And these are the names of the dukes that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names; duke Timnah, duke Alvah, duke Jetheth,
These are the names of the dukes ... The list of the dukes is here resumed, with the names of their seats; but whereas there were fourteen enumerated in the former, there are only eleven mentioned in this. Kurtz supposes that in Genesis 36:15-19 'the original number of the tribes is given, possibly at the time when the princes created for themselves a center by the election of a king; whereas the concluding verses refer to the time of the historian.'
The following circumstances should be taken into consideration in attempting to account for the diminution:-First, the early secession of Amalek from the confederacy; secondly, the name of duke Korah (p.
16) does not occur in the Samaritan version, and in all probability the text is corrupt, as it is not likely the Edomites would have two tribes of the same name; thirdly, two Edomite tribes were named after the daughters of Seir (Genesis 36:40-41). And other circumstances, unknown to us, may have had an influence in effecting the reduction. But Delitzsch contends that this is not a second list of dukes or phylarchs, but only an enumeration of them according to their capital cities.
Elah - he considers as the part Aria.
Pinon - as Phunon, in the north-east of Wady Musa.