Matthew Henry on Genesis 36:9-19
Observe here, 1. That only the names of Esau's sons and grandsons are recorded, only their names, not their history; for it is the church that Moses preserves the records of, not the record of those that are without. Those elders that lived by faith alone obtained a good report. It is Sion that produces men of renown, not Seir, Psa 87:5. Nor does the genealogy go any further than the third and fourth generation; the very names of all after are buried in oblivion. It is only the pedigree of the Israelites, who were to be the heirs of Canaan, and of whom were to come the promised seed, and the holy seed, that is drawn out to any length, as far as there was occasion for it, even of all the trib…
Read the whole note in the consoleJamieson-Fausset-Brown on Genesis 36:15
dukes--The Edomites, like the Israelites, were divided into tribes, which took their names from his sons. The head of each tribe was called by a term which in our version is rendered "duke"--not of the high rank and wealth of a British peer, but like the sheiks or emirs of the modern East, or the chieftains of highland clans. Fourteen are mentioned who flourished contemporaneously.
Adam Clarke on Genesis 36:16
Duke Korah - This Dr. Kennicott pronounces to be an interpolation. "It is certain, from Gen 36:4, that Eliphaz was Esau's son by Adah; and from Gen 36:11, Gen 36:12, that Eliphaz had but six sons, Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, and Amalek. It is also certain, from Gen 36:5, Gen 36:14, that Korah was the son of Esau (not of Eliphaz) by Aholibamah; and as such he is properly mentioned in Gen 36:18 : These are the sons of Aholibamah, Esau's wife: duke Jeush, duke Jaalam, Duke Korah. It is clear, therefore, that some transcriber has improperly inserted duke Korah in Gen 36:16; from which interpolation both the Samaritan text and the Samaritan version are free." - Kennicott's Remarks. Everythi…
Read the whole note in the consoleJohn Gill on Genesis 36:16
