Encyclopaedia Biblica/Gazara-Gennesar

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status


(so RV always), GAZERA (r-&ZAp&[N] [AXV]) ; one of the three chief fortresses of Judaea in the early Maccabsean story. Judas the Maccabee pursued Gorgias as far as Gazera (i Mace. 4 15 yacrripuv [A], yaf. [NV]). Bacchides, the adversary of Jonathan, fortified it against the Jews (52; Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 3), and among the exploits of his great successor Simon, the conquest of this stronghold takes a leading place (i Mace. 1843-48 ; 4 cp U 7 [yafapuv, ANV], 33 /. [yapafav, N*], 15 28 35 [yafapr]i>ui>, A]).

A different account of this event is given in 2 Mace. 10 32-38. The writer, who is opposed to Simon because he assumed the high-priestly dignity, transfers this achievement to his hero Judas, whose behaviour is s o described as to contrast with the conduct ascribed to Simon in the authentic historical record of i Mace, (see Kosters, Tk. T, 1878, p. sigyC ; MACCABEES, SECOND, 2/.). Josephus (Ant. xiii. 67 92 ; BJ i. 2 2), as might be expected, follows the account given in i Mace. ; nor can we attach any historical importance to the strongly biassed state ment of 2 Macc.

On obtaining possession of Gazara Simon installed his son John there as commander-in-chief of the Jewish forces (see MACCABEES i. , 7). Gazara or Gazera is of course the same place as GEZER (q.v. , i). There is no occasion to seek for a second .Gazara in order to avoid a discrepancy between 1 Macc, and 2 Macc.

1 Porter in Kitto s Bibl. Cycl., s.v. Gaza. - Robinson ; Porter.

3 PEFQ, 75, p. 161.

4 We are indebted to Josephus for the right reading in v. 43, which is required by v. 53 (cp v. 48) and by subsequent references to Gazara. The MSS and versions, however, read Gaza (ya$av [ANY]) ; so AV, but not RV. Cp Schurer, GJVV) 1 194, n. 12.


the better rendering of s bi ("OV, fern. .T3S, ybiyyah ; Sop/cis [BAFL]), adopted by RV in Dt. 12is 22 14 5 15 22 i K. 4 23 [5 3] (II "?N, ayyal; see HART), and by RVmg. in Is. 13 14 (SopudSiov, ) Prov. t>5 etc. 1 for AV ROE (q.v.).

The gazelle the word is derived through the Ar. gazal was known to Assyrians, Aramaeans and Arabians alike under the cognate forms sabltu, tabyd, and zaby u " respectively ; it is still common in all the country S. of Lebanon, and extends into N. Africa, and Asia Minor.

The modern representative Gazella dorcas is commonly known in Arabia as the thobby(c^ Doughty, Ar. Des., Index, s.v.). It stands two feet in height at the shoulder, and its horns, which are lyrate, attain a length of 13 inches. In the broad sandy plains it is white in colour, but in the volcanic districts dark gray, closely approaching the colour of basalt (Ar. Des. 1 328 395). For other species see ANTELOPE.

The gazelle has always been remarkable for its graceful appearance 2 and its extraordinary speed (cp

2 S. 2i8 i Ch. 128). It is usually found in small herds, and is hunted at the present day by the Arabs with dogs and falcons. The chased gazelle was a frequent sight not only in Palestine (Is. 13 14 Prov. 65), but also in Assyria, and Egypt (see illustration in Riehm s HWB1669),

The flesh of the gazelle was eaten by the Hebrews (i K. 423 [5 3] Dt. 14s); but the animal was not accepted as a sacrifice (Dt. 1215221522) even among the Arabs a gazelle is regarded as an inferior substitute for a sheep (We. Heid.W 115). Whatever be the origin of this usage, it can scarcely be due, at all events, to the belief that so common an animal would be an unworthy sacrifice.

Abundant analogy suggests that an animal that may be eaten, but not sacrificed, possessed, at an early period, a sacred char acter, and also was associated closely with some deity. 3 Now in Arabia there were herds of sacred gazelles at Tabala and Mecca, even in the time of Islam (We. Heid.(~t 106, cp WRS Rel. Setn.V) 466), and it was told of the clan Harith of S. Arabia that when they come across a dead gazelle they wash and bury it, and the whole tribe mourn over it for seven days (Rel. Scm. ( 2 ) 444). The latter practice implies either that the members of the tribe considered themselves of one kin with it, or that it was to them a deity (cp the weeping for ADONIS [^.z/.]). 4 The gazelles of Mecca were probably connected with the cult of el- Uzza, who is usually identified with Aphrodite (Venus, Ash- toreth), and Robertson Smith points out that among the Sabseans the antelope was connected with the worship of Athtar (see ASHTORETH, 3), and has been found figured upon coins from the Phoenician Laodicea 8 along with the star and the dove, symbols of Ashtoreth (Kin. ig4/.). Was the gazelle sacred to Ashtoreth?

Personal names derived from the gazelle are found in the Ar. clan-name Zabyan, the S. Juda?an ZIBIAH (cp also ZIBIA), and the later DORCAS and TABITHA. See further GOAT.

A. E. S.-S. A. C.

1 In 2 S. 2 18 i Ch. 12 8, however, RV follows AV.

2 Hence used as a simile in describing female charms by the Arab poet up to the present day; cp Cant. 29 etc., and see Hommel, Siiugethierc, 271, who notes Indian analogies. 2^0 in 2 S. 1 19, for which the interpretation the gazelle has been suggested, should perhaps be pointed 3SH ; see, however, H. P. Smith, ad loc.

3 To whom (according to analogy ) it was probably sacrificed on exceptional occasions.

4 The two views, however, are not unrelated.

5 The annual stag-sacrifice at Laodicea illustrates n. 3 above.

6 We., De gent, et fatn. Jud., 26, would point TU. The readings yefoue, yaei are due to scribes errors ; but cp L S second reading yaas.


pT3), 28. 625 AV, RV GEZER.


(TT5) 6 is twice mentioned in i Ch. 246, as a son of Caleb b. Hezron by his concubine Ephah, and as the son of Caleb's son Haran ; I Ch. 246 (6 -ye^oue [BA], 6 yatjiet, but in 46* o ya^as [L], ]nj [Pesh.]). Pesh., omitting all mention of Moza and (the first) Gazez, presents the simple genealogical series, Caleb, Haran, and Gazez. Houbigant supposes the second Gazez to be an error for JAHDAI (v. 47).


(D-T| ; r-^ZAM [L]), family of NETHINIM in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9), Ezra tjUfyuftp [BA]) = Neh. 7 51 (yrjfa/u [BKA]) = i Esd. 5 31 (<cajpa [B], ya. [A], GAZERA [EV]).


or (thrice in AV) GABA.

1. (1?3| I ("&BAA [BAL]), a town of Benjamin, men tioned certainly in Josh. 18242117 (fAGeO [B], fABee [A], rABe [L]), iS. 13i6 ( rA Bee [B ; A om.], 14 5 (TABA6 [B, A om.]), 2 K. 238 (|-AlBAA [B]), i Ch. 645 [60] (r-ABAI [B], r-ABee [A], pABeAl [L]), Ezra 226 = i Esd. 520 (AV GABDES, RV GABBE ; KABBnc [B], KAI y. [A])- Neh. 7 30 (TAMAA [B], TABAA [N]), 12 29 (rABAe [N - 3 -" 1 *-]. r^Bee [L]), Is. 10 29 (not in ), Zech. 14 10 ( rd ,Be BN*r], rA Bee [K c - a A], rA BeA [Q]), and hardly less certainly in the emended texts of i S. 132 (r-ABee [B, A om.]), 15 (A om.), 14z ( BL BoyNOy ! A. om. ), 16 (fABee [B]), and perhaps also in i K. 1622 (see below). On the confusions between Geba and Gibeah see GIBEAH, i.

During the Philistine domination there was a tri umphal pillar (see SAUL) at Geba (i S. 13s ; T< J3ow<$ [BL ; A om.]), the primitive sanctity of which place is shown by its second title (according to a probable inter pretation of i S. 10s [ rbv pow6v~\; see GIBEAH, 2 [3]) Gibeah of God." The pillar was probably dedicated to the god of the Philistines. It was from Geba that JONATHAN started on the daring enterprise described in i S. 14 ; the expressions of v. 5 prove that Geba was on the S. and Michmash on the N. of a ravine ; the ravine is the wild glen of Suweinit ; and Geba must consequently be the modern Jeba . Under ASA \_q.v. ] Geba was fortified with the stones and timber with which Baasha had begun the fortification of Ramah (i K. 1522 = 2 Ch. 166). So at least the present text states. It is a question, however, whether either Gibeah (Buhl, Pal. 171) or Gibeon may not rather be meant.

In i K. 1522 (5 (irav [TOV L] ftovvbv /3ei/tyu>) certainly favours Gibeah ; Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon are easily confounded. Nor can we in any case be quite sure that Geba from this period forward marked the N. limit of the southern kingdom, 1 Zech. 14 10 ( from Geba to Rimmon ) and 2 K. 23 8 (in its present form) not being of pre-exilic origin. It may also be noted that in Is. 1028-32, which describes the route of a northern invader, the writer takes an equal interest in the fate of Aiath (Ai), Geba, and Jerusalem. 2 It may plausibly be inferred that Ai was near the border of Judah when this passage was written, and we know that Josiah claimed sovereign authority over Bethel, NW. of Ai Jeba is about 5^ m. N. from Jerusalem ; it stands on the top of a rocky ridge, commanding an extensive view, especially towards Der Diwan (near Ai) and et-Tayyibeh. The large hewn stones that appear in the foundations and walls of the houses are evidently ancient.

2. (yaifiai [B], -av [N], raifiav [A]), a place in N. Palestine, between which and Scythopolis Holofernes is said to have encamped (Judith 3io). According to Grove (Smith s DBN 1659) it is the modern Jeba, in a strong position, 3 m. N. of Samaria on the road to Jenin (En-gannim) ; but this is not near enough to Scythopolis ; the place was N. of Dothan (see v. 9). It is perhaps rather ENGANNIM [q. v. , 2], the Tivaia of Josephus, which is on the boundary between the moun tains of Samaria and the plain of Esdraelon. Cp, how ever, Buhl, 210. T. K. C.

1 So Stenning in Hastings DB 2 116 6.

" Grove (Smith s DB( l ) I6$8a) argues from the reference to the bivouac (|i ?D) at Geba that this place is mentioned as the northern boundary of Judah. This seems rather arbitrary.

3 At the time of its capture by the Crusaders it was known as Giblet.


(733 mountain-height, probably a false vocalisation for giibal ; cp Ass. gubli, gubla), the Byblus of the Greeks, and, according to ancient legends, one of the oldest places of the habitable globe, still survives in the small maritime village Jebeil, 3 S. of el-Batrun (Botrys) and about 4 m. N. of Nahr Ibrahim (the river Adonis). It is rich in archaeological remains, dating from the early times of Egyptian suzerainty ; cp Renan, Miss, de Phen. 153/1 ; Baed. Pal.W 386, and on its religious associations esp. Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, 172 ff.

Like all Phoenicians the men of Gebal were renowned sailors, and were skilled in shipbuilding (cp Ezek. 27 9, /Su^Xtot [B*Q">-], PL. [B vid -AQ a ], yatjiaX /3i^Xt<5 [Qmg-]) i a reputation of many centuries standing. The Egyptian K u pn i (k = i, / = a, = *?) is already a well- known seaport (see WMM As. u. Eur. i88fr). Gebal is frequently mentioned in the Amarna tablets (Gubal, Gubla) and in the later cuneiform inscriptions. The names of some of its kings have been preserved. These are Ta-ka-ru-b- -ra in the Egyptian Pap. Go- lenischeff (As. u. Eur. 395/1), cp Punic Sicharbas (both =; ^ya nat) ; Si-bi-it-ti-bi- -li (^yi-nyiv?) temp. Tiglath-pileser III. ; Mil-ki-a-sa-pa (^ON-D^D), temp. Esarhaddon ; and U-ru-mil-ki (cp -J^D-IN, ancestor of I^D W below), temp. Sennacherib.

Apart from the passage in Ezekiel (above) further reference to Gebal in the OT is obscure. Were the Gebalites, as RV supposes, employed by Solomon as stone-masons in the building of the temple, i K. 5 18 [32] (D Saj.T or rather aan, cp above)? The specific mention of Gebal after the builders of Hiram is strange and unnatural. AV s rendering stone-squarers is equally unreliable, and the suggested emendation Dl72J l, and they bordered them (Then., Klo., Benz., cp Ges.-Buhl, and BDB, s.v.), finds scanty support. 1 Again, in Josh. 13 5, the land of the GIULITES (RV GEBALITES ; n\v yrjv ya\iaO <#>vAiorieifi [B], T. y. yafi\<. <j>. [A], r. y. ya/3ai 4>iAi<rrietju. [L]) is mentioned by Dg as one of the confines of the land unconquered by Israel. Di. (cp also Bennett, SBO J ) has already pointed out that the present MT is corrupt, and reads ?3}3 713| (ill). It seems probable, however, that ^3^n (flNHl) has corruptly arisen from the following pj^n ; we have no reason to suppose that Gebal was the name of a district in D s time. The difficulty is evaded in a different manner by Bu., Steuernagel, who read "£$"%£"£$

Gebal, famous as the birthplace of Philo, was formerly the centre of the Tammuz cult. Already in the Egyptian period it was under the patronage of Hathor-Astarte, with whom we may compare the bilit sa Gubla of frequent occurrence in Am. Tab. , and the SaJ n^jn upon the well-known Phoenician inscription of Yehaw- melek (jSmrr), king of Byblus (CIS 1 , no. i ). There may be an allusion to the Lady of Gebal in Is. 104, where, according to the emended text (see Lag. Academy, i5th Dec. 1870), the (northern) Israelites are taunted with their futile attempts to propitiate Phoenician, Egyptian, and Assyrian (Babylonian) deities. The words are :

Beltis has sunk down, Osiris is broken,
And under the slain they fall.

The first line of the couplet seems to have taken the place of some effaced words ; it represents, therefore, the thoughts of a writer later than Isaiah (cp Am. 526). By Beltis (the female counterpart of BEL) he means the goddess of Gebal, whose cultus was fused with that of the Egyptian Isis (see Che. Isaiah, SBOT, ad lac.).

s. A. C.

1 p ajn elsewhere to set bounds for (with people, etc., as obj.). A connection with 71^33, n?ajp does not help us. No stress can be placed upon the rendering of (E5 (<cal e/3aXov [B], ivffta\ov [L], i/3A.ioi [A]). It is probable that B and L have simply adopted the reading from its similarity to the MT (^33 misread ^23 ; for examples see Dr. ad i S. 5 4, and We. TBS 10 n. sSyi).

2 A psalm of the Maccabaean period.


P3|)- Among the enemies of Israel enumerated in Ps. 83 7 [8] (NAlBAA [B], r&lBAA [N c - a (?R)], peBAA [A(?R)T]) 2 we find the name of Gebal. This has long ago been identified with Jibal, the term used by Arabic writers, and even by the Arabs of the present day, to designate the northern part of Mount Seir, the ancient home of the Edomites. The Arabic name Jibal, which means simply mountains, mountain country, probably came into use at the time when the Arabic-speaking Nabatosans took possession of the country in question, while the Edomites settled in southern Judasa

In Jos. {Ant. ii. 1 2 and iii. 2 i) the country is called yo/3oAiTis, a form with a peculiar vocalisation ; but the same writer employs ya./3aAiTai as the nomen gentile (Ant. ix. 9 1). Eus. (OS) several times mentions yejSo.Aiji jj (so apparently Steph. Byz. (Jos. Ant iii. 2i]) as well as ya/3aAr)i/7J and ya/aAiTi<c>}. The name is likewise found often in the Targums, somewhat rarely in the Pesh., 1 to represent the Heb. Tyb (SEIR). T. N.


