I ntroduction: I Chron. 8 returns to the family of Benjamin. Now, you may recall that we covered the family of Benjamin back in I Chron. 7:6–12, so why revisit this family? Barnes suggests: The reason of this return to the genealogy of the Benjamites seems to be the desire to connect the genealogical introduction with the historical body of the work. As the history is to begin with Saul, the genealogical portion is made to end with an account of the family of this Benjamite monarch.

In fact, this desire is so strong, that Saul’s line is repeated word-for-word in I Chron. 9:35–44. I personally believe this to be an addition, which was not intended for the autograph of Chronicles; however, it emphasizes, from a man’s viewpoint, a tie-in between these genealogies and the beginning of the narrative portion of Chronicles. This, no doubt, is a reasonable solution as to why, from the human standpoint, do we have so much time spent on the line of Benjamin (which shows up in I Chron. 7, 8 and 9); but it does not give us a clear reason why we would find this as approved by God the Holy Spirit. That is, why does God place this in Scripture? Why not a short list of descendants in I Chron. 7, buried in between Issachar and Naphtali; and then a continuation in I Chron. 9 to show the ancestors of King Saul, the first true king of Israel? Why do we have I Chron. 8 at all? As I study these various lines, I do find reasons for their inclusion (I have quite frankly gone back to the chapter of Levites again and again when exegeting various portions of Scripture). The first answer that comes to mind as I exegete this chapter is that this is a chapter of grace. We don’t find anything to like in the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 19–21. When we were down to 600 Benjamites, I might have been the one saying, Let’s get rid of the rest of them as well. I lack the graciousness of God, Who preserved the tribe of Benjamin, even though this tribe could not be less deserving. However, grace has nothing to do with merit. The surviving Benjamites perhaps had no merit whatsoever. The Benjamite tribe as a whole blocked an investigation of their most degenerate brothers. It was bad enough that a substantial number of males sought to gang rape a male stranger to their city; and it was deplorable that they raped this man’s mistress until she died from the resulting injuries. However, that the other men of Benjamin would not allow an investigation of this crime; nor would they deal with the crime internally—that shows tremendous degeneracy. The remaining eleven tribes of Israel, recognizing the great cancer formation which was here, realized that serious action was required, and so they almost completely wiped out the tribe of Benjamin. God, in His grace, allowed for this completely undeserving tribe to remain as one of the twelve tribes of Israel, even to the end times (Rev. 7:8). Not only did God allow them to remain on this earth, but He also took Israel’s first king from them. So, the best I can come up with to explain this chapter is the grace of God.

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the line of Benjamin is messtup more than any other line. We should expect this, simply because, in the book of Judges, we find that this line is almost wiped out. Given that, it would be expected that the records of this family would be spread out and incomplete. However, that is different than saying they would be inaccurate. In the original languages, in the autographs, these records should have been completely accurate, even though we may not be able to fully reconcile the present-day genealogies to our own satisfaction. The best we can do is point out why the records are incomplete and that those from different origins might differ in the lines somewhat.

No one, including myself, is able to clearly place all of these lines in time. Selman suggests that, because of the settlements named, that we are dealing mostly with the post-exilic group. However, he also points out that these areas appear to be resettled at the returning of Israel, meaning the locations given do not clearly tie us to a period of time.

As you see in the chapter outline, I broke this chapter into four parts—it is perhaps more accurate to separate this chapter into two parts, which can afterward be further subdivided. The first half of this chapter deals with the various families of Benjamin (vv. 1, 6, 10, 13, 28) and occasionally they are connected with geographical areas (vv. 6–8, 12–13, 28–29, 32). Although subdividing this half of the chapter is fairly arbitrary, I gave a reasonable subdivision. Selman also splits the chapter in two in the same way—the families of Ehud (vv. 1–7) and the families of Elpaal (vv. 8–27). The second half of I Chron. 8 gives us the genealogical line to and from Saul. Given that, it seemed reasonable to me to split that chapter at Saul. Heads of families and settlements are not really a part of this portion of genealogy.

