Question VII. Whose sons, properly, [were] Rapha, Reseph, and the others?

Although one might think that the Latin text, “Moreover his son [Rapha],” is to be referred to her who was last named, Sara — so that these would be called her sons — nevertheless it must be explained from the Hebrew and the Greek, where that [word] “his” is masculine, and therefore is to be referred either to Ephraim or to Beria. Abulensis refers [it] to Ephraim, and attributes to him three of these [as] sons — Rapha, Reseph, and Thale — who [would be] brothers of the previously-named Beria. Others prefer the same three [to be] sons of Beria, as Lyranus [does]. To some, also, only the two former are sons of Beria, but the third [is the son] of the second — namely, Thela, [son] of Reseph. To me it seems that, first, Rapha is the son of Beria, [and] grandson of Ephraim; for there is no reason why that “his” should not be referred to him of whom mention was made in the last place. Then, the sons of Rapha are Reseph and Thela; for in the Hebrew these two are joined, with the phrase changed, thus: “And Reseph, and Thela his son”

(col. 14)

[his]. In the Greek [it is] still more open: …καὶ Θαλὲε υἱὸς αὐτοῦ. Thereafter, the son of this Thala is Thaan; of Thaan, Laadan; of Laadan, Ammiud; of Ammiud, Elisama; of Elisama, Nun; of Nun, Joshua. So that from Ephraim Joshua is the ninth, from Joseph the tenth, from Abraham the thirteenth. Thus:

Yet there are those who judge that [the one] who is here reckoned in the sixth place, Laadan, must be said [to be the son] of Suthala himself — who (question 2) was a son of Ephraim — and that the same son is called (Numbers 26, verse 36) Heran, but here (1 Paralipomenon 7, verse 25) Hadan. For that [syllable] La, which is set before him in the Latin text, seems to be only a Hebrew article — or rather, the mark of the genitive or dative case; so that there it could have been translated, “to Hadan his son.” Secondly, Heran in Numbers 26 is called by the Seventy ἰαδὲν, as was said above (question 2, [reply] to the second), as if Hadan; and it is agreed that the letters resh and daleth, among the Hebrews, are, on account of their likeness, easily and frequently interchanged. But expressly, [in] Numbers 26, verse 36, he is called “son of Suthala.” And therefore, according to those [scholars], the genealogy of Joshua is [thus]:

But the Latin text refuses this Genealogy, since after Thaan it expressly subjoins (1 Paralipomenon 7, verse 26), “Who begot Laadan.” Secondly, because the two arguments put forward prove nothing. For as to the first: it is agreed that there are many other proper names, both of men and of places, which begin not dissimilarly with la — as Labana (Genesis 24), Labana (Joshua 15 & 19), Latussim and Laomim (1 Paralipomenon 1), Laad and Laada (in the same book, chapter 4, verses 2 & 21). As to the latter: there are many names which have a great kinship, and are almost entirely the same, yet denote different men — as was clear above in Suthala (question 2, [reply] to the third). It is added that a kind of rack seems to be applied to the text when Junius and Tremellius (in the Annotations) refer that phrase, “to Hadan his son” (Paralipomenon 7, verse 25), to Suthala — since between this one and that Hudan so many other [names] are interposed, and there is not even the least little letter which would call us back up to him. And therefore I not unwillingly rest in the former genealogy.

(col. 15)