("1^5, a man, see NAMES, 64, and on vocalisation, 6).

i. The son of Geber or. better, BEN-GEBER (so AVmg. and RV) was prefect of Argob under Solomon (i K. 4 13 ; uibs ya/3ep [BA], vi. ya/3ep- [L], ya/3apr)s [Jos. Atit. viii. 2 3]). See RAMOTH- GILEAD (2).

2. Geber b. Uri, prefect of the land of Gad (so BA ; MT wrongly Gilead ), which is described further as the country of Sihon 2 (i K. 4i8[ig], vibs aSai [B], vi. aSSat [L], ya/3p vi. aScu [A]). Uri is hardly right. Klo. suggests Uriah (2 S. 2338); but suggests nj?, Iddo (i Ch. 621 [6], oSec [B]) ; a Zechariah b. Tddo held another prefecture beyond Jordan (v. 14). HIDUAI (cp L aSScu) is less probable. The close of the verse contains a great error. The Hebrew (with which contrast EV) has one prefect who was in the land an imperfect and quite unintelligible clause. E wald and Tg. read in the land of Judah ; but this leaves the most faulty part of the clause untouched viz., that which precedes who O^?*). Klo., who has done so much for this obscure section, reads and one (chief) prefect was over all the prefects who were in the land ; he also supplies the name of this chief prefect from v. 5, where we read, And Azariah b. Nathan was over the prefects." T. K. C.


(D nan, pBBeip [BXAQ]), a place near Jerusalem, mentioned between Madmenah (?) and Nob (?), Is. lOsif. Eusebius and Jerome (OS 2482 130s) identify it with Geba, 5 R. m. N. of Gophna, probably the mod. Jlbid, and Conder (Hastings DB 2 117^) approves this; but neither Jibia nor el-Jib (usually held to be GIBEON [q. v., 4]), with which Hitxig (cp PEFQ ( 75) 183) identifies Gebim, is in the right district. No such place as Gebim is known else where, and several names in Is. 1028-32 are probably, or even certainly, corrupt.

This name in particular ( the cisterns ?) is in itself improb able. It is proposed (SBOT, Isa." Addenda) to read D "in3 i.e., Bahurim ; this place seems to have been not far from Jeru salem on the old road to Jericho. The emendation suits the mention of Anathoth in v. 30 and of the Mt. of Olives (if this is really referred to ; see NOB) in -v. 32. -p. K. C.


(fTJN), Lev. H 3 ot RV, AV FERRET \_g.v.}.


(-inHJ, and rYnS in i, 4, 5 ; Yahwe is great, 38 ; found also on tombs near Nippur, time of Darius [Hilprecht] ; [o] r oAoAi&C [BXAQL]).

i. b. Ahikam b. Shaphan, a Jewish governor of Judah (under Nebuchadrezzar), who resided at Mizpah. A man of upright character, trusted alike by Jews and by Chaldaeans, he was cruelly murdered, as a nominee of the hated Babylonians, together with the Chaldasans who were about him. One of the traders of the Jewish guerilla bands (Johanan b. Kareah) heard of the plot against the governor s life, and warned him; but in vain. He was treacherously slain by ISHMAEL \jj.v. , 2], who, with ten companions, had been entertained by the governor. Johanan pursued the murderer, but was only able to deliver the Jewish captives whom Ishmael had carried off (2 K. 2f)22 Jer. 40 [@ 47] s-41 [@ 48] 16 ; in Jer. 408 ya\adiav [Q mff ]- 41 if. ,T^U yo\iav [X*]). See AMMON, 5 (end) ; ISHMAEL, 2 ; ISRAEL, 43 ; JEREMIAH.

2. b. Pashhur, a chief belonging to Jerusalem, temp. Jeremiah, Jer. 38 i (yoA las [N*]).

3. b. Hezekiah, an ancestor of Zephaniah (Zeph. 1 i).

4. b. Jeduthun, i Ch. 25 3 (rovva [B]) 9 (yoAovia [B]).

5. One of the b ne JESHUA [y.v., ii., 5], Ezra 10 18 (yaSaAeta. [BA], yaAaSeia [N], -Satas [Ll)= i Esd. 9 ip, JoADANUS (uaSavos [B], iwa6ai<05 [A], utSSeta? [L], a corruption of yaSoAeias ; see the form in L ).

1 For its use in Samaritan cp Gen. 33 14 16 36 %/. ; in the Targ. see Levy, Nfflt^li^. In Syr. cp Payne Smith, TJus. 647, and see i Ch. 442 2 Ch. 20 10 25 ii 14 and Ecclus. 6026 (Pesh.).

2 The words, and of Og, king of Bashan, are obviously an incorrect interpolation (see v. 13).


(reAAoyp [A]), i Esd. 5 3 o=Ezra 2 47, GIDDEL, i ; or GAHAR.


( r eAecoN[A], reAcu)N[N],om. B), Judith 81; also Heb. Hs^reAecoN [Ti. WH]) ; RV GIDEON


(~n| i.e. , wall or fortified place ; cp GEDERAH), one of the thirty-one royal Canaanite cities in the list of Joshua s conquests, mentioned with Gezer, Debir, Arad, and Libnah ; Josh. 12i 3 (&cei [B], fAAep [AL and Eus. OSM 244 27]). BAAL-HANAN, 2, the Gederite (i Ch. 27 28, <TU, yedupfir^ [B], ytSup [A], yf88upiTT)s [L]), may have been a native of this place. See also BETH-GADER. It should be noted that in i Ch. 2 51 Beth-gader seems, according to one view of v. 55, to stand in close relation to Kirjath-sepher.


i. (rmiin *.*., the enclosed [forti fied] place, cp Geder, T |-A,AeipA. [OS 245 37]). One of the towns in the lowland of Judah mentioned with Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, and Shaaraim (Josh. 15 36 yaSrjpa [BA], -ip. [L]). Its position agrees fairly with that of the Kh. Jedireh (see GEDEROTH) ; but more probably (see K.IDRON, i) Gederah in Josh. 15 36 = Kedpuv of i Mace. 15 39 = mod. Katra. The gentilic Gederathite (iCh. 12 4 : vma.i, yaSapaBeieifi. [B], yaSapa [N], yaSypuQi [AL]), applied to JOZABAD, \_q.v. , i], may be derived from this place, or may refer to the Judahite GEDOR [q.v. , i].

2. Gederah (nT13) is mentioned with NETAIM (D J?C3) in a singular account of a guild of brothers of the B ne SHELAH \q.v., i]; i Ch. 423 RV. AV, however, translates (among) plants (nctalin) and hedges (gederdk); cp RVmg.. (aat/u. xat yaarjpa [B], ara. (cat yaSrjpa [A], era. KOLI -yaSeipots [L].) See SHELAH, i.


(n mi, Josh. 15 4I , or "Jin, 2 Ch. 28 18; TAAHpcoG [AL]), one of the third group (which includes Lachish, Eglon, and Lahmam) of lowland cities of Judah; Josh. 15 4 i (reAAcop [B]). It is mentioned also in 2 Ch. 28 18 (pAAHpco [B]) along with Beth- shemesh, Aijalon, and Soco as having been taken from Ahaz by the Philistines. This collocation suggests that there may have been two cities of the same name, one lying more to the E. than the other. The more westerly is probably the KeSpuv [ANV] of i Mace. 163941 169(CEDRON, RVKiDRON, KatSpuv [A] in 15 39; xeppwit [N c - ac - b ], Kedpu [VA], KeSpw [X*], in 15 4 i), and the yedpovs [Gedrus] of Eusebius and Jerome (OS 127 32 24539), defined by them as a very large village 10 R.m. from Lydda on the road to Eleutheropolis (cp Buhl, Pal. 188). This corresponds fairly well with the modern Katra 3^ m. S. by W. from Akir (Ekron), or Ghedera about 4 m. SE. of Jabneh ; but the site seems to be too much in Philistine territory. The more easterly one may possibly be the Khirbet Jedireh (see PEF map, sheet 14) situated in close proximity to Ain-Shems (Beth-shemesh) and Yalo (Aijalon).

In Jer. 41 17 for Geruth-chimham \ve should probably read Gidroth-chimham (see CHIMHAM).


(D7rn.;l, place of enclosures, see NAMES, 107), a place in the Shephelah of Judah, Josh. 1536f, in which passage @ BA L has icai at twav\ei.s avrrjs, possibly through misunderstanding a mark of abbreviation in the Heb. ( rim).

Niild. (Untersuch. 101) omits Gederothaim, as due to a corrupt repetition of Gederah ; similarly Miihlau in Riehm s HWB(1).


(~l n|, i.e., enclosure ; r eAcop [BAL]). i. A city in the hill country of Judah : Josh. 15 58 (yf58ui> [B]), i Ch. 127 (yfddwp [NL]), the modern Jediir, asmall ruin, 2890 feet above sea-level, 6 m. N. from Hebron, somewhat westward of the road to Bethlehem, with which also should perhaps be identified the BETH- GADER (q.v. ) of i Ch. 2 51.

In i Ch. 417^ Gedor, Soco, and Zanoah are represented as second cousins of Eshtemoa ; they were grandchildren of MERED by his Jewish wife whilst Eshtemoa was his grandchild through his Egyptian (?) wife. In i Ch. 44 Gedor is brought into genea logical relationship with Bethlehem; in i Ch. 831 (&ovp [B], ytSovp [A], yeS&uip [L]) 937 (teSovp [BN], yeSovp [A], yeSSwp [L]) with Gibeon.

2. For Gedor (Y13) in i Ch. 439 we ought to read with (B GERAR (yepapa [BAL] i.e., T13). See SIMEON.


(D^n WZ), i Ch. 4i 4 RV, and Gehaharashim (D^tSnnn ^), Neh. 11 35 RV m e-. See CHARASHIM.


CW3, and UPIJ = valley of vision ?, cp Is. 22s ; riez[e]l [BAL], Giesi ; or perhaps rather GIHONI [^fTS, see VISION, VALLEY OF], 76), the confidential servant (*TW) of Elisha. He is introduced twice in the story of the Shunammite woman (2 K. 4121425-31) ; first as suggesting that the birth of a son would be the most acceptable return for her hospitality (vv. 13-15, however, seem to interrupt the text, and may come from another source ; see A A T 392), and secondly as running before Elisha to lay the prophet's staff on the dead child's face. He is mentioned again at the close of the story of Naaman as fraudulently obtaining from the restored leper two talents of silver and two changes of raiment, i.e. , sets of costly or holiday garments, and as being smitten with the leprosy of Naaman (2 K. 520-27). See LEPROSY. Another narrative (8 4 f.}, evidently out of chronological order (see especially Kue. Ond. \. 6., % 25, n. 12 /), repre sents Gehazi as engaged in familiar converse with a king of Israel who is questioning him on the great deeds of Elisha (see ELISHA, 2). w. E. A.


(r-eeNNA [Ti. WH] ; also re eNNA. but incorrectly, the word being derived from Aram. 23Hp). On the original Hebrew expression, and on the position and history of the locality so designated, see HINNOM ; and on eschatological developments, see ESCHATOLOGY, 10 Jf. 63(3) 70 (iii./) 81 (3, )


z>., stone-circles (Josh. 18 17; fAAlAcoe [B]. Af^AAiAcoO [A], r&AiAooG [L]). See GILGAL, 6 (b), and GALLIM, 2.


C p PI), father of AMMIEL, i, Nu. 13 12 [B], I-AM&AI [AL], M.|A| [F]).


(-innp|, iTnD|, God accomplishes, 31 ; yo/iapMias [BNAQ]).

1. The son of SHAPHAN and father of Michaiah, mentioned in connection with the reading of Jeremiah s prophecy by Baruch (Jer. 30 io/. 12, 25).

2. b. Hilkiah ; he was sent by Zedekiah to Nebuchadrezzar and bore a letter of Jeremiah to the captive Jews (Jer. 29 3).

1 (s renders yeceoAoyet<T0<u (r Ch. 5 i), e-y/caToAoxifeii (2 Ch. 31 18 [B]), KaTaAoxi.crju.6s (six times), KaraAoxta (2 Ch. 31 18 [A]), apidfio S (four times) ; j3i/3Atoi> TTJS trvvo&ias [BNA], /3. T. ye>/ea- Aoyt as [L] for jj IVn tSO (Neh. 7 5). In Ezra 262 C ETTrlDn is simply transliterated oi ju.e0wecreifj. (BA ; but oi yeveoAo-yovi Tes in L). From jyrr (orp) are derived the later names of the books of Chron.-Ezra-Neh. ; viz. orrn 3113 JVl^ JO (Ba6. Bathra, r 5 ), D Dnvn ISO (Pes. 62).


1. Characteristics.[edit]

The word genealogy 1 is frequently found in the ordinary sense of an enumeration of ancestors and descendants in the natural order of succession, in the EV of Chron.-Ezra-Neh., where cTT 1 (deriv. uncertain) 'genealogy' (Neh. 7 st), and its denominative BTWrt to reckon by genealogy, are used to express the book and the act of registration respectively. The Hithpael of i 1 ? is once found with the meaning to declare one s pedigree in Nu. 1 18 [P], and the derivative tokdoth (nhVin), generations," is of frequent occurrence, especially in P in GENESIS (g.v., 2), to denote genealogies properly so called. This is the sense in which the EnglisE word is used in RV of Heb. 7 3 (a-yeveoAd- VTJTOS), 6 (fir) yei/eoAoyovj^evos).

To form a correct estimate of the nature and worth of OT genealogies we must remember that the terms of relationship are used in a wider sense among the Semites than with us. When two or more clans have a traditional sentiment of unity and regard each other as brothers (cp GOVERNMENT, g, end), this may be a survival from a time when the groups formed but one ; on the other hand, a historical tradition of a common ancestor does not always necessarily follow, since, according to Semitic custom, any covenant relation makes men brothers. 1

Other terms, father, mother, son, and daughter, are used in an equally wide sense (see KINSHIP, 6, etc.). It is a common Semitic idiom to call a land or town the father or mother of its inhabitants or of its various divisions ; thus Mizraim begets Ludim, etc. (Gen. 10 13), SALMA [q.v.} is the father of Beth-lehem (iCh. 251), the dependencies of Beth-shean are called its daughters (Judg. 127 ; cp DAUGHTER), and the members of any guild or clan are frequently referred to as sons (cp, e.g., sons of JEDUTHUN). 2 Observe also such notices as Gilead begat Jephthah (Judg. 11 16, based on w. la 7 ; see Moore, SHOT, ad loc.).