JPS (Tanakh) Benjamin begot Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second, Aharah [Heb., bera‘ah] the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.

NASB And Benjamin became the father of [lit., begot; and so on throughout] Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.

NLT The sons of Benjamin, in order of age, included Bela (the oldest), Ashbel, Aharah, Nohah, and Rapha.

The Septuagint Now Benjamin begot Bale his first-born, and Asbel his second, Aara his third, Noa the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.

TEV Benjamin had five sons. In order of age they were Bela, Ashbel, Aharah, Nohah, and Rapha.

Young's Updated LT And Benjamin begat Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.

When the translation is fairly straightforward, as it is here, we will not spend much time looking at the Hebrew.

As I mentioned in the previous chapter, the line of Benjamin is probably the most confusing of all the lines. Here, we would love to see some disparity with the Greek, so that the Greek might line up more with other passages; however, the Greek is in complete agreement with the Hebrew. The slight differences of spelling are simply because there is no h in the Greek, apart from the rough breathing at the beginning of some words. This particular chapter appears to deal with Benjamin’s line with the most precision, and it is the most recent, so we will cover this line with greater detail here. First, we should do a superficial comparison between the various passages that contain Benjamin’s descendants:

A Comparative Survey of the Descendants of Benjamin
Gen. 46:21	I Chron. 8:1–5 (three generations only)
Hebrew: The sons of Benjamin were Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard. Greek: I. Bala A. Gera 1. Arad B. Nomman, Anchis*, Ros and Mamphim II. Bochor III. Asbel	BenjaminI.Bela (firstborn) (or, Bale in the Greek) A. Addar, Gera, Abihud (which means, father of Ehud), Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, Gera, Shephuphan, Huram (Adir, Gera, Abiud, Abessue, Noama, Achia, Gera, Sephupham, Uram in the Greek) II. Ashbel (second) (Asbel) III. Aharah (third) (Aara) IV. Nohah (fourth) (Noama) V. Rapha (fifth) (Rapha)
I’ve placed asterisks next to the names which do not have a definite pairing in the other language. In the Genesis line, these are men born to Benjamin (or to his sons) while in the land of Canaan. They moved with him to Egypt. There are obviously big differences between the Hebrew and the Greek, the latter actually laying out relationships.	The line found in I Chron. 8 appears to be the most precise, actually numbering the sons and giving the total number of each group. The biggest problem is where is Becher in Num. 26 and I Chron. 8? The second problem is not a problem. We have more sons listed in I Chron. 8; however, it is reasonable that Benjamin had three sons and assorted descendants move with him to Egypt, and that he sired Aharah, Nohah and Rapha while in Egypt.
Num. 26:38–40	I Chron. 7:6–12
Benjamin I. Bela (Bale in the Greek) A. Ard and Naaman (Adar and Noeman in the Greek) II. Ashbel (Asyber in Greek) III. Ahiram (Jachiran in Greek) IV. Shephupham (Sophan in Greek) V. Hupham (not found in the Greek)	Benjamin I. Bela (Bale, in the Greek) A. Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth (or, Esebon, Ozi, Oziel, Jerimuth in Greek) B. Iri (five) (Uri in Greek) II. Becher (Bachir, in Greek) A. Zemirah, Joash, Eliezer, Elioenai, Omri, Jeremoth, Abijah, Anathoth, and Alemeth (Zemira, Joas, Eliezer, Elitheman, Amaria, Jerimath, Abiud, Anathoth, Eleemeth in Greek) III. Jediael (three) (Jediel, in Greek) A. Bilhan (Balaan, Jaüs, Benjamin, Aoth, Chanana, Zæthan, Tharai, Achisaar in Greek) 1. Jeush, Benjamin, Ehud, Chenaanah, Zethan, Tarshish, 2. and Ahishahar IV. Addendum: Shuppim and Huppim, sons of Ir, Hushim, sons of Aher) (in the Greek, it is Sapphin and Apphin, and sons of Or, Asom, whose son was Aor)
The line in Numbers took into account the families which were prominent soon after the time of the exodus. These were not necessarily Benjamin’s actual sons, but simply his descendants.	This line in I Chron. 7 appears to be precise, giving even the order of birth of the sons of Benjamin. However, the Greek just throws the various lines together, indicating that there could be some serious corruption in this line as well. My thinking is that these are the three major families and their sub-families to come from Benjamin, making this list similar, in content, to the list from Num. 26.
Possible Solutions to the Becher Problem
