The Historical Reality behind the Genealogical Lists in 1 Chronicles

The genealogical lists of “the sons of Israel” in 1 Chronicles 2–9 have been the focus of intensive research from the beginning of modern biblical scholarship.¹ Among other topics, research has centered on the origin of the lists, their purpose, their relationship to other parts of the books of Chronicles and their date. Most scholars agree that the genealogical lists form an independent block, a kind of introduction to history; opinions differ, however, on whether the lists belong to the work of the Chronicler² or were added after the main substance of the book had already been written.³ Regarding absolute chronology, scholars have tended to date the lists according to their views on the date of the compilation of the books of Chronicles, with most opting for the fourth century b.c.e. and then looking for a Persian-period Yehud reality behind them⁴—a characteristic circular argument.

Archaeology, which may provide the material reality behind a given text and thus help to date it, has not as yet been consulted. Archaeology is especially strong when many identifiable toponyms (that is, sites) are given. In this article I wish to look at the archaeology and the geographical dispersal of the sites mentioned in the lists and thus shed light on their date.

I. The Archaeology of the Places Mentioned in the Lists

Most of the places mentioned in the lists are securely identified, which opens the way to check their archaeological record. There is reasonable information on most of these sites from either excavations or surveys. I have collected the information regarding the late Iron II, Persian, and Hellenistic periods—the range of time that can be considered for dating the lists (see below). In many cases survey sites do not allow one to reach minute observations within a given period. This is especially true in attempting to distinguish in surveyed sites (as opposed to excavated ones) between Iron IIB and Iron IIC finds (eighth and seventh centuries b.c.e. respectively) and between early and late Hellenistic-period finds. In the case of the latter period, it is reasonable to assume that sites that were not inhabited in the Persian period continued to be deserted in the early Hellenistic period and were resettled only in the second century b.c.e. This is the case in almost every excavated site in the highlands—Bethel,⁵ the northwestern hill in Jerusalem,⁶ Gibeon,⁷ Moza⁸ and Beth-zur.⁹ Tables 1 and 2 summarize the available information.

Table 1.

The Archaeology of the Places Mentioned in the Genealogical Lists in 1 Chronicles 2–9*

Table 2.

Sites Mentioned in the Genealogical Lists in 1 Chronicles 2–9: Summary of Activity in the Late Iron II, Persian, and Hellenistic Periods

If one sees the genealogical lists as representing a true settlement system and is therefore looking for a single-period reality behind them,⁴⁷ it seems clear that the Persian period (and, as explained above, the early Hellenistic period as well) is not an option. Eleven sites were not inhabited and eight sites were sparsely inhabited in the Persian period; together they represent almost half of the total number. Needless to say, in the case of a site that was investigated in only a single survey and that yielded a limited number of sherds, the information may be less than complete. Yet most sites mentioned above were thoroughly surveyed, many of them more than once, and yielded a meaningful quantity of finds. Hence, the data seem to be reliable, especially when evaluated regarding the entire system of sites: a single negative result may be arbitrary, but a large number of sites with negative results for the same period carries a great deal of weight.

From a strictly archaeological point of view one is left with the late Iron II and the late Hellenistic periods. Only a single site was not inhabited in the late Iron II. But...