Hence the scheme by which statistical information and geographical data are represented in the form of a narrative, or an ethnology, becomes perfectly intelligible (cp Gen. 10 2220-24 25 1-4 13-16, and see below). It is always possible to put into the form of a genealogy the composition and relative history of any people or place at any given time, 3 and obviously, therefore, lists which have originated at different times (when clan or tribal- divisions may have" varied) will be found to contain formal contradictions. 4

2. Theory of Genealogists.[edit]

The early conception of the formation and division of clans and tribes in the Semitic world is most clearly seen in the genealogical schemes of the Arabs - 5 It was commonly assumed by them that all groups were patriarchal tribes formed by subdivision of an original stock on the system of kinship through male-descent, and that each tribe bore the name or cognomen of the common ancestor.

After a while, it was supposed, a tribe would break up into two or more divisions, each embracing the descendants of one of the sons of the great ancestor and each taking its name from him. Successive divisions and subdivisions would take place until at length there would be a number of divisions, clans, septs, etc., all of which traced themselves back to a common ancestor (see GOVERNMENT, 2). In Arabia, there were, in fact, two ultimate stocks, the Yemenite (Kahtiln) or S. Arabian (cp JOKTAN), and the Ishmaelite (^Adndn, subdivided into Nizar, Ma add) or N. Arabian, and every individual who possessed a nisl>a, or gentilic, was able to trace his genealogy back to one of these.

Similarly in Israel every man by virtue of his being a member of a clan or tribe was able to point to Jacob, the father of all the tribes, as his great ancestor. 6 Now this theory for it is nothing more is based upon the mode of reckoning descent in the male line, which, as is becoming ever more generally recognised, is an aftergrowth and has superseded the more primitive method of matriarchy ; see GOVERNMENT, 2-4, KINSHIP, 3/

1 Thus Amos (1 9) speaks of Tyre (but see MIZRAIM, zb) and Israel as allied by a covenant of brothers (nTIN IV"13)-

2 As a corollary to this the taking of a wife is sometimes used genealogically to signify that a clan (personified as a man) has settled upon a certain district (personified as a woman) ; see AZUBAH, i, ajid cp CALEB, $/. See also DAUGHTER, 3 f., FATHER.

3 For artificial examples see Sprenger, Das Leben ^^. d. Lehre d. Mohammad, iii. cxliv ; G. A. B. Wright, Was Israel ever in Effvfit? 33/1

  • This may explain, e.g., why SHEBA (?.? ., iii.) is a son of Cush

in Gen. 107, but a son of Joktan ib. 28. See also TIMNA, Uz.

5 On Arabian genealogies see Sprenger, of. cit. iii. cxx-clxxx, and, more especially, Robertson Smith s luminous exposition in Kinship, chap. i.

6 Whether the names Jacob-Israel may represent a fusion of two separate stocks cannot be discussed here ; see TRIBI-:S.

7 Contrast, for example, the brief Joshua b. Nun (Josh. ] i) with the lengthy ancestry ascribed to Bezaleel (Ex. 3-">3o[P]). The exceptions will be found to be due chiefly to the presence of a conflate text.

3. Rise of genealogical zeal.[edit]

i. The great majority of OT genealogies of individuals are found only in post-exilic writings. Whereas in Judges, Samuel, and Kings there are scarcely any genealogical statistics at all, Chronicles and the writings be longing to its age are full of them. We find no trace in the earliest times of any special class (similar, e.g. , to that found among some tribes in India and elsewhere) whose business it was to keep a knowledge of the facts of relationship. Genealogies of individuals are the exception, and those which are found rarely reach back more than one or two generations. 7

The same remark holds good, also, in the case of the older Arabian genealogies. Meyer (Hntst. 163) observes that an analysis of the Ar. genealogies in Wiistenfeld s tables shows that those of the contemporaries of Mohammad hardly ever go back beyond the grandfather, often not even beyond the father.

A census-taking is mentioned in 2 S. 24, but the chapter is not an early one, and even civic lists are only alluded to in comparatively late passages (cp Dt. 232-8 [3-9] Jer. 2230 Ex. 3232 [P] Ps.508[g] t!928[29] 876 Mai. 3 16 Ezek.l3g Dan. 12 i Is. 4 3 [see ISAIAH ii., 5], etc.).

There is no reason for doubting, however, that a distribution of communities into clans and families goes back to an early age (cp 4_/C, below, and see HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 2), but such a division of Israel as is spoken of in Josh. 7 ififf. and i S. 102i can scarcely refer to pre-Davidic times; the unity of Israel, there represented, is in itself a sign of a later view. In Josh. I.e., Achan is usually designated b. Zerah simply (see Bennett, SBOT), and Zerah is better known as a post-exilic Judahite clan.l

It may be added that genealogies were not common among the Egyptians of the Old Empire. It is always the individual, seldom the race or family, who is dealt with. A genealogy of seven generations, cited at the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty, and another reaching back to the grandfather, in the following dynasty, are therefore exceptional. Complete genea logical trees only appear during the latest epoch of Egyptian history, in the times of the Ethiopian kings, the Psammetichi and the Persians. There is no trace of surnames, not even of vague appellatives, until we reach the decadence of the Egyptian kingdom (Erman, Life in Anc. Eg. 158).

2. Genealogical zeal among the Jews seems to have first arisen during the Exile. They feared lest the con tinuity of the race should be broken ; they desired to be written in the register (arc) of the house of Israel (cp Ezek. 13g) ; and hence it happened as one of the results of their religious isolation that the man who could claim descent from the exiles in Babylon was considered to be a member of the community rather than the native of Judcea. 2 This importance attached to genealogical pretension and to the proof of the absence of foreign admixture is one of the chief evidences of the legal spirit manifested among the Jews after the Exile, which could hardly have appeared before the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the case of the priests a special impetus was afforded by the newly established desire to dis tinguish between the priests, the sons of ZADOK, and the Levites a feeling which appears in Ezekiel as a novelty. The growth of the care bestowed upon priestly gene alogies is well known (see below, 7 [iv. ]), and an early example of the result is seen in Ezra 1y)f., a passage belonging perhaps to a register of the restored Israel (see EZRA ii. , 9) where certain families, both secular (the b ne Delaiah, Nekoda, Tobiah) and priestly (the b ne Habaiah, Hakkoz, Barzillai), were unable to produce their genealogies, in consequence of which the latter were deemed polluted and dismissed from the priesthood. 3

3. To Arabia again we may turn for an instructive example of the rise of a love for genealogies (see WRS Kin. 6 ff.). In the reign of the caliph Omar I. a system of registers was drawn up to prove the right of each claimant, who was entitled through kinship with the prophet or through participation in his early struggles, to the spoil taken from the infidels, and to ensure its just distribution among the true believers. A great impetus was thus given to genealogical research, and from that time onwards the genealogists became an important class. Much oral tradition existed, and doubtless material was to be found in the official" records ; but as these sources were fragmentary and limited in range, conjecture had to be resorted to. 4 The genealogists made the pedigree of Mohammad (obviously a most untrustworthy one) the back-bone of all their work, and grouped the northern Arabs in such a way that every great ancestor or tribe was a brother or cousin of some ancestor of Mohammad. To make the number of ancestors tally with the lapse of time presumed to intervene, dummy names (e.g., Kais, Amr, Zaid, Abdallah) were introduced. 1 In dealing with the older material, place-names were transformed into ancestors or ancestresses, and sometimes even tribal designations were taken and treated as the names of ancestors. 2 It was to the ad vantage of a weak community to discover some bond of con nection with a stronger neighbour, whilst a powerful chief was equally desirous of including as wide a kinship as possible. Moreover, it was the scheme of the genealogist to treat the political combinations of his time as the expression of ancient bonds in kinship (for an example see SPARTA). The inevitable result was much genealogical fiction ; not only were the names of his own time thrown back by the genealogist into the past, but also those which had become traditionally famous were inserted in the ancestry of his contemporaries, and the more honourable the individual the more reputable and famous became his ancestry. In fine, the system of the genealogists and the method by which traditional data are worked into the system are totally unworthy of credit (Kin. ii).

1 Note that jpj to name, 303 to write or enrol, are late usages. D 3ri3 (Nu. 11263), it is true, occurs in a context

which may be ascribed to a late Elohist source, but the word is part of a gloss (see Ei-DAL> AND MEDAD).

2 We. Prol., ET, 494.

  • The passage is later than Ezra ; the names of the priestly

families occur elsewhere in the book, cp Meyer, Entst. 170.

4 But the shortness of memory among the Arabs is well known indeed in the time of Mohammad they had no trust worthy tradition of any of the great nations which flourished after the time of Christ (cp Nold. Amalekiter, 25 ff. ; WRS J.Phil. 9 80).

4. Genealogies in Genesis.[edit]

The OT genealogies begin with the creation of man kind. A man and a woman stand at the head 2 (see ADAM AND EVE ) and a series of seven names carries mankind down to Lamech (Gen. 4 1-24 [J]). This list, like the old yeveaXoyiai of the Greeks, 4 is doubtless the remains of a historical connection once woven out of primitive stories, and deals with the introduction of civilisation (see CAINITES ; HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 2).

A parallel genealogy based on it is given by P in chap. 5 ; it is a dry uninteresting list, and the primitive simplicity of the legend is cumbered with a complicated system of chronology (CAINITES, 12, SETHITES). P's genealogies in Genesis are based throughout upon a specific scheme (GENESIS, 2), in marked contrast with those in JE where they are merely the string connecting the narratives they form in fact the principal feature of his history.

For Gen. 10, which in the form of a genealogy gives a conspectus of the surrounding nations, and shows the supposed relation of the Hebrews to the other peoples of the habitable globe, see GEOGRAPHY, ii/. P now confines himself to Shem, the father of the Hebrews, and brings us down by a list of seven names to Terah, Abraham s father (chap. ll). s Here again there is much dispute as to the nature of the names occurring in the list, although it is probable that they are ethnographical. 6 From Abraham onwards a number of old genealogies are presented by J. Jacob and Esau are brothers, the former intentionally represented as the younger (see ESAU). Moab and Ben-Ammi (Ammon) are sons of Lot (cp the Edomite name LOT AN), and the relationship presumed between Israel (Jacob), Edom (Esau), Moab and Ammon points to their belief in having had at some time a common history. The close relationship with Aram which finds expression in Gen. 28 ff. ex presses a feeling which could hardly have arisen before David s time.

The assumption that certain tribes were of Aramaean origin may perhaps explain that phase of the early Hebrew tradition which brings the patriarch Jacob into connection with Aram and marries him to an Aramaean stock. When tribes of different origin unite, their early tribal traditions (Urgeschichte) become fused, with the result that they possess a tradition in common.

1 These were got by doubling known names or using personal names of no tribal significance (Kin. 10) ; cp the Gershonite genealogies, 7 (iii. K) below.

2 The Ar. Khozd a ( separated ones ) were so called because they broke off from the Asd in the great Yemenite dispersion. The genealogists, however, made K/wza a the name of their ancestor (see WRS Kins. 17). The member of the dog-tribe banu KilUb were similarly made to descend from an ancestor Kildb. The genealogical notices of Anak and Arba were not less curiously derived ; see ANAKIM.

3 This is a later conception, for, on the analogy of other peoples, the Hebrews would have traced themselves back to gods or demigods ; and, indeed, traces of this are found in the early writings; cp Gen. 61. For Arabian examples see Kin.


4 Of such a kind, probably, are the genealogies referred to in Tit. 091 Tim. 1 4 ; the combination tiiyths and genealogies is significant.

5 The triple division of the b ne Terah finds an analogy in the three Levitical heads, and the three guilds of singers.

6 The list includes the mythical ancestor of all Hebrews viz., Eber (see EBER, i). Similarly the Berbers (lit. barbarians ) invented an ancestor Berr whom they, influenced by Moham medan lore, connected with Noah. (Another genealogy repre sents their ancestor as Berber, a descendant of Canaan b. Ham b. Noah.)

Other genealogies express relations between Ishmael and Isaac (half-brothers), and tribes of the great spice- bearing region in S. Arabia are traced from Abraham through a wife who bears the significant name Keturah ( incense ); Gen. 25i-6(J).

A later genealogy makes Ishmael the father of certain Arabian tribes which, at the time of its compilation, occupied the Syrian desert (Gen. 25 13 P). Ishmael, in post-exilic and Rabbinical times, became the common designation for the Arabs generally, and these, in turn, were wont to trace their ancestry back to Nabit (Nebaioth), or Kahtan (Joktan), sons of Ishmael ; cp above, 2.

5. Tribal genealogies.[edit]

Jacob, the younger 1 son of Isaac, is understood to be the father of the twelve tribes, the chief of whom were descended from his wives, RACHEL and LEAH \qq.v.~\. That four of the tribes are sons of concubines might show that they were looked upon as of less importance, and as not belonging to Israel in the same sense as the others (see DAN i. ; GOVERNMENT, 13).

It is only in the later writings that the twelve tribes are represented as coexistent and enjoying unbroken continuity. Moreover, the number twelve is certainly artificial,- and was obtained, either by the omission of Levi or by reckoning the two sons of Joseph as one.

Further, it maybe questioned whether Judah with its S. Palestinian elements (see CALEB, JEUAHMEEL) was ever a tribe previous to the time of David, and whether the priestly tribe of Levi does not owe its enumeration among the twelve to the desire to place its members on the same genealogical footing with the rest. See, further, JUDAH, LEVI, and cp TRIBES.

The subdivisions of the tribes are enumerated in Gen. 468-27 Ex. 614-26 Nu. 265-51 [all P], and at greater length in i Ch. Iff. For an estimation of their contents and value, see the separate articles. 3

It must suffice here to observe that a study of the names which are found in these tribal lists often affords suggestive hints concerning the relations of the tribes to one another. The truth of the old folk-legend which spoke of Israel and Edom as brothers is fully borne out by the significant number of names common to Edom and Judah (and Benjamin). 4 The tribe of Simeon, though unknown in historical times, seems, nevertheless, to have dwelt on the extreme SW. of Judah, and hence it is not surprising to find names in the Simeonite list which have affinities with Edom (see BILHAH, i, SHAUL), Judah (ZERAH, HAMUEL), Ishmael (MIBSAM, MISHMA) and Jerahmeel (Ism). See also below, 7 [v.].

1 It is noticeable how many of the descendants of Terah who became famous and strong were the younger sons. See J. Jacobs, Junior Right in Genesis (Studies in Biblical A rclueology).

Cp the number of the b ne Nahor (Gen. 22 20^), the b ne Ishmael (Gen. 25 IT,/ .), the families of Gad and Asher (Nu. 26 I 5^ r - 44_/?J) and of Ephraim and Manasseh (i/>. 28-37). For non-Semitic analogies see Spiegel, Eranisclie A Itertumskunde ,


y The tribes with their subdivisions amount to seventy ; this number, too, is most probably artificial.

4 Common to (a) Edom and Judah are Husham (cp Hushah), Iram (cp Ira), Jether (cp Ithran and see JETHETH), Korah, Onam (cp Onan), Shobal and Zerah ; (b) Edom and Benjamin, Ashbel (cp Ashbea), Iri (cp Iru, IRAM), Jeush, Manahath, Shepho (cp Shephupham and SHUPPIM?), Onam (cp Oni), Bela, Jobab.

5 The nature of the book of Iddo the Seer, 2 Ch. 12 15, is unknown. ETPrnS, as Hi. suggests, may have been accidentally transposed from 11 16 : cp Be. ad lac. The Chronicler s ancient records of i Ch. 4 22^ are equally obscure, although in point of age they may have been only exilic.