Now, allow me to offer some solutions to the Becher problem (none of these solutions are found in my source material; they just occurred to me randomly): 1.Becher is a female, and therefore left out of some of the lines. Although this is semi-possible, Becher is grouped with Benjamin’s sons in Gen. 46 and I Chron. 7. Historically, daughters are carefully distinguished as daughters (e.g., Dinah in Jacob’s line in Gen. 30:21; nowhere is she ever grouped with the sons of Jacob). 2.Becher and Bela are twins; therefore, when the sons are put in order of birth, as we find in I Chron. 8, we don’t have a problem with Bela being left out and Ashbel being numbered as the second son. This is sort of a goofy solution and ignores the fact that the Bible generally makes a big deal out of twins. 3.For some reason, Becher dropped out of the I Chron. 8 and Num. 26 lines. The problem with this is: we could certainly allow for a name to drop out of the very ancient and sparse Num. 26 line; but I Chron. 8 appears to be very complete; and it would be more than just Becher being dropped out. All of his descendants (I Chron. 7:8) would have been dropped out as well. 4.Becher is equivalent to someone else in the I Chron. 8 list. The problem with this solution is that it is completely without merit. There is no other line which is similar to Becher’s line; and nowhere do we have an a.k.a. given for Becher. 5.The line of Becher ended in Egypt. He had sons, but eventually his line ended (extinction) or became blurred with intermarriage (lack of distinction). This is possibly the most reasonable solution, which has the problem of the specific counting or numbering of the sons of Benjamin in I Chron. 7:6 and 8:1–2. However, when one son’s line leads nowhere, then it is as though he never existed. Furthermore, the list of names in I Chron. 7 can be seen as the early descendants of Benjamin, whereas the names in I Chron. 8 can be seen as the surviving lines of Benjamin. The problem with that explanation is, the line of Benjamin was almost wiped out completely back in Judges 19–21. It would be remarkable that so many of the original sons of Benjamin could be represented from the meager 600 survivors of the Benjamite massacre. It would be more reasonable for this line of I Chron. 8 to represent those who survived to walk into the Land of Promise. Perhaps that is the thinking in the numbering of Benjamin’s sons? This is the best solution which I can offer, although I am not completely happy with it. 6.The line of Becher stopped at gen X; that is, they had no sons in the generation of promise who lived to take the Land of Promise. This is less likely than the solution directly above (it is possible, but highly unlikely, that a fundamental ancestry line would suddenly end in one generation); and has the same problem as the solution above. 7.Becher is close enough to the word firstborn so that either a passage which reads and Bela, his firstborn should actually read and Bela, Becher; or vice versa—the passages which include Becher really refer to Bela as Benjamin’s firstborn. When this first occurred to me, I thought, that’s it! That explains and fixes all these passages. But, it doesn’t. a.First of all, the words: i.In the Hebrew, firstborn is b^ekôwr (רכ) [pronounced b^eKOHR]. In our passage, this is spelled b^ekôr (רֹכ). Also, affixed to the end of the word is the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix  (the wâw conjunction is ו). Therefore, one could easily be confounded for the other. Strong’s #1060 BDB #114. ii.The proper name Becher is beker (ר∵כ∵) [pronounced BEH-ker], which is transliterated Becher. Strong’s #1071 BDB #114. We have the same three primary letters and the vowel points were added over a thousand years later. Therefore, it would be easy to mistakenly have one where the other belonged (recall that we have already had at least one incident where most texts have a proper name, but should read his firstborn). b.One solution is that there is no son Becher. All that happened was that someone misread firstborn Becher, then moved and confused the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix, changing his firstborn to Becher. The problem with this solution is I Chron. 7:6, which says there are three sons of Benjamin, naming Becher as one of these; furthermore, the sons of Becher are named in I Chron. 7:8. c.The second solution is, when Bela is called Benjamin’s firstborn, the original intention of the text was to read and Becher instead. Here’s the problem with that solution: our passage, I Chron. 8:1–2 counts through each and every one of Benjamin’s sons. It says he has Bela, his firstborn; Ashbel the second, Aharah the third, etc. The counting off and the individual numbering would all be out of whack if we inserted Becher’s name into this list.
Keil and Delitzsch explain these lines this way: they consider this line and the Num. 26 line to be equivalent lines, both representing the extent population of that time. That is, these are the existing families of Benjamin. The problem is that the fourth and fifth sons in each line have dramatically different names. Keil and Delitzsch suggest that Nohah and Rapha might be sons or descendants of Shephupham and Hupham (being equivalent seems less likely). What we would have is simply their surviving lines.

