The Amateur ExegeteLeave a Comment on Bible Study for Amateurs #77 – Ephraim and the Exodus: A Notable Contradiction

Bible Study for Amateurs #77 – Ephraim and the Exodus: A Notable Contradiction

Hey, everyone! I’m Ben – the Amateur Exegete, and this is episode seventy-seven of Bible Study for Amateurs. Today’s episode is, “Ephraim and the Exodus: A Notable Contradiction.”1

I have been a fan of the cartoon The Simpsons for nearly my entire life. My dad didn’t allow us to watch it when I was younger but by the time I was a teenager we would come home from church and watch the latest episode together. (This was back when you had to either watch it live or tape it with your VCR and watch it later.) One of my favorite scenes comes from the second season of the show.2 Homer has been given just twenty-four hours to live after he (erroneously) thinks he’s consumed venom from a blowfish from a sushi restaurant. As his time on earth draws to a close, he quietly gets up in the night, kisses his children goodbye (except for Bart), and resigns to the living room. He then picks from the bookshelf an audio version of the Bible read by the late Larry King, places it in his cassette player, and hits play.

What is there not to love about this scene? From Larry King opening a reading of Holy Writ with the words “Hi, I’m Larry King” to Homer unceremoniously fast-forwarding through all those begats to the patter after King finishes reading, including betting on the San Antiono Spurs to win the NBA finals. It is a delightful blend of somberness and silliness. Those early seasons of The Simpsons sure were magical.

If you’re like me, you can certainly sympathize with poor Homer as he skips through the genealogies, avoiding name after name that hold so little meaning (and so little interest) for most readers of the Bible. Who cares who the father of Zibeon was (Gen. 36:20) or who the descendants of Japheth were (Gen. 10:2-5)? Why do I need to know the names of the descendants of Reuben or Simeon or Issachar or Benjamin (Num. 26)? If you’ve spent any time reading through 1 Chronicles, you know well the pain of slogging through name after name after name in a section Robert Alter describes as “the least readable extended passage in the Bible.”3

While certainly dull, biblical genealogies are not without value.4 In Genesis, for example, early genealogies like those in chs. 5, 10, and 11 function not only as narrative devices, tying stories together by bridging time from one generation to a later one,5 they also showed that while Israel was God’s central focus even the gentiles were made in his image.6 Genealogies can also be put to rhetorical work, revealing how one group of people is superior to another.7 Relatedly, in the context of various genealogies of Israel, Kipp Davis writes that they can “demonstrate ethnic lineages that ensured membership in the larger groups” of clans and tribes.8 And far from being static, genealogies can evolve depending on socio-political factors.9

Ephraim in Chronicles

An example of such evolution can be found in a genealogy from 1 Chronicles 7. In vv. 20-29, we read of the descendants of Ephraim, beginning with the patriarch himself (v. 20) and concluding with arguably his most famous descendant, Joshua the son of Nun (v. 27). But this genealogy isn’t merely a list of fathers and sons. In vv. 21-24 we find some narrative detail that is unparalleled in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Per v. 20, Ephraim’s firstborn son is Shuthelah. The rest of v. 20 and most of v. 21 trace that lineage, ending with another Shuthelah who is the great-great-great-great-great grandson of Ephraim. Next the Chronicler lists two additional sons of Ephraim: Ezer and Elead. At this point, the genealogy pauses and a bit of narrative material is interjected. Here is the rest of v. 21 down through to v. 24 as it appears in the NRSVue. 

21bNow the people of Gath who were born in the land killed them, because they came down to raid their cattle. 22 And their father Ephraim mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him. 23 Ephraim went in to his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, and he named him Beriah, because disaster had befallen his house. 24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built both Lower and Upper Beth-horon and Uzzen-sheerah.

If you are a casual reader of the Bible, all of this might not raise any alarm bells. This might just seem like some interesting color in an otherwise dull genealogy. But if you paid any attention at all in Sunday School, then you know that this pericope runs afoul of a pretty central story in the Bible, namely the flight of Israel from Egypt: the Exodus. 