6. The Chronicler's genealogies.[edit]

It has been stated above ( 3 [i]) that the great majority of genealogies are found only in P and kindred literature (Ch. -Ezra-Neh. ), and it remains now to consider their genuineness and value. It is only just to suppose that the Chronicler had older lists to work upon ; but the Oriental genealogist was no incorruptible judge, and not only would he be sure to have spurious evidence placed before him - a 'novus homo' desires a noble pedigree - but his lists when fragmentary would have to be supplemented and completed. 5 Faithful to the spirit of his age he idealizes and magnifies the past, and in many of his genealogies we are able to see that he employed the same methods as did his Arabian brother centuries later.

Thus over sixteen of the twenty-four heads ordained by David (i Ch. 24) are names of post-exilic priests and Levites, and it is only reasonable to suspect that the Chronicler desires to show that the honourable families of his own day lived, or were founded, centuries previously under David.

A list in Neh. 11 13 mentions Meshillemoth b. Immer. But the name Meshillemoth is essentially the same as Meshullam, and when the writer of i Ch. 9 12 found in his copies both forms (so, at least, we are entitled to assume) he accordingly wrote down Meshullam b. Meshillemoth (so UAL for Meshillemith ; see MESHILLEMOTH, 2) b. Immer (for another similar instance cp below, 7 [iv.] end).

Of a different character are the lists in iCh. 218-24 *3-4. where it is evident that we are dealing no longer with individuals but with clan- or place-names ; cp Gray, HPN 239^ In i Ch. 2, for example, one can distinguish pre-exilic from post-exilic sources, and it is possible to see expressed in genealogical form the fact which is known from other sources, that Caleb, whose seat in pre-exilic times lay in the Negeb of Judah, migrated north, and after the Exile appears in the district around Jerusalem (see Wellh. De Gent. ; CHRONICLES, 10; and cp CALEB, if.).

The structure and nature of the names themselves may some times prove helpful in considering the antiquity of a list, and the fact that the majority of the names in the list i Ch. 434-41 are those of the Chronicler's own time and are at least not genuine survivals makes it probable that the list is largely an invention (Gray, op. cit. 236 f.). It is not difficult to observe the methods of the genealogist in compiling ancestral lists, and a good example is seen in the post-exilic genealogy of David which is wholly wanting in the earlier writings (see DAVID, i a, n. i). It is the object of the author of ESTHER (g.v., i, end) to make Mordecai a Benjamite, and so, when he fashions a genealogical list, he includes among the ancestors of Mordecai such well-known Benjamites as Kish and Shimei (see SHIMEI, 10), whilst the second Targum actually adds Machir and Mephi-bosheth. 1

7. Levitical and Priestly genealogies.[edit]

(i. ) Method. Fuller details regarding the intricate genealogies of the Levites and priests must be sought for in the minor biographical articles ; here it must suffice to indicate the lines upon which the Hebrew (post-exilic) genealogist seems to have worked, and to try to discover the various views to which he intended his lists to give expression.

To start with the belief that these genealogies are wholly trust worthy or that they proceeded from one hand 2 would quickly involve us in a hopeless maze. Contrast, for example, the ancestry which i Ch. 6 gives of the three contemporaries Asaiah (seven members, iCh. 63o[i5] 15e), Ethan (twelve), and Heman (nearly twenty), 3 and observe that Ethan's immediate ancestors reappear in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29 12). Libni and Shimei are both Gershonite and Merarite divisions ; Jahath and Shimei are varyingly sons and grandsons of Gershon. Amasai and Mahath, like Mushi and Mahli, are sometimes brothers, at other times father and son. Instances of similar inconsistencies might easily be multiplied.

In order to gain some idea of the origin of the Levitical genealogies we may start with the working theory that they are the result of later genealogizing skill, which has endeavoured to bring together into some sort of family relationship clans and divisions formerly quite distinct (cp 2 above). Thus we find that one of the simplest lists of the Levitical families enumerates merely the clans of Jeshua, Bani (or Binnui), Hodaviah (Judah, Hodiah), and Kadmiel (cp Ezra 2 40 [see HODAVIAH, 4] 3 9 Neh. 94). 4 Another equally simple but more interesting scheme in Nu. 26s8 6 enumerates five misffhoth of the Levites <j:r>, jron, Snp (<@ BAKL om. ), WD, and <rnp. Again, when i Ch. 165-7 divides the Levites among the families of Gershom, Kehath (EV Kohath), Merari, Elizaphan, Hebron, and Uzziel, it is apparent that we are a step nearer the famous triple division the three great names have been introduced, but are on an equality with the rest. At a later stage Libni is assigned either to Gershon or to Merari, to the latter of which Mahli J and Mushi were consistently reckoned ; the rest were ascribed to Kehath. 2

1 Cp Salamiel b. Salasadai (i.e., Shelumiel b. Zurishaddai, the Simeonites, Nu. 1 6) in Judith s genealogy (8 i).

2 A study of the name-lists alone supports the recognized view that P, in its present form, is composite. Similarly the genealogical and other lists of the Chronicler in Ch. -Ezra-Neh. are not from the same hand. On the whole, it is probable that some of the latest specimens of genealogical zeal survive in the genealogies of the high priests, and the three singers (i Ch. 6).

3 Note further the inconsistency in the number of generations from Judah to David, from Levi to Zadok, and from Levi to Heman (see Wright, Was Israel, etc. ^f>f.).

4 The names remind us of priestly families. This older division seems to have died out with the doubtful exceptions of Hashabiah b. Kadmiel, a Levite in i Ch. 27 17 (reading Vtroip f r MT KEMUEL), and the b ne Bunni (Neh. 11 15 || i Ch. !> 14 TIS)-

5 The verse is hardly from the same source as w. 57, 59^!

(ii. ) Singers and Porters. Together with these developments we have to notice the gradual Levitizing of divisions and classes formerly distinct viz. the singers and porters (or doorkeepers).

(a) The familiar triple division of Asaph, Heman, and Ethan (or Jeduthun), assigned to Gershon, Kehath, and Merari respectively (i Ch. (5), is preceded by an earlier in Neh. 11 17, where the singers are Mattaniah b. Mica, Bakbukiah (see BAKBAKKAR), and Abda (or Obadiah) b. Shammua.3 A later hand has probably supplied the names of ancestors tending to associate them with Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun (cp HA).

(b) Now the singers or b'ne Asaph were primarily kept distinct from the porters, and both classes were separated from the Levites (Ezra 241 Neh. 744; see WRS, 077C< 2 > 204) ; see ASAPH, 3. The next step was the inclusion of the guild of porters in the name Korah, 4 although it must be observed that Korah is not yet a Levite. He is absent from the list of Levites in i Ch. 23, and in the earlier phase of P's account of the rebellion in Nu. 16 Korah is actually not yet a Levite (cpKue. Hex. 334/, and see KORAH ii. , 2). s Next we find that both Asaph and Korah are Levitical divisions. There are, therefore, Levites of Asaph (2 Ch. 29 13, cp20i4), and Levites of the Korahites (2 Ch. 20 19). Still another stage finds Asaph incorporated in Korah under the eponym of Abiasaph or Ebiasaph (see ASAPH, 3, ABIASAPH), and finally Korah is assigned to Kehath observe that in 2 Ch. 20 19 Korah and Kehath are still distinct and, strangely enough, Asaph is removed from Korah b. Kehath and assigned to Gershon.

(c) Traces of these changes are seen in the survival of the eponym Abiasaph (see ASAPH, 3), which is reckoned as a son of Korah, and in the fortunes of certain names belonging to these classes. In 2 Ch. 29 13 Mattaniah and Zechariah are of the b ne Asaph (cp Zaccur and Nethaniah, sons of Asaph in i Ch. 25 2), in 2 Ch. 20 14 they reappear in the genealogy of Jahaziel an Asaphite Levite. 6 Comparing i Ch. 9 19 31 (Mattithiah) 26i/i we find them sons of Shallum (or Meshelemiah) traced through Asaph to Korah ; and finally Zechariah and Meshullam ( = Shallum) turn up as Kehathites in 2 Ch. 34 12.

(d) According to the later genealogies the singers and porters Ethan (or Jeduthun), Hosah and Obed-edom belong to Merari. Quite consistently, therefore, the names Hashabiah and Jeshaiah appear as sons of Merari (Ezra 8 19), or sons of Jeduthun (i Ch. 25 3), and the former is a Merarite (i Ch. 9 14), and a member of Ethan s genealogy (i Ch. 645 [30]). Of the two sons of the Merarite Jeduthun, Uzziel and Shemaiah (2 Ch. 29 14), the latter is a descendant of Jeduthun (i Ch. 9 i6 = Neh. 11 17 [Shammua]), a son of Obed-edom (i Ch. 2(3 4), and a Merarite Levite (i Ch.9 14), and both names perhaps go to build up the genealogy of the Merarite Asaiah in the forms Shimea b. Uzza (i Ch. 629_/C [14 /.]). Similarly Hilkiah and Shimri, sons of the Merarite Hosah (i Ch. 26 io/I), may perhaps correspond to the Shemer and Hilkiah in the genealogy of the Merarite Ethan (i Ch. /])- See also IHRI.

1 Mahli appears to be distinct from Merari in Ezra 8 isf. v Observe that Elizaphan is a son of Uzziel, the Kehathite, inNu. 3 3 o(P).

3 HA omits the second name ; perhaps the earliest division was a twofold one.

4 Strictly speaking, the guilds of the porters (Obed-edom, Jeduthun, Hosah, etc.) are assigned to Korah and Merari ; cp i Ch. 26 1-19. They seem to be separated from the Levites proper in vv. 20 Jf. (in v. 17 read ci 1 ? nrntD^)- Note that when the Asaphite Kore (v. i) is made a Levite in 2 Ch. 31 14 he appears as the son of Heman (reading jo n for njD 1 ) Asaph, Korah, and Heman are (in the final stage) consistently assigned to Kehath.

5 But Israelite, adds Kuenen ; on this, however, see below, v., col. 1665.

6 Cp also Mattaniah and i3T Levites of the b ne Asaph (i Ch. 9 1 5).

7 See ETHAN, 3, and cp Jahath, Shimei, and Libni, names common to Gershon and Merari ; Shimei, also, is the name of a son of Jeduthun (_= Ethan) ; see SHIMEI, 12.

Not only was Asaph removed from Korah to Gershon, but it is probable that Ethan was once ascribed to Gershon, and, curiously enough, from i Ch. 15 7 17 we should expect to find that Heman, too, was Gershonite ! 7 This is apparently due to the fact that the three heads of the singers were, at one stage, treated as independent Levitical divisions (see Neh. 11 15-17), l and in the process of incorporating all the Levites among the three sons of Levi, the positions of the heads of the singers were not at first definitely settled.

(iii. } Levitical lists in i Ch. 6. The Chronicler's method of building up genealogies from names traditionally current will account for the remarkable inconsistencies and striking resemblances which the most superficial consideration reveals.

(a) Some of the Merarite names in i Ch. 6 have already been noticed (above [ii.] <f). Of the others, Malluch and Amzi (0 44 46) have priestly associations (cp Neh. 11 12), Mahli and Mushi are usually brother clans, and the former is also the head of a Merarite genealogy ending with ASAIAH [3] (i Ch. zg/. [nf.\). It is, moreover, a feature of considerable significance that this Merarite list has little in common with that in i Ch. 2821-23, 24 27-30, which probably represents an earlier stage in the genealogical schemes.2

(b) The Gershonite genealogies in I Ch.6 descend (a) to Jeatherai (or Ethni), and (j3) to Asaph, the intermediate names being probably dummy names (Maaseiah [of which Baaseiah is a corruption], Berechiah, Malchijah, Michael are sufficiently colourless and common). The names nci ja flNl"?! 1~\y seem to be related in some way to the Gershonite riKV |3 py ar >d HDJ J3 nt<r of 2 Ch. 29 12.3

(c) The largest and most important branch of post-exilic Levites are the b'ne Kehath, the most prominent branches of which are Amram to which Moses (the father of the subdivision Gershon) and Aaron belong and Korah b. Izhar 4 b. Kehath. Koran is associated with the porters (see above), and his three sons Assir, Abiasaph, and Klkanah (Ex. 624610.) are here descendants in a. regular line (i Ch.6 37 [22]). The ancestry of the Korahite Heman is rendered particularly complicated by repetitions. 5 The names in 2 Ch. 29 \?.ff. again proved an invaluable quarry for the genealogist, and from them he borrowed Mahath b. Amasai, and Joel b. Azariah. The list comprises, appropriately enough, names borrowed from the genealogy of Samuel, who, as the genealogist knew, was a doorkeeper (i S. 3 is). 6

(iv. ) High priests' genealogy. The high priests from Aaron to the captivity are traced through Amram to Kehath (i Ch. 6 3-15 [629-41], cp 49-53)-

The list is substantially the same as the genealogy of Ezra in Ezra 7 i ( = i Esd. 8 2), which recurs, with some changes, in 2 Esd. 1.7 That in i Ch. 6 starts with (1-3) Aaron, Eleazar, and Phinehas, names common to, and derived from, P. (4) Abishua* (Abiezer, Jos. Ant. v. 11 5) is no longer extant. The following five names are new (5-9) : Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, and Amariah (in Jos. Ant. viii. 1 3 ; Bukki, Joatham, Meraioth, Aropha^us). Nos. 10-12 : Ahitub, Zadok, and Ahimaaz are derived from i and 2 S. (see AHITUB, i, AHIMAAZ, i). Of nos. 13-15 (Azariah, Johanan, Azariah) it must be to the first that the misplaced note 6 iob [536^] refers; it is related to i K. 42^ (also a gloss). Nos. 16-18 duplicate 9-11, and finally nos. 10-22 (Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah) carry us down to Jehozadak. An allowance of forty years for each generation gives us nearly 960 years, agreeing approximately with the received post-exilic chronology. The thirteenth name will coincide with the rebuilding of the temple and the twenty-third 9 with the captivity ; cp the similar artificiality in GENEALOGIES ii., i.

1 2 Ch. 29 12-14 enumerates Levites of Kehath, Gershon, Merari, Elizaphan (see 7 [i. ] end), Asaph, Heman, and J eduthun.

2 Note, e.g., the mention of Moses, 23 \$f.

3 Perhaps we may connect the Gershonite JNV ( J Ch. 15 7) with Joel (Vxr for MT httty b. Eliasaph in Nu. 3 24.

4 In i Ch. 6 22 [7] his father is called Amminadab ; but see ELISHEBA.

5 Elkanah to Elkanah, 6 34 35^ [i92oa] = 25 [io]/ Joel to Ebiasaph 36^ 371 = 23 [j}f.

6 Hence, also, we see the appropriateness (and probable origin) of the choice of the names Elkanah and Berechiah (in i Ch. 9 166 Levites only ; in ib. 15 23 door-keepers), the latter of which is borne by the father of Asaph.

? See, for other lists, Jos. Ant. x. 86, and the Jewish Seder Olam.

  • Perhaps rather Ab-yeshua father of Jeshua ; cp JESHUA.

9 Jos. Ant. (xx. 10) speaks of 31 names.

10 When, for example, Abiathar is assigned a lower order in i Ch. 24 3 6 this is perhaps a later genealogical fashioning to account for the omission of his house in the list of high priests (but see ABIATHAR, and cp VVRS, OTJCP) 266, n. i).