Normally, I don’t go in for subheadings; however, the line of Benjamin is rather confusing; therefore, I will use a few subheadings over the next few pages just to keep our heads above water. Insofar as personal information about these men—there just isn’t any, apart from what we could ascertain from reading between the lines. However, Benjamin’s genealogy is challenging enough when dealing with these men.

I would think that our first and just about our only reasonable deduction would be that Benjamin had a first son whose name was Bela. Apart from these genealogies, we know nothing about him, other than he was born in the land of Canaan to Benjamin and moved with Benjamin to Egypt. Also, he is found in all four genealogies as the firstborn.

Becher (equivalent to Bocher in the Greek) is an anomaly. I originally wanted to equate him with Ashbel, but we cannot do that as both names occur in Gen. 46, in both the Hebrew and the Greek. I don’t want to call him the second son of Benjamin, as I Chron. 8 specifically calls Ashbel that. I doubt that it was a slip of the pen in Chronicles, because the difference is not but one chapter. I would like to then place him as a son of Bela, but he does not show up on the very extensive lists of the sons of Bela. However, given his position in Gen. 46, it is more reasonable to have him either as a son of Bela or a son of Benjamin; however, this does not square with the Greek. In the previous table, I have offered a set of possible solutions to this problem—none of which I am particularly fond of (they all have inherent problems). We find Becher on the Genesis list of those who moved with Benjamin to Egypt; and on the I Chron. 7 list, which appears to be a very early chronology; however, we do not find Becher on the other two lists. The list in Numbers is a part of the census of fighting men of Israel. The list found here leads to Saul and others in the tribe of Benjamin. My guess is that his line did not survive Egypt, whether by distinction or extinction. This would have left him off the Numbers genealogy (which helps in the subdivision of the able-bodied men) and off of this genealogy (which leads eventually to Saul). Why he appears to be the second son of Benjamin on some lists, but not on others, is tough to explain. Making him a grandson is a reasonable choice, except there is nothing in Scripture specifically which would make him that. Could he be a son by a different wife? Possibly. Again, there is nothing specific in any passage which would tell us that. The solution that the line of Becher died out in Egypt is to me the most reasonable. The sum total of ZPEB’s revealed knowledge on the subject: [Becher is] A son of Benjamin.

Our second (or third) son of Benjamin is Ashbel, who is found on three of the four lists. The Hebrew word associated with Ashbel is shenîy (י.נ∵ש) [pronounced sheh-NEE], which means second, the second. Strong’s #8145 BDB #1041. Although clearly a son of Benjamin, his name is not given in the list of extent families a millennium later. This is neither a contradiction or a real problem.