Ephraim in the Torah

Ephraim was the brother of Manasseh and the two were Joseph’s sons who were born to him after his brothers, fellow sons of Jacob, had sold him into slavery but before famine wreaked havoc on Egypt and the surrounding region (Gen. 41:50-52; cf. Gen. 37:12-26). After an emotional reunion with his brothers and father years later, Jacob blesses Ephraim and Manasseh, telling Joseph, “[Y]our two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are now mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are” (Gen. 48:5; cf. Gen. 48:1-22). This intra-family adoption10 not only establishes their legitimacy as heirs, despite their Egyptian mother,11 but it also functions almost etiologically as a way to place the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh on par with tribes like Judah or Simeon or Benjamin by giving a lineage that terminates with Israel himself.12

Not long after all of this, Jacob dies and Joseph arranges to have his father embalmed and taken to Canaan for burial (Gen. 50:1-14). Jacob lived to be 147 years old while Joseph, Gen. 50:22 reports, reached 110, a number with symbolic significance as it was an ideal life span in Egyptian culture.13 Significantly, v. 23 says that “Joseph saw Ephraim’s children of the third generation”; that is, Joseph saw his own great-grandchildren.14 This was possible not simply because of Joseph’s advanced age but because, we read at the beginning of v. 22, “Joseph remained in Egypt, he and his father’s household.” That household – as we learned in Gen. 48 – now included the sons of Joseph. Consonant with this is that when we read of the tribes of Israel who have entered the land in Num. 1, we find listed “the tribe of Ephraim” and “the tribe of Manasseh” (see Num 1.32-35). The descendants of Ephraim, then, were part of the generation that lived in Egypt and later made their escape. The Chronicler contradicts that. 

Chronicles vs. the Torah

First,15 the Chronicler reports in 1 Chron. 7:21 that “the people of Gath who were born in the land killed them, because they came down to raid their cattle.” To whom do these pronouns refer? The natural antecedents are that of Ezer and Elead, sons of Ephraim.16 The fact that people from Gath killed them strongly suggests that this did not happen in Egypt, as surely any Gathite incursion would have been repelled by Egyptian forces.

Second, the Chronicler writes that Ezer and Elead “came down to raid their cattle.” Remember, it is Gathites who killed Ezer and Elead, and so the language of “going down” means that the brothers must have dwelled somewhere to the north of Gath and, therefore, not in Egypt. This contradicts what we know from both Gen. 50:22 and the implication of Num. 1:32-35. 

Third, Ephraim produces another son with his wife, naming him Beriah “because disaster had befallen his house.”17Beriah has children of his own, and the Chronicler highlights one in particular: Sheerah, his daughter.18 According to v. 24, she is the founder of Lower and Upper Beth-horon as well as Uzzen-sheerah.19 While the location of Uzzen-sheerah is unknown,20 Upper and Lower Beth-horon are cities known to archaeology.21 Importantly, they are in Canaan, not Egypt. This further situates Ephraim and his family away from Egypt, in stark contrast from the impression we get from reading relevant passages in the Torah.

It is difficult for this amateur exegete to read the Chronicler and not come away thinking that what he claims for Ephraim and his descendants stands in contradiction with what we find in the Torah. Nevertheless, a few readers have sought ways to reconcile what we find here with what we find in the Pentateuch. In his notes for The Jewish Study Bible, David Rothstein offers an overview of attempts to harmonize the Torah and the Chronicler.22 Let’s briefly go over them. 