The unhistorical nature of this list of high priests needs no demonstration. The inclusion of Zadok is as remarkable as the ignoring of the famous line from Eli to Abiathar (i S. ), due, perhaps, to the later exaltation of the Zadokites (see ZADOK, i). 10 We find no mention of Jehoiada, Zechariah, or Urijah ; nos. 15-18 find no support in the historical books, nor can we reconcile the priests Amariah (2 Ch. 19n), Azariah (2 Ch. 2617 31 10), Hilkiah (2 Ch. 34g) with no. 2O/

So highly was Ezra the scribe esteemed that his name takes the place of Jehozadak, and he appears in Ezra 7 2 as the son of Seraiah at the end of the long list of high priests. (Nos. 9-14, however, are omitted in i Esd. 8 2 Esd. 1, and by MT [and BAL] in Ezra, i.c.) He is thus made to be a contemporary of ZEDEKIAH, who lived 130 years previously. His genealogy in 2 Esd., however, has received an interesting addition ; between nos. 16 and 17 1 are inserted the names of Eli, Phinehas, and Ahijah, derived directly from i S. (cp 143). The new names in Jos. (Ant. x. 8 6) and the Seder OIdt are of no critical value ; the former enumerates ten names between nos. 13 and 19, several of which recur in the latter writing. 2

The key to the origin of the high priests genealogy is perhaps found in Neh. 11 n, where nos. 20, 19, 18, Meraioth (*= Amariah, no. 16 ?), and 17 are the ancestors of the priest Seraiah, the grandfather of Jeshua (cp i Ch. 6 14 [5 40], Ezra 3 2) in the ascending line. It is interesting to find that || i Ch. 9n has Azariah for Seraiah, and that the genealogist has been content to incorporate both names in the list of high priests (no. 2TL f. ), an exact parallel to which procedure is seen in i Ch. 9 12 (see above, 6). The intervening names from Aaron downwards would be easily supplied once the start had been made (observe the duplicates). A place had to be found for Zadok, and (as in i Ch. 24 ; cp 6) the most important care of the genealogist was to in troduce priestly names famous in his own time or traditionally renowned.

(v. ) Origin of Levitical names. When it is recognised that the Levitical genealogies have passed through several stages before reaching their present form, it is obvious that in discussing the origin of the Levites too much stress must not be laid upon the names of the three great heads. As representing Levitical divisions they have no great claim to antiquity. Gershon is derived directly from Gershom b . Moses, and it is not impossible that Merari (mp, an ethnic) has originated from Miriam (onp, cp MERAIOTH). This leads us to the Mosaic origin of Levitical names, the most famous example of which is Mushi the Mosaite (see also ELIEZER, GERSHOM, GERSHON, MUSHI).

That names in the family of Moses were derived from Levi (i Ch. 23 14) is a perversion in the interests of a post-exilic age ; note that Shebuel b. Gershom b. Moses (i Ch. 23 16) is no other than Shubael, an Amramite (i Ch. 24 20) ; and that Shelomith b. Eliezer (i Ch. 26 2$/.) becomes chief of the (Levitical) b ne Izhar (23 i8). 3 It is curious, also, to find in the genealogy of the Levite Gershom, properly the son of Moses, the names SHIMEI (u), JAHATH (2), Zimmah (HOT), and ZERAH (2), corresponding to SHAMMAH (i), NAHATH (i), Mizzah (nio)> a d ZERAH (3), sons of the Edomite Reuel (Gen. 36 13), the traditional name of Moses father-in-law.

1 Arna and Marimoth, Aziei and Amarias, correspond to 7 3 15 f. respectively.

&as and Pedaiah, lotmaos and Joel idapoc and Jotham, ou Las and Urijah vqp'ao and Neriah odras and Hoshaiah.

k The Aaronite Eleazar is later than the Mosa'ite Eliezer just as Shubael is probably amodification of the Calebite Shobal (see SHUBAEL).

4 Undue stress, perhaps, should not be laid upon the circum stance that Abihail and Obed are names common to Jerahmeel and Merari (the latter through Obed-edom). Abihail (see MICHAL) perhaps occurs also in the family of Kish (also a Merarite name, see KISH, 2). With the Jerahmeelite Zaza we may probably connect the Gershonite Zizah (i Ch. 23 n).

Suggestive of S. Palestinian origin are, moreover, the names KORAH (q.v. , i.), JESHUA and, in Nu. 2658, Mahli (cp MAHALATH), where, moreover, the ethnics Hebroni and Libni remind us of the S. Palestinian Hebron and Libnah. The Hebronite Jekameam (ojffip ) perhaps derives his name from cjnp (see JOKNEAM), the Merarite Eder and Jeremoth (niDv) from Eder (Josh. 15 21) and niDV (see JARMUTH), and the Kehathite Shamir from the locality in Josh. 1548. Jerahmeel b. Mahli b. Merari is, in itself, a significant hint for the origin of some of the Levitical clans 4 ; for other connections see AMASAI (i), AMASA, JEUSH. Finally, one notes the un-Hebraic character of several of the Levitical names (Kehath, Ithamar, Izhar, Jeatherai [if correct], etc. ), which, perhaps, may be due to their S. Palestinian origin ; cp the name GERSHOM (q.v. ). The eponym Simeon, 1 the brother of Levi, has probably left its mark in the Levitical division Shimei, 2 variously assigned to Gershon or Merari, and it is not impossible that the Kehathite Izhar (ins ) was primarily the same as the son of Simeon who is named ins (see JAHATH, 2, n. ). 3 These evidences, pointing to a S. Palestinian origin for the Levites, agree with the tradition that Yahwe's worship came from the S. 4 See LEVITES.

From the above evidence we may infer that the Levites came from the S. of Palestine, and that they were not confined to any one particular tribe or clan. This makes it probable that the term Levite (on its meaning see Hommel, AHT *-]?, f.) was a later designation applied to special members of the southern clans who, it has been suggested elsewhere, had come originally from Kadesh-barnea (Exonus i. A,jtf., KADESH i. 3). Since, therefore, there is reason for supposing that such well-known figures as ETHAN (2), HEMAN and OBED-EDOM were of southern extraction (see also MAHOL), it would appear that the Chronicler was not wholly unwarranted in making them Levites. More over, when he ascribes to David the inauguration and establish ing of the Levites, may this not be merely based upon the circumstance that the southern clans did actually attain importance first under David ?

8. Genealogies in Later times.[edit]

The care spent over genealogies by no means diminished in later times (i Mace. 2i Bar. li Tob. 1 1), and in the time of Josephus (c Ap 1:7, see also Vita, 1) all the priests were able to adduce evidence to show the purity of their descent by means of public documents which he refers to as S^/utxr/tu SArot. According to the Talmud (Kidd. 76 b) there were men who spent their time wholly in making and studying genealogies which were based upon those in Ch. -Ezra-Neh. 5 But when Elizabeth is called a daughter of Aaron (Lk. Is), Anna an Asherite (ib. 236), or Paul a Benjamite (Rom. Hi), and Hillel the Babylonian is traced back to David (even the desposyni in Domitian s time claimed a direct descent from David), we cannot suppose that every link in the long chain of ancestors was known. Yet, how great was the importance attached to the registry of birth and ancestry is proved by the gene alogies prefixed to the gospels of Matthew and Luke in which Christ s origin is traced back to Abraham and Adam respectively (see article below).

9. Literature.[edit]

See Sprenger, Das Lcben u. d. Lehre d. Mohammed; WRS Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (especially chap. 1) ; Wellh. de Gentibus, etc., Prol.W 211 ff.; , art. Genealogy in EB($) ; Guthe, GVI ( 99), 2-6 ; art. Genealogy by Curtiss in Hastings DB (a useful collection of material) ; and M. Berlin, Gershonite and Merarite Genealogies in JQR 12 291^ (19) (illustrates their complicated character, and seeks to show that the Levites fell into twenty-four subdivisions corresponding to the heads in i Ch. 24 1-19). For general principles see M Lennan, Studies in Anc. Hist., and ser., chap. 9, Examples of fabricated genealogies, and on the genealogical knowledge in the time of Jesus, see Dalm. Worte Jes-u ( 98), 262^ s. A. C.

1 The name may survive in the Assyrian land of Sa-mi -n[a] on the road S. to Musri (Wi. Musri, etc., 8).

2 See WRSy/ A. 9 9 6 ( 80).

3 Of the Simeonite names which are reported (i Ch. 4 24^), several are elsewhere borne by Levites; Rephaiah, Seraiah, and Shallum are also Judahite, and one (see HORI) distinctly suggests a S. Palestinian origin.

4 Thus, e.g., there were worshippers of Yah we at Zephath in the time of Elijah (i K. 17 9, MT Zarephath, see ZAREPHATH).

5 Cp Talm. cm 1 ? nW D O fl "13T 13HJ N 1 ?. and Pes.teb, where it is said that the commentaries on I Ch. 8 37-9 44 (from Azel to Azel) amounted to 900 camel-loads. For the Megillath Yiihesin, see Dalm. Worte Jesu, 4.


While Mk. and Jn. manifest no interest in the pedigree of Jesus (fii/3\os yevtcrews lyaov XptaroO [Ti. WH]) Jn. 7 27 representing the tenet of Messianic doctrine current among the Jews (cp Weber, Syst. d. altsyn. Theol. 339 ff. ) that the origin of the Messiah is a secret - the two fuller gospels produce formal genealogical tables.

1. Aim and specific character.[edit]

The first point of interest was to prove that Jesus was descended from David. For whilst this question is only once touched upon in Jn. (742) and only thrice in Mk - (1<>47/ 11 10 1235-37), the Davidic sonship appears in Mt. and Lk. (not to speak of the passages parallel to those cited from Mk. ) as a matter of fundamental importance in the preliminary history (cp Lk. 127 32 69 2411 Mt. Izo, and in the story of the Magi, Mt. 2, the designation of the new-born king of the Jews ), as it is also emphasized further, in a manner analogous to the cases in Mk. ,inMt. 927 1223 1522. The genealogies, how ever, reach back even beyond David ; in Mt. to Abraham, in Lk. to Adam. This tracing of the line back to Adam (Lk. ) may be connected with the conception of the Messiah as a second Adam, for which reason the patriarchal head of the new mankind is brought into relation to that of the old. On the same analogy, since there is no interest, anywhere else in the NT, in regard ing Christ as the son of Abraham, the tracing back of the line at least as far as to him might be due to a wish to bring into mutual relation the father of the people of promise and the father of the people of fulfilment.

That the pedigree in Mt. is in a special degree specifically Jewish in its character, appears from its delight in playing with numbers three series each of twice seven names and from the succession downwards from David being traced through the line of Jewish kings. The pedigree adopted by Lk. at least does not emphasize numerical features (n x 7), follows a different branch of David's family, and does not pause at Abraham any more than at David. We may perhaps distinguish it as the Hellenistic, and Mt. s as the Palestinian, attempt to con nect Jesus the Messiah with sacred history by a genealogy. That the one came into the hands of the first evangelist, the other into the hands of the third, may be accidental.

2. Mt.'s list.[edit]

The two genealogies are beyond doubt mutually independent scholarly attempts. That adopted by Mt. (1:1-17) follows the linguistic form of Gen 4l8 Ruth 4:l8-22 1 Ch. 2:10-14, the heading, the phrase Book of the Generation (/3i/3Xos jevf <reu>s), being taken from Gen. 5:1. The table contains thrice fourteen names, fourteen from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to Jechoniah, fourteen from Jechoniah to Jesus.

The reckoning, however, is not quite accurate. For the first series (vz>. 2-6) needs both Abraham and David, and the third (7iv. 12-16) both Jechoniah and Christ, to make up the number fourteen, and yet the second series (1/71. 6-u) must count either David or Jechoniah over again, without which it contains but thirteen names (see, further, below, b).

(a) The series from Abraham to David (7 V. 2-6) is taken from i Ch. 21-14; on y> in addition to the case of Thamar (RV Tamar) the wife of Judah (v. 3), mention is twice made of the mother, viz. in the case of Rachab (RV Rahab v. 5) the mother, and of Ruth (v. 5) the wife, of Booz (RV Boaz) the latter based on Riyh 4 13, the former without any support from the OT and indeed in the face of chronological impossibility.

Rabbinic scholars also interested themselves in these women. On Tamar and Ruth compare Weber, Altsynag. Thcol. 341. Rahab they transformed into an inn-keeper (Jos. Ant. v. 1 27) and traced to her eight prophets(Lightfoot,//0r. //$. 180; Menschen, NT u. Talm. 40). She was an object of interest also to the early Christians, as Heb. 1X31 and James 2 25 show. Perhaps they interpreted harlot allegorically as heathen : the fact that Ruth was a Moabite, and Rahab a heathen, would then explain the interest of Christians in their mention in the pedigree of the Messiah.

(b) In the second series (w. 6-n) the list of kings is reduced to fourteen.

As compared with i Ch. 3 n Joash (iioas), Amaziah (a/uacrias) and Azanah (a^apia) are omitted between Ozias (RV Uzziah, oeias)and Joatham (RV Jotham, <.ioa.8a.fj. [v. 9]), and Jehoiakim (iwa/ceiju.) between Josias (RV Josiah ; iioo-eias) and Jechonias (RV Jechoniah, if\ovi.a.<; [v. n]). Zedekiah (creSe/aas) may be represented by brethren* (aSeAi^ous [v. n]) inasmuch as, according to i Ch. 8162 Ch. 36 10 he is mentioned as brother sole brother it is true of Jechoniah (ie^<mas) (otherwise in Jer. 37 1 and 2 K. 24 17). Perhaps Jehoiakim (luaicei^.) dropped out later, so that the second series also originally contained four teen names.

(c) For the third series (7/7 . 12-16) there is no authority in the OT, which mentions (i Ch. 3 17 Ezra5 3 Neh. 12 1 Hag. 1 1) only Salathiel (RV Shealtiel ; <raAafln)A [v. 12]) and Zorobabel (RV Zerubbabel ; fopoj8a/3eA [v. i2_/C)), and we have no hint of the origin of the names. For the rest, the names from David to Jechoniah are to be distributed over a period of about 460 years, those from Jechoniah to Christ over one of about 590 years.

3. Lk.'s list.[edit]

The genealogy given by Lk. (823-38) begins with Christ and leads upwards, using the simple formula, usually employed in the OT in giving names, of adding the father's name in the genitive.