The third son (on this list) is Aharah, whom most consider to be equivalent to Ahiram from Num. 26:38.

If the Greek of Gen. 46 is accurate (and, at this point, we could question the accuracy of any of these four passages in the Greek and the Hebrew), we have the youngest son of Jacob moving with his sons, grandsons and great grandson to Egypt, while his father, Jacob is yet alive. Benjamin was apparently kept at home and did not travel about with the herds with his older brothers. It would be reasonable to assume that he married early in life, perhaps in his teens. His oldest son could have had a son while in his teens, making Benjamin, say, 36–40 when he moved to Egypt. In other words, we have no contradiction again. The circumstances may be unusual, as he appears to be the only son of Jacob to be bringing grandchildren into Egypt—however, such a scenario is not impossible or even highly unusual. Again, this theory is based only upon the Greek text of Genesis.

The first Gera is not problematic. He was obviously a son of Bela who moved from Canaan to Egypt. Very likely, he was a young father as was his father and grandfather (again, this is according to the Greek text of Genesis only). He did not survive as a distinct family from Egypt, and is not found in the two lists of families (Num. 26 and I Chron. 7).

The second Gera is either a brother or simply a descendant of Bela.

Ard (who is probably Arad in the Greek) is the great grandson of Benjamin, the grandson of Bela, and the son of Gera, putting together the text from Gen. 46 (in the Greek), Num. 26 and I Chron. 7, where he is called Addar (bear in mind that the Hebrew d and r are almost identical and often confounded for one another; a double-d in the Hebrew is simply the addition of a dot, added millenniums after the original text).

Bela’s son Naaman (this is according to the Greek of Gen. 46 and the Greek and Hebrew of both Num. 26 and I Chron. 8) was another descendant of Benjamin’s to be born in Canaan and move to Egypt. During the exodus, the sons of Naaman made up a large family, which is noted in Num. 26; however, this family is not mentioned in I Chron. 7, indicating that it either separated into several branches (unlikely, as Naaman would still be mentioned) or it simply died out and/or became assimilated by other families (That is, if Naaman is not equivalent to Nohah, who is a son of Bela in I Chron. 8).

Ehi is mentioned by that name only in Gen. 46. He might be equivalent to Anchis (in the Greek—recall that there is no h in the Greek in the middle of a word) and Ahiram in Num. 26. He is possibly a son of Bela, if the Greek text of Gen. 46 is to be trusted. He may simply be equivalent to Aharah of I Chron. 8:1, which would make him a son of Benjamin, but not a grandson.

Rosh is clearly equivalent to Ros (in the Greek), as the Greek has no h, per se. In the Greek, he is a son of Bela (in Gen. 46). He is not clearly equivalent to anyone from any of the other passages (the closest name is Rapha, who is a son of Benjamin, but not of Bela). We would expect to find him in I Chron. 8, even if his line died out or became assimilated; however, we do not.

Muppim, from Gen. 46, moved with his family from Canaan to Egypt. He is probably a son of Bela (according to the Greek of Gen. 46). He may be equivalent to Shephupham in Num. 26:39 and to Shephuphan in I Chron. 8:5 (where he is also a son of Bela). However, despite the similarity in names, he is probably not Shuppim in I Chron. 7:12, who seems to be removed by considerable time from Bela.

Muppim appears to have a brother—perhaps, even a twin—in Huppim (Gen. 46:21, but not found in the Greek); who would be Hupham in Num. 26 (also missing from the Greek) and Huram in I Chron. 8:5 (where he is found in the Greek). We do have a mention of a Shuppim and Huppim in I Chron. 7:12, but it is unclear in that context as to their relationship to the rest of the line of Benjamin.

This completes our study of all of those who moved from Canaan to Egypt with Benjamin, as well as the families named in Num. 26.