Option 1

First, he notes that in the Aramaic Targum and some rabbinic texts we find the claim that the story in Chronicles suggests a group of Ephraimites left Egypt before the events of the Exodus, settled in Canaan, and were met with failure, a sign that they shouldn’t have tried to play God. For example, in a section of the Babylonian Talmud examining the valley of dry bones from Ezekiel 37, the question of the identity of those resurrected bones comes into focus. Who are they? The ancient rabbi Abba bar Ayvoh, referred to as Rav in Talmudic texts, reportedly said, “These were the descendants of Ephraim who calculated the time of the end of the enslavement and the redemption from Egypt and erred in their calculation. They left before the appointed time and were killed” (b. Sanh. 92b).23

Option 2

Another option Rothstein mentions is related to the first one. In Exodus 13:17, we are told that when Pharaoh let the Israelites leave the land, God decided to forgo a more direct route to Canaan in favor of a long-cut because, the deity thought, “If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt.” The war, in context, is battle with the Philistines since in the narrative they have control of the region north of Egypt. But in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan we find a different explanation: 

And it was when Pharoh had released the people, that the Lord did not conduct them by the way of the land of the [Philistines] though that was the near one; for the Lord said, Lest the people be affrighted in seeing their brethren who were killed in war, two hundred thousand men of strength of the tribe of Ephraim, who took shields, and lances, and weapons of war, and went down to Gath to carry off the flocks of the [Philistines]; and because they transgressed against the statute of the Word of the Lord, and went forth from [Egypt] thirty years before the (appointed) end of their servitude, they were delivered into the hand of the [Philistines], who slew them. These are the dry bones which the Word of the Lord restored to life by the ministry (hand) of [Ezekiel] the prophet, in the vale of Dura; but which, if they (now) saw them, they would be afraid, and return into [Egypt]. (Tg. Ps.-J. on Exodus 13:17).24

In this version of events, God does not want to take Israel to Canaan by way of the land of the Philistines lest they see the dead bodies of Ephraimites who had apparently miscalculated when their period of enslavement was to end and therefore travelled to Canaan too early, meeting their doom.25

Option 3

Yet another option is that the words “born in the land” in 1 Chron. 7:21 refers not to residents of Gath but to Ephraimites and that the massacre took place in either the desert or in Transjordan, outside of Israel. This explanation can be found in the writings of the thirteenth century French rabbi David Kimchi who, interacting with Talmudic sources, disagreed with his predecessors. He wrote, 

[I]n my opinion, “the ones born in the land” refers to the Ephraimites. Because among the descendants of Ephraim the text mentions the ones born in Egypt—that is, his sons and grandsons, as it says, “Joseph lived to see children of the third generation of Ephraim” (Gen 50:23)—it says that the descendants of Ephraim “born in the land”—whom he produced “in the land”—went down to the land of Gath to take their cattle, and the men of Gath killed them. Now this took place in the wilderness. It could not have taken place in the land of Israel, because the text says “And Ephraim their father mourned many days” (v. 22)—and Ephraim did not enter the land! For the only ones who left Egypt at twenty years of age or more who entered were Joshua and Caleb (Num 14:29–30). Therefore, I say that this event took place in the wilderness or in the land of Gilead, with Ephraim still alive. For that is possible, because Machir son of Manasseh was among those who conquered the land of Gilead (Jos 17:1), and the children of Machir son of Manasseh were, after all, “born upon Joseph’s knees” (Gen 50:23). What proves this interpretation is that you find that the Ephraimites’ numbers when they went out of Egypt, when they were counted in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year, totaled forty thousand five hundred (Num 1:33), whereas when they were counted upon entering the land, at the fords of Moab, they totaled only thirty-two thousand five hundred (Num 26:37). So those eight thousand whom they lost in the wilderness are the ones whom the Gathites killed.26

The logic of this harmonization is a bit hard to follow, and I am honestly not sure I can fully wrap my head around it. The argument seems to depend in part on the idea that Ephraim was alive well into the Exodus since, notes the rabbi, Manasseh’s son Machir was alive during the Conquest. In other words, they both lived extraordinarily long lives, allowing Ephraim to mourn the death of his descendants, some eight thousand in number. 

