons of Anah; Dishon. And the sons of Dishon; Amram, and Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran. Amram: or, Hemdan”
Hamram. In Genesis Hamdan. Two letters have been mistaken since the Chaldean characters have been adopted. (Calmet) — On this occasion, we may briefly remark, 1. The most learned fathers have admitted such mistakes in Scripture: yet these are not to be corrected by each one’s private judgment, but we must all abide by the determination of the Church, which is plainly appointed for our guide in the infallible word of God. 2. To obviate the objections of infidels, respecting the apparent contradictions of Scripture, particularly in these books, we must observe that many people and places had different names; 3. And those who had the same were really distinct. 4. Frequently also grandchildren, and those who have been adopted, are mentioned as the immediate offspring. 5. Some mysterious numbers are specified, as fourteen in the genealogy of Christ, though the history allows more. 6. Odd numbers are sometimes neglected. 7. Often a part is put for the whole, or on the contrary; as Christ is said to have been dead three days, though he was only one whole day and part of two others: and in the reigns of different kings, in the same year, the different parts are assigned to each, as a whole year. 8. Sometimes two reigned together, as Joathan ruled while Ozias was still living, (4 Kings xv.) and so both reigns are sometimes counted, and, at other times, their respective years. 9. The interregnums are either omitted in calculations, or added to the years of the next ruler. 10. Only the years that a person governed well are sometimes noticed, as Saul is said to have reigned two years, (1 Kings xiii.) though his administration continued much longer. Some of these rules may be applied to most of the scriptural difficulties, as the spirit of God could not dictate any falsehood. At the same time we must be forced to acknowledge that the Scriptures are hard to be understood, 2 Peter i. 20., (Worthington) and iii. 16.; and this may serve to exercise the genius, and to humble the pride of man. (Haydock)
“Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor: and the name of his city was Dinhabah.”
Israel. The same remark had been made in Genesis xxxvi. 31. It is wonderful that the author of this work gives us no further information, when so many revolutions had since occurred. (Calmet) — But he might content himself with repeating the words of Moses. (Haydock) — The eight kings here specified must have reigned each 50 years, which is not impossible. David conquered the country under Adad.
“And when Samlah was dead, Shaul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead.”
River. Euphrates is commonly so designated. See Genesis x. 11. (Calmet) — Pagnin translates, “from the river Rohoboth.” (Du Hamel)
“And when Baalhanan was dead, Hadad reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab. Hadad: or, Hadar Pai: or, Pau”
Mezaab. It is unusual for the Scripture to mark so particularly the genealogy of a woman. We might translate the Hebrew, “a native, or who was a native of Mezaab,” which is probably the same with Dizahab, “abundance of gold,” Deuteronomy i. 1. Mezaab signifies, “waters of gold,” (Calmet) or “whose is gold,” whence some infer that the woman was very rich, (Lyranus) or had discovered the art of drawing gold thread. (Abulensis) — It is more probably a proper name. (Menochius)
“Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth,”
Kings. Hebrew, “Adad also died, and the dukes of Edom were duke Thamna, &c. (Haydock) — This, and the following names, designate the place of their residence. (Menochius) — The same forms of government prevailed in Idumea, as among the Hebrews, who had judges or dukes, then kings, and, after the captivity, dukes, till the time of the Machabees. (Tirinus)