Nohah, as a son of Benjamin, is found only in I Chron. 8:2. He would have been born to Benjamin after his move to Egypt. Benjamin would have been in his 50’s or 60’s by then.

Rapha, like Nohah, is found only in I Chron. 8:2, and would have been born to Benjamin in Egypt.

Now, let me take our line of Benjamin chart from I Chron. 7 and add to it the names from this chapter:

The Line of Benjamin, Son of Jacob
1.Bela (Gen. 46:21 Num. 26:38 I Chron. 7:6 8:1), who is clearly the firstborn of Benjamin. I will mostly follow the Greek of Gen. 46 here. a.Gera (who is clearly a son of Bela in the Greek of Gen. 46 and in both the Greek and Hebrew of I Chron. 8) Gen. 46:21 I Chron. 8:5 i.Ard (Gen. 46:21 Num. 26:40) (Possibly equivalent to Addar in I Chron. 8:3). In I Chron. 8:3, Addar, Gera and Abihud are all called sons of Bela, but this does not preclude Ard (or Addar) from being a son of Gera. ii.Possibly Ehud, who is placed under Abihud below (I Chron. 8:6). I only theorized that Abihud is the father of Ehud (which is the literal meaning of Abihud). If that is not the case, then it is possible that this is the famous Ehud named in Judges 3:12–30. b.Naaman (Gen. 46:21 Num. 26:40 I Chron. 8:4, 7—although v. 7 is probably a different Naaman) c.Ehi, Rosh, and Muppim (Gen. 46:21). In the Greek, they are Nomman, Anchis, Ros and Mamphim (and only in the Greek are they clearly sons of Bela). d.More descendants of Bela: Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth (in I Chron. 7:7 it reads: And sons of Bela were five: Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth and Iri). e.Iri (I Chron. 7:7) i.Muppim and Huppim (Gen. 46:21); reasonably thought to be equivalent to Shephupham and Hupham in Num. 26:39. Neither pair is clearly established as sons of Bela in those two passages. Some consider them to be equivalent to Shuppim and Huppim, who are to called sons of Ir (Iri?) in I Chron. 7:12 f.Descendants of Bela, but uncertain as through whom (I Chron. 8:3–7): i.Abihud (I Chron. 8:3) (1)Ehud (I Chron. 8:6). It is also suggested that Ehud is a son of Gera who is the son of Bela. This does not contradict I Chron. 8; it only contradicts a theory of mine. (a)Naaman, Ahijah and Gera. These three were carried into exile (I Chron. 8:6). (b)Uzza and Ahihud, who were born to Ehud while exiled (I Chron. 8:7). ii.Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah (or, Ahijah), Gera, Shephuphan and Huram (I Chron. 8:3–5). Shephuphan and Huram may be equivalent to Muppim and Huppim, discussed above. 2.Ashbel (Gen. 46:21 Num. 26:38 I Chron. 8:1). He is said to be Benjamin’s second born in I Chron. 8:1. 3.Ahiram (Ehi in Gen. 46:21) Num. 26:38 (Aharah in I Chron. 8:1, where he is called the third)* 4.Nohah and Rapha, called the fourth and fifth, respectively, in I Chron. 8:2. 5.Becher (Gen. 46:21 I Chron. 7:6, 8). Becher is called one of Benjamin’s three sons in I Chron. 7:6. a.Zemirah, Joash, Eliezer, Elioenai, Omri, Jeremoth (I Chron. 7:8) b.Abijah (I Chron. 7:8). Now, if Abijah (or Abiah in some translations) is equivalent to Aphiah (1Sam. 9:1), then this is where we find the line of Saul. i.Becorath ➜ Zeror ➜ Jeiel (or Abiel) (1Sam. 8:29 9:1, 35) (1)Abdon, Zur, Kish1, Baal (I Chron. 