Option 4

Still another option for harmonization that Rothstein mentions is that the reference to Ephraim is a gloss or, perhaps, refers to a different Ephraim who was a descendent of his eponymous ancestor. This is the tactic of choice for Brian Kelly in his notes for The ESV Study Bible. Noting the presence of Joshua in this section, he argues that 1 Chron. 7:21b-24 “refers to the postconquest period: the building of Lower and Upper Beth-horon fits better with the time of tribal settlement. In this case, Ephraim (v. 22) would refer not to the patriarch but to a later descendent of the same name.”27

None of these attempts at harmonization are all that satisfying. For example, Brian Kelly’s argument that the Ephraim of this particular genealogy is a different Ephraim seems to be little more than special pleading. The other genealogies in this section of 1 Chronicles seem to traffic in a fairly straightforward understanding of lineage. At the top of ch. 7, Issachar’s sons are listed: Tola, Puah, Jashub, and Shimron. This is consonant with Gen. 46:13. Ditto for Naphtali (though with some variation in spelling). The only reason to suppose that the Ephraim in 1 Chron. 7 is different than the patriarch is because of a need to harmonize the accounts, not because the text itself warrants it. 

The same can be said of the idea that the reason Yahweh didn’t want the Israelites to pass through the land of the Philistines was because they would see the corpses of their kin the Ephraimites who had left Egypt too early for the Promised Land. Nothing within the account in Exodus leads to that conclusion. This holds true for the notion that the reason there is a difference in the census numbers of Num. 1 and Num. 26 is because of a battle between the Ephraimites and Gathites. Such a reading ignores the context of Num. 26 wherein a new census is issued following a plague that wipes out a significant portion of Israel, including those of the tribe of Ephraim. 

Option 5

What then do we make of this strange little story in 1 Chronicles? Rothstein offers another possible take on the passage, namely that perhaps there is no need to harmonize at all. Instead, this section “is part of Chronicles’ portrayal of the eternal bond between Israel and its land.”28And this is, to my mind, a much better way to understand it. 

The Chronicler is writing sometime in either the fifth or fourth century BCE, before the reign of Alexander the Great and the end of the Persian Empire.29 The community to which he no doubt belonged had been one that knew the pain of exile. The holy city had been taken a century or so prior by Babylon and its temple to Yahweh razed. With the cult suspended and with many Judeans away from their homeland, there is no doubt that despair reigned. “The joy of our hearts has ceased,” writes the author of the book of Lamentations sometime during the exile. “[O]ur dancing has been turned to mourning” (Lam. 5:15). But with the fall of Babylon and the ascendancy of Persia came the hope of restoration. Cyrus the Great had ordered not only the release of those in exile but also the rebuilding of both the city of Jerusalem and its temple to Israel’s god (see 2 Chron. 36:22-23). 

What does this have to do with Ephraim in 1 Chron. 7? By depicting Ephraim, a member of Israel, as originating in Canaan, the land to which the Babylonian refugees were now returning, the Chronicler was staking his claim that Israel was always in the land and that, fundamentally, no matter which way the socio-political winds blew, it was their rightful home. Yes, Yahweh had emptied the land by means of Babylon30 but that was merely to let it rest in accordance with prophetic testimony (cf. 2 Chron. 36:20-21). The people always belonged there, and the god of Israel was restoring them to their rightful place. Perhaps this is the reason that the Chronicler downplays the Exodus and Conquest, beginning his narrative of Israel’s history not with Moses in Egypt but with the monarchy.

Option 6

While I find the idea that the Chronicler is intentionally portraying Ephraim (and, thereby, Israel) as eternally connected to the land of Israel compelling, there is another option that Rothstein doesn’t mention. In a piece for thetorah.com, David Frankel posits that the Chronicler included this story about Ephraim and his sons due to oversight.31 He writes, “The editors of Chronicles incorporated various sources into their work without always examining them too closely, and included them even [when] these traditions disagreed with the author’s main thrust. This may have been particularly true regarding ancient genealogical lists and their attendant anecdotes.” He later writes that “the editors of Chronicles have inadvertently preserved some ancient materials reflecting early conceptions that they did not intend to promote.” Similarly, Steven Tuell writes concerning this passage, “The preservation of such an odd little nugget among the Chronicler’s sources reminds us of the remarkable diversity of Israel’s traditions. The use of this narrative here demonstrates the Chronicler’s skill in weaving together a variety of sources and traditions.”32

