Encyclopaedia Biblica/Genneus-Gideon

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



RV Gennzeus ( r e N N& I oy [VI - N eoy [A] ; in Syr. jj -o), apparently the father of AFOLLONIUS, 5 (2 Macc. 122), who is thus distinguished from the other two men of that name mentioned in 2 Macc. 85 42i.


The Hebrew term Goylm (DMH) i.e. , nations is specially used for the aggregate of non-Israelite nations (Neh. 58), as opposed to and contrasted with Israel, socially, racially, politically (Ps. 2i), and religiously (Ps. 135 15).

1. Terms.[edit]

As connoting this contrast, goym is translated in AV often, and in RV less frequently (see Preface), 'Gentiles' or 'heathen' (in commonly fdvrj, in Vg. gentes], whilst DV, am (used of Israel .j.^. , Ex. 15 13 Is. 426 Di. ), is rendered people Xais, populus. In Rom. 2g/, AV inconsistently renders iXXyv Gentile, thus effacing the later antithesis between Jew and Greek (see HELLENISM, 2).

In the Apocrypha and NT the same distinction is preserved side by side with the new one just referred to. In Lk. 2 32 fdvrf and Aads <rou icrpcirjA are contrasted.

From another point of view the contrast between Israelites and non- Israelites is expressed by the term Q ysn, r*sil ii wicked = D iil, goylm nations (e.g., Ps. 9 5 [&]). Other general terms used synonymously with goylm are : D sj; ainmim, Lev. 2024 26 Ps. 33 10, and often; Q*QR ummiin, Ps. 117 I ; D SN 1 ?, k ummim, Ps. 2 i. All these terms =pcoplcs. Also Q-IN, d<ihiiin, man, Jer. 32 20 Zech. 9 i, and DlN" 33i t ne \ldhilm, sons of men, Ps. 53 2 [3] (Smend, A T Rel.-gesch. 380); BMJK, V<>J, man, Ps. 56 1 [2] (We v in Smend, 380). Similarly, in NT, KOCT/XOS is used of the world, excluding and opposed to the Church.

The individual foreigner is ^33, nokhrl, EV stranger, foreigner ; ijj- ja, b ne ntkhdr, RV strangers ; -|j, zar, EV stranger ; or, if he becomes a resident alien, 13, ger, EV stranger, "sojourner ; njrin, tdsdbh, EV stranger, sojourner. In the later books of OT (2 Ch. 30 25 ; Bertholet, Stellungd. Isr. 178) and in later Heb., 13, ger, Proselyte. Cp STRANGEK, PROSELYTE.

1 Cp H. von Soden, Reiscbriefe, 5 160 ( 98).

2. Israel before the Conquest of Canaan.[edit]

During its nomad life, Israel was scarcely a well-defined whole, clearly marked off from all non-Israelite peoples ; its constituent elements were still somewhat variable. Some of the tribes or clans which afterwards constituted Israel may have been, at times, connected with non-Israelites as closely as with Israel, if not more closely. Israel, at this stage, figures as a loosely connected group of tribes or clans, similar in character to the other groups which made up the wandering population of the Arabian and Syrian deserts. Genesis (J, followed later by P) suggests that the first stage of the religious differentiation of Israel is the consciousness on the part of these Arab and Syrian nomads of a religious and ethical status distinct from that of the more civilised Chaldaeans. In response to a divine call Abraham and Lot migrate westward.

In our present text only P narrates the migration of Terah and therefore of Nahor the ancestor of Laban, but that of Nahor seems implied in J, Gen. 24 ; cp E, 31 53 the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor. This group, Abraham, Lot, Nahor, stands for Israel, the Ishmaelite, Keturaite, and other Arabs (Gen. 2220-24), Ammon, Moab and Edom, and Aram. So, in Gen. 9 26 Yahwe is the God of Shem. Also Lot i.e., Moab and Ammon is the subject of Yahwe's special care ; Ishmael and Edom are blessed of Yahwe, and Laban speaks of Jacob as Blessed of Yahwe, Gen. 24 31.