8:30 9:36) (2)Ner (1Sam. 9:1 I Chron. 9:36) (a)Kish2 (I Chron. 8:33a 9:36, 39) (i)Saul (1Sam. 9:1–2 14:50–51 I Chron. 8:33a 9:39) 1)Jonathan (1Sam. 14:49 30:2 2Sam. 9:1–4 I Chron. 8:33b–34 9:39–40) a)Merib-baal ➜ Mica (go to The Line From Saul Through Jonathan) 2)Malachi-shua, Abinadab (or Ishvi), Eshbaal (or Ishbosheth), Merib, Michal (1Sam. 14:49 30:2) (b)Abner (1Sam. 14:50–51) (3)Nadab, Gedor, Ahio, Zecher (or Zechariah) (I Chron. 8:30–31 9:36–37) (4)Mikloth (I Chron. 8:32 9:38) (a)Shimeah (or Shimeam) (I Chron. 8:32 9:38) c.Anathoth, Alemeth (I Chron. 7:8) 6.Jediael (I Chron. 7:6, 10) a.Bilhan (I Chron. 7:10) i.Jeush, Benjamin, Ehud, Chenaanah, Zethan, Tarshish, Ahishahar (I Chron. 7:10) 7.In the line of Benjamin, but not certain through whom (by location, they appear to be descendants of Jediael): a.Aher (who is a descendant of Benjamin, but we don’t know through whom) I Chron. 7:12 i.Hushim (I Chron. 7:12) b.Ir (I Chron. 7:12) i.Shuppim and Huppim (I Chron. 7:12) 8.In the line of Benjamin, possibly through one of Ehud’s descendants (others suggest that he is a descendant of Ahishahar): Shaharaim. a.Through his wife Hushim (whom he sent away—I Chron. 8:8): Abitub. b.By his wife Hushim: Elpaal (I Chron. 8:11). i.Eber, Misham, Shemed (who built Ono and Lod and outlying villages). I Chron. 8:12 ii.Shashak (I Chron. 8:14, 25) (1)Ishpan, Eber, Elie, Abdon, Zichri, Hanan, Hananiah, Elam, Anthothijah, Iphdeiah and Penuel (I Chron. 8:22–25). iii.Jeroham (I Chron. 8:27), who is possibly equivalent to Jeremoth, a son of Elpaal (I Chron. 8:14). (1)Shamsherai, Shehariah, Athaliah, Jaareshiah, Elijah and Zichri (I Chron. 8:26–27). iv.Zebadiah, Arad and Eder (I Chron. 8:14–15). v.Zebadiah, Meshullam, Hizki, Heber, Ishmerai, Izliah, Jobab (I Chron. 8:17–18). vi.Beriah (I Chron. 8:13, 16) (1)Michael, Ishpah, and Joha (I Chron. 8:16). vii.Shema (I Chron. 8:13) who is probably equivalent to Shimei in I Chron. 8:21. (1)Jakim, Zichri, Zabdi, Elienai, Zillethai, Elie, Adaiah, Beriah and Shimrath (I Chron. 8:19–21). c.Through wife Hodesh, Shaharaim’s third wife: Jobab, Zibia, Mesha, Malcam, Jeuz, Sachia, Mirmah (I Chron. 8:9–10).
Those in blue were born outside of Egypt and brought to Egypt with Benjamin
The line of Benjamin is probably the most messtup line in Scripture. There is even one pair of names—Becher and Ashbel—that I cannot reasonably explain apart from serious textual corruption. The best explanation that I can come up with, apart from textual corruption, is that Benjamin had several wives, so when three sons are named, it is by one wife; and when more are named it is by all of his wives. That does not explain the exclusion of Becher from the line of Benjamin followed here. Now, I need to quickly add, that does not mean that we have evidence of textual corruption here. On the contrary, when it comes to variant readings and disagreements as to who is who, there are very few in this chapter.
To a Continuation of the Line to and from Saul	The Line of Saul through his Son Jonathan