Definitely a Contradiction

Of the various options for dealing with 1 Chron 7:21-24, the final two I’ve briefly discussed seem the least strained and, therefore, the most viable. Unless one is willing to engage in special pleading or radically reinterpret other texts to make the Chronicler’s work fit in with, say, the Torah, the best option is to let the text stand as it is and try to understand it in its literary context. Like those who try to harmonize disparate Gospel stories at the expense of narrative details, those who try to fit the Chronicler here with what we find in the Torah end up losing much more than they gain. 

That’s it for this episode of Bible Study for Amateurs.  I’ll see you next time! If you’d like to support this podcast, share it on social media, subscribe to it on the listening platform of your choice, or head over to amateurexegete.com and click on the support button. Or do all three! And, most importantly, remember, in the words of Richard Elliot Friedman, “One does not need to deny what is troubling [about the Bible] in order to pay respect to what is heartening.”33

  1. Throughout the endnotes readers will find various abbreviations. For a list of what abbreviations I use and the works to which they refer, please see the page “Commonly Used Abbreviations.”  ↩︎
  2. Season 2, episode 11 – “One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish.”  ↩︎
  3. Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (W.W. Norton & Co., 2019), 3:865. ↩︎
  4. See, e.g., Paul Davidson, “How to interpret genealogies in the Bible: The Table of Nations (Genesis 10),” (7.14.25), youtube.com/@InquisitiveBible. ↩︎
  5. Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 1:22. ↩︎
  6. John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books, second edition (Fortress Press, 2014), 83. ↩︎
  7. Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, third edition (Oxford University Press, 2014), 89. One example that comes to mind is the brief origin story of the Moabites and Ammonites found in Gen. 19:30-38. Another is the genealogy of Ham (Gen. 10:6-20) which includes Egypt, a frequent foe and future enslaver of Israel, as well as Canaan, the namesake of the land which Israel will subdue following the Exodus.  ↩︎
  8. Kipp Davis, God’s Propaganda: Pulling Back the Curtain on What the Bible Wants You to See (Palaeographers Press, 2025), 249. He writes later, “These extended family lists were used to demonstrate and ensure the relationship of beyt’abot [i.e., house of the fathers or ancestors] within the mishpahot [i.e., clans or family groups], and within the shevitim [i.e., tribes], and all the way up to their place as part of Israel.” Cf. James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (Free Press, 2007), 157-158. ↩︎
  9. Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 157-158. ↩︎
  10. Nahum Sarna (Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary [The Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 325) notes that such adoptions were not uncommon in the ancient world, citing an example from Ugarit akin (pun intended) to this story in Genesis. ↩︎
  11. So Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, NCBC (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 375. ↩︎
  12. See Gordan J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, WBC 2 (Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2000), 463. Claus Westermann (Genesis, translated by David E. Green [(1986) T&T Clark International, 1987], 315) similar writes that the act “is intended as a belated legitimation of their future as tribal ancestors.” See also Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, revised edition, translated by John H. Marks, OTL (The Westminster Press, 1972), 413. Robert Alter (The Hebrew Bible, 1:189) opines that this scene plays on a theme found through Genesis of “the reversal of primogeniture,” and includes examples like Jacob’s reception of Isaac’s blessing instead of Esau (the firstborn). In this case, by mentioning Reuben and Simeon, Jacob is effectively subverting their primacy as Jacob’s eldest children, perhaps due to their actions with relation to the rape of their sister and their revenge on Shechem: “The adoption is dictated by the fact that Ephraim and Manasseh will become tribes, just as if they were sons of Jacob.” ↩︎