The series from David to Adam (IT . 32-38) follows the lists of i Ch. 11-424-27 2 1-14 and Ruth 4 18-22. However, in the line from Abraham to Adam (w. 34-38) the name Cainan (xaifaju BN etc.]) is used a second time(w. 36; cp?>.37) between Sala (RV Shelah ; croAa [v. 35]) and Arphaxad (a.p<j>afa.& [v. 36]) ; while in the line from David to Abraham (111. 32-34) aSfitiv (B etc. ; omitted in EV ; Admin in RV ng-) and apvei (RV Ami ; AV has Aram ) have been inserted (? . 33) in place of apafj. between Aminadab (a/j-ivaSaft) and Ksrom (eo-pojjui). Neither change finds any support in the OT. Ami (apvei) might indeed be an ancient variant for Aram (apa/x). In this case, what we have is the insertion of new names at some place that seemed suitable before and at another after Abraham additions which, like the omissions of Mt., may be explained by the love for round numbers. For there are now (TV. 38-31) from Adam to David (inclusive) 35 (i.e., 5X7) names, or (if we look more closely) from Adam to Abraham (w. 38-34) 3X7 and from Isaac to David (v7>. 34-31) 2X7 (i.e., 14 as in Mt.). Between Christ and David (i>v. 23-31), however, Lk. gives us a list nowhere to be found in the OT. Instead of the line of kings he gives us that of David s son NATHAN [2] (va.8a.ft. ; i Ch. 85). It is all the more remarkable that the list coincides with that of Mt. in the names Salathiel (RV Shealtiel ; <raAa#i>)A) and Zoro- babel (RV Zerubbabel, <Jbpo/3a/3eA, v. 27) and in no more. From Nathan (va.Qa.it. [BN*] 11. 31) to Salathiel (v. 27) we have again 3X7 names, and so from Zorobabel to Christ (Mt. giving in each case fourteen, or, rather, from Zorobabel only twelve). The father of Salathiel, however, is called Jechonias (RV Jechoniah ; it\ovia<; [v. 12]) in Mt., Neri (njpci [v. 27]) in Lk.; while the son of Zorobabel is Abiud (afliovS [v. 1 3]) in the former and R hesa (pTjera [v. 27]) in the latter. The intention, however, is in both cases unmistakably the same, in spite of the divergence of the genealogies, to find a place in a list for the two famous names. The agreement on the other hand of Mt. and Lk. in the name of Joseph's grandfather, Matthan (jj-addav [v. 15]) and Matthat fj.a.990.8 [71. 24] respectively, may well be accidental, since the father and son of the latter bear quite different names in the two lists.

4. The two lists, and their value.[edit]

Lk. s plan of following, not the royal line, but a lateral branch of David s house, may have been due to the reflection that the Messiah could not come of the line rejected in Jechoniah (Jer . 2228 30 36 ^ The conjecture that one of the genealogies follows the line of Mary is excluded by the fact that both end in Joseph, as well as by the Hebrew custom of attending only to the genus patris. Moreover it is Joseph, not Mary, that Lk. declares to be of Davidic descent (127 24). The two genealogies are independent attempts to establish the ancestry of Jesus as Messiah and thus to connect him with the sacred past. The round numbers figuring in both of them show how little they aimed at simply reproducing documents. The complete diver gence makes it more probable that the pedigree did not admit of documentary establishment. All that was postulated was descent from Zerubbabel, David, and Abraham. The mode of supplying the intervening links was a matter of indifference. Proof of the physical descent of Jesus from David was doubtless not to be found. Nor in Jesus days was there need for such ; for the Messiah was in any case de jure David s son i. e. , heir and legitimate successor ; and if any one ever had occasion to turn this ideal into a natural sonship, this was done by deducing the latter from the former. If Jesus was the Messiah, he was David's son, and no documentary proof of the fact was needed. For there is no trace anywhere of any one s having deduced the Messiahship of Jesus from his being son of David, or having sought to oppose the former claim by questioning the latter. H. v. S.

5. Rhesa, etc.[edit]

[One singular error in Lk. s genealogy may be indicated here, the more so as Bacon ( Hastings, DB 2 140), following Plummer (Comm. on Sf. Luke, 104), has perhaps not explained it aright. It is the introduction of the name Rhesa (pijffa) between Joanan (so RV ; AV Joanna) and Zorobabel (Lk.327).

The view of these two scholars is that Rhesa is simply the Aram, word NE ! (Reshii), chief, which was mistaken (as Dr. Plummer puts it) by some Jewish copyist (?) for a fresh name in the genealogy, but which was really a title appended to the name Zerubbabel. Thus the original order of the names will have been, Zerubbabel-Resha, Joanan, Juda. The title of Zerubbabel, however, was not, as far as we know, Res/id. He was governor of Judah ; not merely one of the heads of the com munity, but in supreme authority ; in Hag. 1 1 2 2 the Targ. renders r\r\3 governor (of) by N2"]. We must not, of course, follow Herzfeld (Gesch., A, 379^) in his inferences from the Breviarium of the pseudo- Philo (on which cp op. cit. 264 /.). If, then, a disarrangement of names is to be supposed, it is better to identify Rhesa with ASSIR [f.v.], and to suppose the original order to have been this, the son of Joanan, the son of Zorp- babel, the son of Salathiel, the son of Assir, the son of Neri. Assir his son is a Talmudic reading in i Ch. 3 17 and may have been that adopted in the genealogy reproduced in our text of Lk. 823-38. TDK might, by accidental transposition of letters, easily become ND 1 or N DT ; or, since the error began in a Greek document, a<rip might become pr)(ra (pijtria). Note that /meA^ei (Melchi) may be a fragment of /xeA^[e]tpafi (i Ch. 3 ig), Kbxrafj. (Cosam) of toa-afj.ia[0], and even perhaps fA^aSa/x of vaftaSiay [eAi/<x6aj3] ; though see ELMODAM. W. C. Allen (Exp. T, 11 I 35^) has argued that the writer of Mt. compiled the gene alogy in chap. 1 with the help of i Ch. 1-3 ; it is clear at any rate that the second genealogy is partly derived from this source.

T- K. C.] H. v . S. , 1-4 ; T. K. C. , 5.


  • Name (1).
  • Narrative :
    • Of P (2-3).
    • Of JE (4).
  • J and E in Gen. 12-50 ( 5).
  • Age of J and E ( 6).
  • J in Gen. 1-11 (7).
  • Special sources ( 8).
  • Bibliography ( 9).

1. Name and contents.[edit]

Genesis is to modern apprehension the first book of a comprehensive Hebrew history from the creation of the world to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar (Gen. - 2 K. ) ; more particularly of its former half, which ends with the conquest and settlement of Canaan (Gen. -Josh. ). To the Jews who made the division, however, Genesis was the first part of a smaller whole, ending with the death of Moses (Gen.- Dt. ), which, from its predominating character, they called the law (Torah), and which they divided into five books (Pentateuch). 1 The first book, whose opening chapters describe the creation of the world, bears in the Greek Bible the title TeVeo-is K6ff/J.ov, 2 commonly abbreviated Ttveiris, 3 which is derived from Gen. 24 (@ AEL ). In Hebrew it is usually cited by its first words 'In the beginning' ). 4

The Book of Genesis consists of two parts : first, The Primaeval History of Mankind (1-1126); including the creation of the world, the origin of evil, the beginnings of civilization, the great flood, the confusion of tongues and dispersion of peoples ; and exhibiting in the form of genealogies the relation of the races of men to one another, and the place of the Semites, and particularly of the Hebrews, among them ; and, second, The History of the Forefathers of the Israelitish People, beginning with the migration of the Terahites (11 27-32), and ending with the burial of Jacob at Hebron and the death of Joseph in Egypt (50). The periods of this history are represented by three generations : Abraham (12 i-25 18), Isaac (25 19-86), and Jacob (37-50). In each of these periods the son through whom the line descends becomes the central figure in the story before the death of his father ; the other branches of the family are briefly catalogued and dismissed (the sons of Keturah, 25 1-4 ; Ishmael, 25 12-18 ; Esau, 36; cp also Moab and Ammon, 1930-38; the descendants of Nahor, 22 20-24). The goal of the history is kept constantly in view by a series of promises of numerous posterity and of possession of the land of Canaan, made first to Abraham and repeated in like terms to Isaac and Jacob. 5 A similar method appears in 1-11 26. Closer examination shows a somewhat more artificial scheme marked by the recurrence of the formula, 'This is the genealogy of N. N.', by which the book appears to be divided into ten sections : viz.

  • 1-4:6,
  • 5:1-6:8,
  • 6:9-9:29,
  • 10:1-ll:9,
  • 11:10-26,
  • 11:27-25:11,
  • 25:12-18
  • 25:19-35:29
  • 36:1-43
  • 37-50.

1 Cp CANON, 6, 23^

2 Title in cod. A.

3 Philo, tie Abraham/}, % i. See Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture, xx.f.

4 gp)<rt, Origen in Eus. HE 625; Beresith, Jer. Pro!, gal.

5 These promises or covenants are found in both the principal strata of the narrative: 17 i -8 281-4 35 9-12 48 3 /: (P) ; 12 1-3 1814-17 15s 13-16 ISiBf.; 22 15-18 262-5 24 2727-29 2813-15 49 10 (chiefly J and R JP ).

6 The formula, catachrestically applied to the creation of heaven and earth (cosmogony), has been transposed to the end of the section (2 40) at the beginning of which it originally stood.

2. Sources : P[edit]

It is a fortunate circumstance that the author of the Pentateuch has so faithfully preserved the representation and even the language of the earlier works from which he borrows. This renders critical analysis possible, and enables us to recover, at least in part, the older histories from which our Pentateuch was compiled. 1 These older works are primarily two, one of which is commonly called, from its predominating interest in the religious and especially the sacerdotal institutions of Israel, The Priestly History and Law-book (P) ; the other, from its affinity with the literature of the flourishing period of prophecy, is sometimes named The Prophetic History (JE). 2 The former is marked by such peculiarities of matter, style, and diction that the parts of Genesis which are derived from P are easily separated from JE ; and consequently in this part of the analysis there is substantial unanimity among critics. 3 It is not always so easy to distinguish from P the additions and changes which were made by the author, or rather compiler, of our Hexateuch (Rp), or by later editors ; since both Rp and the diaskeuasts who followed him belonged to the school of priestly scribes, and in thought and expression show close affinity to P. In Genesis, however, the additions are of small extent, 4 and the changes only such as the union of two distinct and not always consentaneous sources rendered necessary. 5 For the present purpose, therefore, the priestly stratum may be treated as a whole.

To it are assigned: 6 Gen. li-23 43 5 1-28 30-32 69-22 76 n i3-i6a ija 18-21 (22 23^ in part R p ), 24 8 i 20. 3^-5 13*1 14-19 9 1-17 28 29 10 1-7 20 22 f. yif. 11 10-27 31 f. 124^ 5 136 i\b 120. (14)7 16 i 3 i S y: 17 1929 21 *& 2 &-5 23 25 7-11* 12-17 19 / 266 26 34_/: 27 46 28 1-9 29 24 286 29 30 2211 31 i&J 33 i8a (34 1-3* 4-6 8-10 13* 14* 15-17 20-24 2 5* 2 7 2 9 ate midrashic addition) 35 5 (Rp) 9-15* 22^-29 36 5^-8 40-43 (1-51 9-39 Rp in part after other sources) 37 i 20. 41 36 46 47 (? R p ) 46 6f. (8-27 R p or later) 47 5^ 6a 7-11 2ja*b 28483-6 (7 R p ) 49 la 2%b-33a 5Qi2f.

The reconstruction of P discloses no serious gaps ; * and the redactor's partiality for this source makes it antecedently probable that he preserved it substantially intact. It thus appears that P's Genesis if we may use the name thus was much shorter than the history of the same period in JE. 9 The groundwork of P is a series of interconnected genealogies viz., Adam (6:1-28, 30-32), Noah (6:9-10), Noah's sons (10:1-7, 20, 22-23, 31-32), Shem (11:10-26), Terah (11:27, 31-32), Ishmael (25:12-17), Isaac (25:19-20, 26:6), Esau (36), Jacob (35:22b-26, 37:2). 10 These are constructed upon a uniform plan : each bears the title, 'This is the genealogy of N. N.' ; each begins with a brief recapitulation connecting it with the preceding table ; n the method is the same throughout. The genealogies are made the basis of a systematic chronology ; 12 and short historical notices are appended to them, as in the case of Abraham and Lot (12^ 5 136 116 iza 16 ia 3 is/ 1929) ; but the only things in the story of the patriarchs which are related in any detail are the covenant with Abraham (17 ; cp 369-12 483-6) and the purchase of the family sepulchre at Hebron (23). With the exception of these chapters, the patriarchal history in P is a meagre abstract, 1 and would hardly be intelligible except to readers familiar with the fuller narratives. In the primaeval history the creation and the flood are narrated at some length ; for all the rest we have only genealogies and a chronology. The author's predominating interest in the history of religious institutions is apparent throughout. The sabbath had its beginning and its perpetual type in the rest of God after the creation of the world ; the prohibition of eating flesh with the blood in it is the new commandment given to Noah and his sons (i.e. to all mankind) after the flood ; the covenant with Abraham has the seal of circumcision, practised, in somewhat different form, by Ishmaelites (and presumably Edomites) as well as Israelites. The contrasted accounts of the marriages of Esau and Jacob (2634/i 2/46 289) reflect the stress which strict Judaism put upon purity of race unlike Edom, Israel shunned intermixture with the peoples of Canaan.


2 This name must not be taken to imply that JE was written by prophets, nor that it has in the proper sense a prophetic character ; still less must prophetic be understood to connote antagonism to the priesthood. Popular History would perhaps be a better designation.

3 See Nold. Untersuch. 1869, pp. 1-144. For a comparison of the analyses of different critics, see Bacon, Hebraica 4 216-243, 5 7-17, or the tables appended to Holzinger s EM. Typo graphical presentations of the sources will be found in the works of Kautzsch and Socin, Bacon, Fripp, Addis, Ball and Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, the titles of which are given in 9. For the history of the analysis see HEXATEUCH, \jff,

  • They are found especially in 14 34 36 46.

5 On the procedure of R F in Genesis, see Kue. Hex. 16, n. 12; Co. Einl.W(*>Kff.

6 The asterisk indicates contamination.

7 See below, 8.

8 For such a reconstruction see Bacon, Genesis, 315^ ; Fripp, i<-,\ff., or Addis, 2 193^

9 By a rough estimate, P in Genesis is about one-third as long as J, and three-fifths as long as E. In Gen. 12-50 P is only one-fifth as long as J, though the latter has been much abridged by R JE .

10 Here the title only remains in place.

11 Similar recapitulations in the following books ; seeExoous, 2, n. 2.


3. P contrasted with JE.[edit]

In contrast with the popular character of JE the treatment of the history in P makes the impression of a work of study and reflection. An antiquarian interest is often apparent. The unconscious anachronisms of the older writers, in whose pictures of the past their own present is always recognisable, are sedulously avoided ; in their place we find a calculated archaism. The chief sources of P in the patriarchal history were obviously the same older narratives which, united with P, have been preserved to us viz. , J and E ; nor is it demon strable that in these chapters any other sources were employed. 2 In the primaeval history the dependence of P upon J is evident ; but the problem is rendered difficult by the lack of homogeneity in J itself (see 7). The marked differences between P and J in the story of the flood are most naturally explained by the hypothesis of recurrence to the Babylonian original, perhaps in a variant form. It has been conjectured, not without plausibility, that Gen. 1 is based upon a Yahwistic cos mogony which it supplanted ; but the relation of this assumed original to the main stock of J is obscure. In any case our J was not P's sole source in Gen. 1-11. 8 From its very nature P s compend lacks the living interest of JE s fuller narrative. From a literary point of view also there is a vast distance between the free dom, ease, and poetic charm of the older writers and the stiff and constrained style of P, who always seems to be labouring not to be misunderstood. 4 Theologic ally, on the other hand, P stands on a higher plane than his predecessors. The unity of God is assumed without controversy; God is absolute and supramundane ; creation is a transcendent act for which a specific term is necessary ; history is in an eminent sense the work of God, the execution of a divine plan ; revelation is without sensible mediation theophanies, angels, dreams have disappeared ; its successive stages, marked by the names of God Elohim, El-Shaddai, Yahwe corre spond to three stages in the history of religion, the covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Israel. The religious institutions of Israel had their origin at Sinai ; sacrifices were not offered in the patriarchal age. Anthropomorphisms are avoided, or reduced to those harmless figures without which men can hardly speak of a personal God at all ; anthropopathisms are still more scrupulously shunned. The mythical elements in the primaeval history are almost completely eliminated or neutralised. The chapters in the lives of the fore fathers which gave offence to a more refined morality are passed over in silence. The colourlessness of P s narrative is in part due to this expurgation. Alike in the lofty theology, the historical pragmatism, and the moral depuration, the reflection of a later age is mani fest. 1

1 See Wellhausen, ProLW 331-336 = Hist. Isr. 327 ff. ( 84).

2 Even for Gen. 23 it is perhaps unnecessary to assume a special source. Gen. 14 was not contained in P ; see 8.

3 On these points see Holzinger, EM. 45.

4 See HEXATEUCH, 19, where these points are more fully discussed. On the style of P see Nold. Unters. lo &ff. ; Hol- zinger, Einl. 349.^; Dr. Introd.(*>] i-zqff.