As these ideas of tribal kinship are not likely to have arisen after the settlement in Palestine, we may prob ably regard them as handed down by tradition from the nomad period. Thus apparently the Israelite tribes in their nomad state regarded themselves as part of a complex of tribes of a similar religious status, in a measure superior to or, at any rate, distinct from that of other peoples. At the same time each tribe and group of tribes would have its own sacra, whose sanctity, however, could not differ in kind from those of other tribes. Thus, on the one hand, the idea of the goylm or non-Israelite peoples as contrasted in religious status with Israel was for the present impossible (a) because Israel was not yet a nation clearly marked off from kindred clans, (6) because Israel was unconscious of any difference in kind between its own and other religions. On the other hand, the elements of the dis tinction between Israel and the goyim were present (a) in the special relation of Israel and its kindred tribes to Yahwe, and (l>) in the possession by each tribe or group of tribes of its own special sacra.

3. Israel in Canaan in the pre-prophetic period.[edit]

The settlement in Canaan and the stirring incidents that preceded it, united Israel by a common history, cut off the nation from the nomad tribes, and fixed and defined not only its national scope, constitution, and life, but also its special relation to Yahwe. The necessary wars of the early period, and especially the strong united monarchy of Saul, David, and Solomon contributed to strengthen the newborn self-consciousness of Israel. The settlement in Canaan, however, as has been shown elsewhere, also brought into play an exactly opposite tendency (see ISRAEL, 8/. , GOVERNMENT, ^.^J ^ .).

In the early periods of the settlement in Canaan, Israel had no sense of any marked contrast, religious or otherwise, between itself and the Canaanites, so that down to the appearance of Elijah it shows little trace of any religious particularism. It is true, it made special claims for its national God, but only in the same sense as the neighbouring peoples. It does not seem to have risen to the consciousness that Yahwe was absolutely unique, and had universal and exclusive claims to obedience. Other gods also are thought of as real, with legitimate claims over their own peoples. An exile from the land of Yahwe must serve other gods (i S. 26 19). Probably Am. 7 17 Hos. 9 3^ represent traditional ideas in speaking of foreign lands as unclean /.<:., not admitting of the worship of Yahwe. Chemosh is able to bestow an inheritance on the Ammonites (Judg. 11 24 ; Smend, III/).

The attitude of Israel towards foreigners is largely conditioned by the chronic hostility common to half- civilised nations in primitive times. War is sacred, and Yahwe the national champion ; hence the enemies of Israel are also the enemies of Yahwe, and their de struction (see BAN, a/ ) is a religious act well-pleasing to him. On the other hand, hospitality to strangers is a sacred duty, and the resident alien (-13) is carefully protected and provided for. Moreover, Israel had friends and allies as well as enemies. The patriarchal narratives of JE were doubtless current during this period. The close kinship claimed with Moab, Edom, Ammon, Aram, and the Arabs suggests friendship and even a certain community of religious feeling between Israel and many of its neighbours (see above) ; compare the alliances with Tyre and Hamath. Moreover, accord ing to J, the human race is of one divinely-created stock descended through Noah from Adam. Neither the character of Israel itself nor its relations to its neigh bours suggest that the term foreigner connoted any religious ideas peculiar to Israel. On the other hand, the population of the Hebrew state was very hetero geneous. In addition to the surviving Canaanites, ac cording to Ex. 1238 Nu. 11 4 (JE), Israel included foreign elements before the settlement ; and the many refer- ences to resident aliens (nna) suggest that there were in Israel considerable numbers of other foreigners. 1 As has been well pointed out, the religious status of foreigners in Israel did not differ essentially from their status elsewhere. The relations of Israel to resi dent aliens are political and social rather than spiritual. 2 This does not of course apply to the permanent non- Israelite population, Canaanites, etc. As we have seen, the interaction of religious influences between the latter and Israel is a most important feature in the develop ment of the Hebrew attitude towards non-Israelites and their religion. During this period the tendency was towards assimilation and syncretism.