  13. Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 1:202; Sarna, Genesis, 350. See also Grigorios I. Kontopoulos, “Getting Old in Ancient Egypt,” ANE Today 6, no. 4 (April 2018). Accessed 6 February 2026. ↩︎
  14. Arnold, Genesis, 388. Cf. Sarna, Genesis, 350.  ↩︎
  15. I am deeply indebted to Nat Ritmeyer for his blog post on this. See his “Ezer, Elead, and Exodus” (10.13.17), biblicalhistoricalcontext.com. Accessed 1.28.26. See also Paul Davidson’s post on this: “The Story of Ezer and Elead and What It Means for the Exodus” (1.9.17), isthatinthebible.wordpress.com. Accessed 1.28.26. ↩︎
  16. So Ralph Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Fortress Press, 2006), 232. It should be noted that Klein interprets this scene to be about the Ephraimites generally and not any specific Ephraimite. ↩︎
  17. As Alter (The Hebrew Bible, 3:883) notes, this is an example of a folk etymology where the name Beriah (בְּרִיעָהַ) resembles the Hebrew word bǝrāʿâ (בְרָעָ֖ה) which means “misfortune.” ↩︎
  18. It is possible that Sheerah is the daughter of Ephraim, but on my reading, it seems likely she is the daughter of Beriah and that Rephah (1 Chron. 7:25) is Beriah’s son. See also M. Stephen Davis, “Sheerah,” in ABD 5:1191. ↩︎
  19. On the significance of Sheerah, see Ehud Ben Zvi, History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (Equinox Publishing, Ltd., 2006), 185-186. See also Eric E. Richter, “Sheerah, the Unknown City-Building Woman of 1 Chronicles 7:24” (5.5.23), cbeinternational.org. Accessed 2.10.26. ↩︎
  20. M. Stephen Davis, “Uzzen-Sheerah,” in ABD 6:776; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 234. Simon De Vries (1 and 2 Chronicles, FOTL 11 [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989], 80) claims that Uzzen-sheerah may be in modern Beit Sera in the West Bank. Unfortunately, De Vries does not provide any citation to back that speculation and I have not found (at the time of the writing of this episode) any substantiation.  ↩︎
  21. See John L. Peterson, “Beth-Horon,” in ABD 1:688-689. ↩︎
  22. David Rothstein, “1 Chronicles,” in The Jewish Study Bible, second edition, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford University Press, 2014), 1722. ↩︎
  23. Translation taken from The William Davidson Talmud, available at sefaria.org. Accessed 1.23.26. ↩︎
  24. Translation taken from The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan ben Uzziel, translated by J. W. Etheridge (1862), available at sefaria.org.Accessed 1.23.26.  ↩︎
  25. Notably, this attempted harmonization uses the language of the Chronicler (“went down to Gath”) but ignores the import of it.  ↩︎
  26. Translation taken from The Commentary of Radak to Chronicles: A Translation with Introduction and Supercommentary, Yitzhak Berger, Brown Judaic Studies 345 (Brown University, 2007), available at sefaria.org. Accessed 1.23.26. ↩︎
  27. Brian E. Kelly, “1 Chronicles,” in The ESV Study Bible, edited by Lane T. Dennis (Crossway, 2008), 714. ↩︎
  28. Rothstein, “1 Chronicles,” 1722. ↩︎
  29. For an assessment of the evidence on the dating of Chronicles, see Klein, 1 Chronicles, 13-17.  ↩︎
  30. Though truly the land was never empty. See Tero Alstola, Judeans in Babylon: A Study of Deportees in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BCE, CHANE 109 (Brill, 2020), 14; Mordechai Cogan, “Into Exile: From the Assyrian Conquest of Israel to the Fall of Babylon,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited by Michael D. Coogan (Oxford University Press, 1998), 269. ↩︎
  31. David Frankel, “The Book of Chronicles and the Ephraimites that Never Went to Egypt” (4.8.15), thetorah.com. Accessed 2.18.26. ↩︎
  32. Steven S. Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, IBC (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 39. ↩︎
  33. Richard Elliot Friedman, The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters (HarperOne, 2017), 214. ↩︎

Leave a comment

search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close