4. Sources : JE.[edit]

The removal of P leaves a continuous and almost complete history, extending, like that of P, from the creation of the world to the death of Joseph, in which we recognise the second chief source used by the author of our Genesis (JE). This narrative has a distinctly popular character, resembling the older parts of the books of Judges and Samuel. The stories are such as we may suppose to have been gathered from living tradition, and they are told with the spirit and freedom of the best folk-tales. Compared with P, this source as a whole represents a less advanced stage of religious development. Certain differences in this respect which may be observed in particular stories, as well as some diversities of con ception and expression, might be attributed to the diverse origin of the stories or to divergence in oral tradition. The numerous and striking doublets in the patriarchal history, however, and especially the way in which they are combined, prove that the material of JE was not drawn immediately from popular tradition, that the author had before him at least two older written histories of this period. 3 One of these histories (J) from the be ginning uses the name Yahwe ; the other (E), like P, throughout Genesis employs only Elohim or ha-Elohim a peculiarity which for a time deceived the critics, and led them to attribute the elohistic stories of the patriarchs to P, with which they have otherwise no affinity. 4 In all other respects E is much more nearly akin to J ; the resemblance in matter, form, and spirit is indeed so close that, where for any reason the criterion of the divine names fails us, it is often impossible to determine with confidence from which of the two sources, J or E, certain parts of the composite narrative are derived. The difficulty of the analysis is enhanced by the fact that the author of the older history (RJE) united his parallel sources more intimately, and in general treated his material more freely than did the author of our Genesis (Rp). 5 In the analysis of JE there is there fore a wider margin of uncertainty, and much greater diversity of opinion among critics.

The narrative of E begins abruptly in Gen. 20, plunging into the midst of the story of Abraham ; 9 the beginning has not been preserved. 7 In 20-22 E is the principal source (J in 21 ia 20. db 7 combined with P 33 22 20-24 ; R JE 20 18 21 34 22 nt>- 18). In 24_/C the removal of the parts assigned above to P ( 2) leaves the narrative of J unmixed. 8 At the beginning of 26 (1-6) R, E has enlarged upon the original text of J which may be recognised in iaa b 2 3 6 (5 R D ) ; 15 18 are also by RJ E ; the remainder is from J. In 27 1-45 J is the main source ; but the duplication at more than one point and certain peculiarities of expression show that the (closely parallel) narrative of E has also been laid under contribution ; to the latter we may with some probability ascribe the verses which represent Jacob as deceiving his father by wearing kid skin on his neck and hands. 9

1 See We. Prol.W, chap. = ffist. Isr., chap. 8 [ 84! ; Sta. GVI 1\wff.; Holzinger, Einl. -tfbff.; Dr. Introd.W. 122 ff.

2 Exhibited in Addis. The Documents of the Hexateuch, 1 (9.3)-

3 This may be most clearly seen in Gen. 20-22. Cp HIS TORICAL LITERATURE, zf.

4 See HEXATEUCH, 2, bff. 12.

5 Those critics who, like Di., suppose that E and J separately were united with P by R are led in their analysis to ascribe to J a great deal which belongs to Rj E , and thus to form an errone ous notion of the character of J.

6 E seems to have been used, however, by Rj E in the first verses of 15.

7 For a conjecture as to the reason, see Kue. Hex. 8, n. 8. On the question whether E originally had a primaeval history parallel to Gen. 1-11, see below, 7.

8 Some transposition has probably taken place in 24-26.

9 An exact analysis is impossible ; by more or less prob able conjecture we may assign to E \b $b 11-13 16 i8/> 19 21-23

j3 33$ 34 39.

In 28 10-22, w. ii f. 17 f. 20-22 are from E (13-16 Rj E ). The greater part of 29yC is from J ; but with a considerable, though not always precisely definable, admixture of E notice the interchange of Yahwe and Elohini, the double etymologies of the names of several of Jacob s children (30 16 and 18, 20, 23 and 24), and the different accounts of Laban s contract with Jacob (30 257^).! Chap. 31 is chiefly from E (J in i 3 25-27 46 48-50*). To E belong also 31 55-822 [32 1-3] 13^-21 [14^-22] 23 [24] ; the rest of the chapter is from J (? Rj E 9-12 [10-13] 3 2 [33])- ^ n 3:i J is still the chief source (E in 5^, perhaps 8-10* 18^-20). The groundwork of 34 is J (1-3* 7 n f. 13* 19 25* 26 30 f.) , the second element, ascribed by some critics to Eo, is more probably of later origin (see above, 2). Chap. 35 1-8 16-20 are chiefly E ; 21 f* J (the rest of the chapter is from P). Chap. 36 10-39, 9 r at least 31-39 are ascribed by many to J (or Js). In 37 J is found in 2* 3 f. 12-18 (in the main) zoa 21 236 25-27 28* 32 f. 35 ; the remainder is from E. In the rest of the story of Joseph the two sources are not so closely interwoven ; the author s method was to make large extracts from one or the other, intro ducing here and there traits taken from the parallel narrative. Thus 38 39 are almost wholly from J (traces of E in 39 1-7) ; 40- 42 are from E, with sporadic verses or clauses of J (40 ib 36 56 15^ ; 41 41 49* ; 42 20. t,b-ba 7 27 f. 38) ; 43yl again are from J (E only in 43 14 23^) ; 45-4(i ^a are chiefly E (J in 45 la 2* 46 5* i3_/C 28 46 -id) ; 4028-476 4713-26 29-31 is from J; in 48 E is found in i 86 go. 106-12 15 _f. 20-22 ; the rest (after P is removed) is J. Chap. 49 1-27, the so-called Blessing of Jacob, was prob ably included in J. Chap. 50 i-n 14 are chiefly, if not wholly, from J ; 15-26 from E. For a fuller exhibition of the grounds and results of the analysis, and discussion of particular points, see the works whose titles are given in 9.

5. Character of the sources : J and E in Gen 12-50.[edit]

The history of the patriarchs is related at considerable length in both J and E. The two narratives are in general closely parallel, representing slightly different versions of the same stories. These chapters therefore offer the most favourable opportunity for a comparison of the two sources. From a literary point of view J is the better narrator. His vocabulary is rich and varied ; while the intractable Semitic sentence becomes in his hands wonderfully flexible and expressive. He tells his story directly, swiftly, with almost epic breadth, and with just that degree of circumstance which gives the note of reality. Nor is he simply content to bring before us with unequalled vividness the external action ; he makes us enter into the inner drama, the feelings and motives of the actors. 3

The religious element in the stories is constant and pervasive. The forefathers are favourites of Yahwe, who guides them in all their migrations, and is with them everywhere to protect and bless them. He appears to them in person, and holds converse with them as a man with his friends ; they answer him with pious reverence, but with the freedom of intimacy. 4 Yahwe is the living God of simple faith and childlike imagination ; reflection has not yet begun to find his immediate intervention in the ordinary affairs of men inconsistent with his exalted Godhead. The morality of the patriarchs naturally reflects in the main the moral standards of the author's age ; in this, as in religion, the forefathers are idealised by popular legend, and are not consciously created ideal figures. A didactic aim, a disposition to underscore the lesson of the story, nowhere appears. The fine vein of ethical and religious reflection which has sometimes been attributed to J is the result in part of an erroneous analysis ; in part it comes of ascribing to the author the very modern reflections of his interpreters. Of the influence of the prophetic movement of the eighth century there is no trace in those parts of J which on other grounds we have reason to regard as original ; the work represents the soil in which the new prophecy had its roots, not the first fruits of that prophecy.

1 In 29 E is generally recognised in i 15-18 ; others include 15-23, or even 15-30 (except 26, and the verses given to P). In 30 the parts ascribed to E are 1-3(1 6 8 17-200. 22/3 236 26 28 ; in 3031^ Rj E has made many additions or changes.

2 See especially Holzinger, Einl., 13-17, 24-26; Kittel, Hist. 1, 8.

3 See, e.g., Gen. 43 y . * See, e.g., Gen. IS.

E is not quite the equal of J in the art of narrative or in mastery of the language ; though the distance between them is not very great. The treatment is on the whole less poetical, the impression which his story makes less vivid. Compared with the parallels in J, the patriarchal legends in E show the beginnings of theological reflection. The consistent avoidance of the name Yahwe down to the moment of its revelation to Moses (Ex. 814) is evidence of this. The story of the offering of Isaac, teaching that God refuses human sacrifice, and accepts a ram instead of the firstborn, is also from E. 1 True theophanies, such as J describes, do not occur in E ; if God appears to men, it is not in bodily reality, but in dreams ; when he speaks to them, it is by a voice from heaven. The idealising of the patriarchs goes a step farther ; Abraham, for example, is a prophet, whose intercession is effectual with God ; a disposition to remove or mitigate offensive traits of the tradition is hardly to be ignored. There is also a touch of learning in E ; he notes that the Syrian Laban spoke Aramaic (Jegar-sahadutha ; but see GALEED, i), and that the ancestors of Israel in their old home beyond the Euphrates were heathen ; 2 especially in things Egyptian topography, customs, names, etc., he brings out a good deal of knowledge. In this also E appears to be younger than J.

The great mass of material common to J and E, and the close resemblance, even in details, between the two versions of the patriarchal story, prove that they must have had a proximate common source, in which the traditions of the forefathers had been united, and to a certain degree fixed.

In this common stock, from which both J and E are drawn, a fusion of the traditions of Israel and Judah had already been effected ; traditions of the central sanctuaries Bethel, Shechem, Gilgal stand side by side with those of Hebron and the remoter south Beersheba and Beer-lahai-roi and of Mahanaim and Penuel E. of the Jordan. 3 There can be no doubt that this fusion took place in Israel, rather than in Judah ;* observe that in J as well as in E Rachel is the beloved of Jacob, Leah the unloved wife who was foisted on him by deceit ; that Joseph and Benjamin are his favourite sons ; and that Joseph is the one character who is throughout above reproach. The variations which J and E present in the reproduction of this common tradition are in part attributable_ to the individuality of the authors, in part, as has been already intimated, to a somewhat different religious point of view ; in part, however, they reflect the particular interests of Israel and Judah. When we find, for example, in the story of Joseph and his brethren, that in E Reuben is the good brother who tries to save Joseph from them, and is afterwards their leader and spokesman, as it was his birthright to be, whilst in J this role is played by Judah, we can hardly fail to recognise in the latter a Judaean recension of a story which in its origin was certainly Ephraimite.

6. Age of J and E; method of Rje[edit]

Critics are agreed, without dissent, 5 that E was written in the northern kingdom. In regard to J there is not the same unanimity, some scholars attributing it also to an Ephraimite author, 7 whilst the majority believe it to be of Judaean origin. The reasons for the former opinion, however, prove no more than that the common stock of Israelite tradition from which both J and E are drawn was collected and systematised at the Ephraimite sanctuaries ( 5, end). On the other hand, we have already noted in the story of Joseph ( 5, end) one decisive indication that J gives us a Judsean version of the history. This is confirmed by other evidence. The legends of Abraham and especially of Isaac the heroes of the southern saga are given much more fully in J than in E ; and, what is more significant, the original locality of the story is preserved, whilst in E Abraham is removed from Hebron to Beer sheba, a sanctuary much frequented by pilgrims from the northern kingdom. In other points also the greater interest of J in the situation in the south of Palestine is manifest ; note the genealogies of (Joktan) Keturah, Ishmael, Esau (all J ; see GENEALOGIES i. , 4) ; the large space given to the relations of Jacob and Esau ; local Judaean clan-legends such as Gen. 38 ; Kenite traditions in the primaeval history, etc. (see CAIN).

1 Not, however, from the oldest stratum.

2 These passages, like 22, are believed by some ciitics to be secondary (Eo).

3 The brother pairs, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, perhaps belonged originally to the southern and the northern tradition respectively. The real relation of Jacob to Israel is not clear ; see JACOB, 6.

We. Prol.(*l 323; Holz. Einl. 161.

5 [See, however, Wi. (77, ii-1 6 See Holz. Einl. 20, 28, 61.

7 Schr., Reuss ; in a modified form also Kue.

There is no evidence of literary dependence on either side ; what J and E have in common is drawn from the common stock of tradition. A comparison of the two such as we have made in 5, especially in their religious standpoint, shows that J is the more primitive ; E gives signs of more advanced historical and theological reflec tion. Since we have no reason to think that the development of the southern kingdom was much behind that of Israel, we may safely infer that J is the older of the two sources. 1 Both were written at a time when the national spirit was unbroken, and when the ancient holy places which are the scenes of so much of the patriarchal history were in all their glory. Nor did the authors who tell with so much interest of the founding of the cultus at these sanctuaries dream that the worship which was offered to Yahwe there in their own day was not acceptable to him. They wrote, therefore, before the fall of the northern kingdom (734, 721 B.C.) ; and since even E is untouched by the teaching or the spirit of Hosea, 2 we must take our lower limit at least a generation earlier, say about 750 B. c.

The rare historical allusions in Genesis do not enable us to determine the date of the two sources more exactly. Gen. 9 25 presupposes the complete subjection of the Canaanites, the work of David and Solomon ; 27 29 (J) refers to the conquest of Edom by David, and 40 to the re-establishment of its independence under Joram (died 842 B.C. ; 2 K. 8 2o^f!) ; 31 44 ff. (J and E) derives its significance from the conflicts between Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus over the frontier in Gilead in the second half of the ninth century. The Egyptian names in the story of Joseph (E ; ?Eo) in the judgment of competent Egyptologists point to the times of the twenty-sixth dynasty (;th cent. B.C.). To this century Gen. 22 also probably brings us.

The allusions in the prophets of the eighth century, especially in Amos and Hosea, to the patriarchal stories are not of such a nature as to make it certain whether they are derived from J or E, or from some other source. On the whole, so far as the evidence in Genesis goes, we should be inclined to assign to E a date near the middle of the eighth century, while J may be put a. half- century or more earlier.

Additions have been made to both J and E by later hands. Thus, Gen. 12 10-20, though exhibiting affinity to J, is manifestly a younger variant of the story 20e-n (I), and is violently intruded in its present connection. A number of other passages are regarded by most critics as secondary accretions to the original narrative of J ; 3 it is in some cases difficult to say whether they should be ascribed to R JF or to previous editors of J. (On the strata of J in the primaeval history, see 7 below.) The secondary elements in E are in Genesis of less importance ; one strand of 34 is by some thought to have this origin. 4

In uniting J and E, Rje plainly desired to make the history as complete as possible, and took pains to omit no significant detail which he found in either narrative. 5 He adapted his method to the nature of the sources and their mutual relations ; sometimes transcribing almost unchanged long passages from one or the other, some times so closely interweaving them as to baffle our analysis. In general he appears to reproduce the text of his authors faithfully, though not altogether so mechanically as Rp. His own additions are for the most part designed either to connect and harmonise the extracts from the sources or to emphasise the religious motives of the history. The language of these additions resembles that of J rather than of E ; but in both thought and style there is a marked approximation to the Deuteronomic school. There is no doubt that the author was a Judaean , and that his history was composed in the seventh century. In Genesis there is nothing to indicate whether he wrote before or after the reforms of the year 621. Nor are there in this book more than sporadic traces of a Deuteronomistic redaction.

1 This is of course not inconsistent with the fact that in many cases E has preserved a more primitive form of the tradition.

2 Later additions to E (Eg), which in Genesis are not many, are here disregarded.

3 Gen. 13 14-17 18 17-19 22^-33^ 39 (Kue., Co.). Kuenen thinks that such passages belong to the Judsean recension of J ; the original work (Jj) was Ephraimite.

4 Co. ZATlfll iff. ( 91).

5 On the work of R JE see Kue. Hex. 13, n. 29 ; Holz. EM. 6r.

7. J in the primeval history, Gen 1-11.[edit]

We have seen that E first appears in the story of Abraham (Gen. 20-22 ; perhaps in 15 1-5) ; if this source also included a a history of the beginnings of mankind, no part of it has been preserved. 2 In the primaeval history the subtraction of P leaves a narrative which has the general characteristics of J. Closer examination shows, however, that this narrative is not consistent throughout. It was long ago observed that by the side of the Yahwistic version of the deluge-myth there are passages which know nothing of the great flood, and by all their implications exclude such a catastrophe. This is conspicuously the case with the account of the origin of civilisation among the posterity of Cain (417-24) ; further, in 920-27 11 1-9 (see CAINITES, 2 ; DELUGE, 14). Nor, if we remove the story of the flood and what else is obviously connected with it, does the remainder appear to be homogeneous ; chap. 4i-i6, for example, is in striking conflict with 417-22 (see CAIN). The conviction has thus forced itself upon critics that J in Gen. 1-11 is not a unit ; and much labour and ingenuity have been expended in efforts to solve the difficult problems which the chapters present. 3

The simplest hypothesis is that the original primaeval history of J, which embraced 24^-8 4 i 20. 16^-24 6 1-4 9 20-27 H 1 9. was supplemented by another writer who introduced the Babylonian deluge-myth ; a Sethite genealogy (now supplanted by P's) of which only 4 25^ 629 remain (see SETHITES); and an ethnographical table in the form of a genealogy of which parts are preserved in chap. 10 : chap. 4 2* 3-i6a, though also secondary, is of different origin and was probably inserted by an earlier hand. 4 A methodical and acute attempt to explain the phenomena by the hypothesis of composition has been made by Budde, 5 who supposes that two distinct, though not independent, Yahwistic versions of the primaeval history were combined by a third hand. The older of these (J]), the ancient Hebrew primaeval history, comprised substantially the same parts of Gen. 1-11 that are ascribed by Kuenen to the original text of J. A later writer (Jo) enlarged this to a primaeval history of mankind by taking up the Babylonian mythical cycle transformed in the spirit of a lofty monotheism. This writer incorporated in his work as much of J as he was able to adapt to his other material and to his religious standpoint ; producing thus, not an enlarged edition of J\ but a counterpart designed to supersede it. A subsequent editor (Js) united Ji and Jo, harmonising them as well as he was able. It was in this composite form that the Yahwistic narrative in Gen. 1-11 lay before the author of the Hexateuch (R p ) and was by him combined with the primaeval history of P. 6

1 For the literature see 9.

2 Among the Greeks Zoilus wrote a history from the theogony to the death of Philip (his own time), while Ephorus began his history with the migration of the Heracleidas.

3 For a synopsis of various theories see Holzinger, EM. 19-

4 Thus Kue. Hex. 13, n. 26 ; similarly We. CV/( 3 > 7-14.

5 Urgesch. 455.^

6 Budde endeavours to define minutely the work of these successive redactors and to restore the primitive text of J]. For a synopsis of his argument and results, see Holzinger. In accordance with his theory of the relation of thesources, Dillmann ascribes the flood stratum in Gen 1-11 to J ; the passages which conflict with this part of the narrative were found by J in one of his sources (presumably E) and recast by him.

8. Special sources : Gen. 14, 49.[edit]

Two chapters in Genesis have been thought to be derived from special sources, (a) Gen. 14 narrates the campaign of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, and his allies or vassals in Palestine, Abraham's pursuit of them, deliverance of Lot, recovery of the spoil of Sodom, and meeting with Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of El-elyon.

Opinions differ widely about the historical value of this chapter, some critics regarding it as a factitious legend, without any discoverable basis of fact, whilst others take it for a substantially trustworthy record of that remote age. This much controverted question is discussed in the article CHEDORLAOMER ; here we must confine ourselves to the literary problem. It is now generally recognised that in its present form the story cannot be derived from any one of the chief sources of the Pentateuch. Dillmann and Kittel (cp Ewald) endeavour to show that the late author (R or R p ) found the substance of the story in E, which in turn drew the facts from an older special source, presumably a Canaanite account of the Elamite invasion. 1 The point of view and interest of the story are, however, distinctly Israelite throughout ; there is no trace of a different representation ; the supposed foreign original can hardly have furnished more than the mere setting Dillmann himself admits that it may only have narrated the successful participation of the Hebrews in the war against the Eastern Kings and for this it is unnecessary to assume a special source. Nor is the hypothesis that E furnished the basis of the present text much better supported.

The impression which the contents and style of the chapter make as a whole is of affinity with P and the midrashic elements in Chronicles rather than with the older Israelite historians.

(b) Gen. 49:1-27 2 is a poem, in which the dying patriarch Jacob delineates the character and forecasts the future of his twelve sons. Praises for some and prophecies of power and prosperity are mingled with severe censure of others and unfavourable predictions, so that Testament of Jacob would be a more suitable name for the poem than Blessing. 3 The predictions reflect historical events long subsequent to the supposed time of their utterance the settlement of the tribes in Palestine, the decadence of Reuben, the breaking up of Simeon and Levi, the rise of Judah to pre-eminence. Nothing in the poem points to a date earlier than the establishment of the Davidic kingdom.

The blessing of Joseph is thought by many critics to contain allusions to the northern kingdom (26b), and to the Syrian wars of the ninth century (23-24), to which a reference is also found in 19 (Gad); 4 the interpretation of these verses is, however, controverted. Reminiscences of the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5) are unmistakable in 13-14 ; on the other hand the blessing of Moses (Dt. 33) is plainly dependent upon Gen. 49. 5

Some scholars question whether the historical background is the same throughout ; the chapter seems to them rather a collection of sayings of diverse origin and age, from the period of the Judges to that of the Syrian wars, to which only a unity of redaction belongs. 6 The poem as a whole makes, however, the impression of a work of one conception, though it is not free from glosses and perhaps longer interpolations. 7

The pre-eminence given to Judah leaves no doubt that the author was of that tribe ; the historical allusions which can be most certainly traced (in 4 to Gen. 8622 in 5-7 to Gen. 34) are to the Judaean Tradition (J). It is, therefore, generally, and with all probability, inferred that the Testament of Jacob was incorporated in J.

9. Literature.[edit]

1. Commentaries. v. Bohlen, 35 ; Fr. Tuch, 38 ; (2) (by Arnold and Merx), 71 ; Fr. Delitzsch, (1), 52, (5) (Neuer Commentar fib. d. Gen.), 87, ET 2 vols., 88, 89 ; M. Kalisch, London, 58 ; A. Knobel, 52 ; ">), A. Dillmann, 92; J. P. Lange, 64; (2),

2. Critical. (For the history of criticism see HEXATEUCH, -iff.). Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Gen., 53 ; E. Bohmer, Das erste Buck der Thora, 62; Th. Nold. Untcrsuch., 69; Kau. u. Socin, Die Gen. mit ausserer Unterscheidung der Quellen, 88 ; (2), 91 ; B. W. Bacon, Pentateuchal Analysis, Hebraica, 4216-24367-17; The_Genesis of Gen., 92 (with an introduction on the method of criticism) ; \V. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch, 2 vols., 93, 98 ; E. J. Fripp, The Composition of the Book of Gen., 92; A. Westphal, Les Sources du Penta- teuque, 2 vols., 88, 91 ; Piepenbring, Le livre de la Genese, JRev. de tHistoire des Religions, 21 1-62 ( 90); C. J. Ball, Genesis, 96 (SBOT; the analysis indicated by colours); J. Halevy, Recherches Bibliques, \ (Gen. 1-25), 95, against recent criticism ; The Hexateuch, edited by J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, 1900. The most exhaustive recent discussion of the analysis of Genesis is that carried on in Hebraica by Professor W. R. Harper (618-73 243-291 61-48) and Professor W. H. Green (il>. 6137-189 6109-138 161-211 7 1-38); see also W. H. Green, The Unity of Genesis, 95. G F M

1 See CHEDORLAOMER and related articles.

2 See Diestel, Der Segen Jacobs, 53 ; J. P. N. Land, Dis- putatio de carmine Jacobi, 58 ; C. Kohler, Der Segen Jacob, mit Beriicksichtigung des Midrasch, 67 ; Doorninck, De Zegen van Jakob, 83; C. J. Ball, PSBA 17 164-191 ( 95); Zimmern, Der Jakobssegen und der Tierkreis, ZA 7 i6ij^ ( 92); Cheyne, The Blessings on Asher, Naphtali, and Joseph, PSBA, June 99. Older literature in Di. Gen.fi) 456.

3 In this respect it differs from the Blessing of Moses, Dt. 33.

4 We., Kue., St.


6 Renan, Land, Kuenen.

7 Verse 10 is particularly suspected ; and z6l> may be. Fripp (ZA Tlf 11 262_^ [ 91]) regards 24^-26 as a later addition.


)- 2 Macc. 12 2 RV, AY GENNEUS (q.v. )


([r6 vdup roD] yevvyaap [A], i Macc. and Gennesaret (yewncaper ; but D, It. (Vg. ), Pesh. , Syr. Cur. and Lewis, yevvr)<rap}, a name of the Sea of Galilee, derived from a district, also called Gen nesaret, on the W. side of the sea, towards its N. end : Mt. 1434 and Mk. 653, they came to the land, unto Gennesaret (eVi TT> yijv fts y. [WH]); Lk. 5i, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret (irapa. rj]v Xt/xvT?!/ 7. ). The best form is Gennesar, the no JJ (noirj) of the Talmud and the Targums, the yevrfvaap of Josephus (y. \i/j.vr) or 77 yevvrjffapiTis). Talmud and Targums identify Gennesaret with the Chinnereth of the OT i. e. , the name belongs primarily to a city supposed by the Jews to have lain on the W. shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Thus, Chinnereth, said R. Johanan (Meg. 6a), is Gen- nesarat. Why? Because its fruits are as sweet as the artichoke (NnrDS). According to R. Berachya, however (Ber. rah. 98), Gennesar was so called because it had princely gardens ( 33 O n^)- 1 Though Dillmann accepts the old Jewish identification, it is difficult to see the critical grounds for this. The very old name Chinnereth cannot be corrupted 2 from the recent name Gennesar, nor can Gennesar have arisen out of Chinnereth. It is probable, however, that Chinnereth was on the Sea of Galilee, and not impossible that Chorazin is a popular distor tion of the old name Chinnereth (transposition of letters, and z for tK). Chinnereth (misvocalized ?) may be connected with Ass. kardnu, (i) vine, (2) wine ;3 Gennesar is most probably from J3, garden or plantation, and 1DJ Galilee 4 (or a district of Galilee), a collateral form of which name (1^3 or nisj) is implied in the use of Nazorjean (fafcopcuo?) for Galilean in Mt. 223, and in the phrase the [Nejsarite Bethlehem, (cnV rT3 fT lsfo]) in contradistinction to Bethlehem of Judah (see NAZARETH, and cp JOSEPH iii., &/,).

The classical passage on the land of Gennesaret is Jos. BJ iii. 10 B. 5 The length of the district is estimated at 30 stadia, its breadth at 20. It is marvellous in beauty. The hardy walnut-tree grows there, but none the less the palm, which flourishes in hot climes, and close to it fig and olive trees. An ambition of nature, one might call it. Of the most princely fruits grapes and figs it gives an unbroken supply for ten months together, as well as other kinds. In addition to this excellent temperature, it is watered by a most fertilizing spring called Ka^apvaovfj. (Capernaum). The Talmud is equally enthusiastic (see Neub. Gtogr. 45).

It is no doubt the plain of el-Ghuwer (the little Ghor), which stretches, in the form of an irregular paral lelogram, verging almost to a crescent, 6 from the cliffs at Ain et-Tin ( fountain of the fig tree ) to the hill behind Mejdel, on the S. , a space measuring 3 m. by i m. It is shut in by rugged hills, except on the N. and NW. , where there is a steep descent from the hill-country of Naphtali, and from the plains of Lower Galilee, respectively. Its soil is a rich, basaltic loam, but cultivated only in patches. The rest is covered with thickets of nebk trees, oleanders, dwarf palms, and gigantic thistles and brambles. The melons and cu cumbers grown on the plain are the best and earliest in Palestine. This is of course due to the great depres sion of the plain.

1 Similarly M. Schultze (Gramm. der aram. Mutterspr. Jesu, 45, gardens of a princess ).

2 Cp Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ET, 2 363 ; Porter in Kitto s Cyclopaedia.

3 Cp Jos. BJ\\\. 108, quoted in next paragraph.

4 Buhl (Geogr. 113), after We. //GW, 220, n. 3 (who, how ever, following Jerome, makes N 3 valley the first part of the name).

5 Cp GASm. HG 446. 6 R o b. BR 3 277.

The principal spring is the Ain el-Mudauwera ( round fountain ), which is 25 minutes NW. of el-Mejdel. The basin, enclosed by a round wall, and alive with small fish, is concealed by thickets ; but the water wells out in a full stream. The spring which excites the enthusiasm of Josephus is no doubt the Ain et-Tabiga.

The Greek name mentioned in the texts of the Pilgrims was Heptapegon ; there are in fact seven springs, mostly hot, which to-day supply motive power to a mill. An aqueduct hewn in the rock brought the water southward to the plain. This is one reason why Tell Hum can hardly be the ancient Capernaum. Josephus (see above) is positive as to the name, and there was certainly no provision for guiding the water towards Tell Hiim.l Ain et-Tfn, near which is Khan Minyeh (the most probable site for CAPERNAUM), is distinguished for the sweetness of its water, which bursts forth impetuously and hurries to the lake. Close at hand are other springs ; hence, in Burckhardt s time, the pastures of Minyeh were proverbial for their richness. The largest volume of water, however, is that supplied by the Wiidy er-Rabadlyeh, which is scattered over the plain in all direc tions by small canals and watercourses (Rob. BR 3 285). On the sites of biblical localities, and on the gospel references, see GALILEE, SEA OF. T. K. C.