4. The Prophets.[edit]

In tracing the development of the doctrine of the goyim, it is convenient to treat the prophets and Judaism as two consecutive stages ; but no hard and fast chronological line can be drawn between them : they overlap for a considerable period. It is not merely that there were germs of Judaism in the prophets, and that the writings, and, in some measure, the ideas and spirit of the prophets survived even to the Christian era ; the great move ment which began with Amos and Hosea continued at least till 2 Isaiah ; whilst Judaism begins formally in Deuteronomy, and Ezekiel belongs far more to the Judaistic than to the prophetic stage of Jewish theology.

i. Particularism. Jewish particularism had its root in the reaction against the syncretistic tendencies of the previous period. Elijah, Elisha, and their successors felt that Baal-worship, or any confusion of Yahw6 with Baal or Moloch, or any assimilation of his worship to theirs, corrupted the national life and dissolved that close union of Yahwe with Israel which was essential to the very existence of the nation. The struggle was continued, in varying forms, till the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. In a measure the prophets started from the conception of national gods to whom the nation should be loyal (Jer. 2n) e.g., Israel to Yahwe; but their application of the principle was novel. National gods expected a profusion of sacrifices from their peoples ; but if they were duly honoured they did not grudge any tribute offered by their worshippers to other gods. The prophets and JE, however, claimed for Yahwe Israel s exclusive homage (Ex. 20s).

This protest against Yahwe being confounded or associated with other gods involved an assertion of his unique character and authority. When the prophetic revelation declared the absolute morality of Yahwe, it implied alike his uniqueness (Kayser- Marti, OT Tkeol. 142) and his supremacy. Other gods, who neither professed morality themselves nor exacted it from their worshippers, were obviously inferior and abominable (DlDI/in ; Dt. 7 z^f. 27 15 Is. 44 19). Yahwe s supremacy over the nations is implied in the prophetic oracles concerning foreign nations, in his use of Assyria and Chaldaea as instruments to chastise Israel, and this uniqueness and supremacy are most fully stated in 2 Isaiah ; cp also the use of the general term Elohim for the God of Israel in E. While stress is chiefly laid on the incom parable superiority of Yahwe, the necessary deductions as to other gods are drawn with increasing clearness. A certain reality is still ascribed to them, and their worship by other nations seems regarded as legitimate ; Dt. 4 19 has been interpreted to mean that Yahweassigned the host of heaven as objects of worship to all the nations undett lie whole heaven (cp Jer. 2 n), and, accord ing to Smend (182, 206), Jer. 2s 2813 Is. 3022 817 recognise a certain reality in heathen gods. Still, they are D 7 7t<, no. gods (Is. 28 etc. Hab. 2 18 Ezek. 30 13), D r6x X 1 ?, not gods (Jer. 2 n) ; in Dt. 7 26 their images are banned (CHn) ; so in i K. IS Yahwe is shown to be the God (D rONr) by the discomfiture of Baal (cp 2 K. 615 19 15-18 Is. 41 23/1). In Is. 44 9-20 and the dependent passage, Jer. lOi-g (post-exilic addition), the foreign gods are identified with their idols and overwhelmed with contempt as stocks and stones. In Ezek. 30 13 the no- gods are to perish ; cp the Aramaic gloss, Jer. 10 n.

1 The gerini, however, are sometimes Israelites, living in a strange clan or tribe. Cp JEKE.MIAH ii.

2 Bertholet, 76, slightly paraphrased.

This exaltation of Yahwe, in all its varying aspects, established a religious contrast between Israel and other nations, (a) Baal-worship and the corruptions of the high places had arisen from intercourse with foreigners, hence the religious polemic tended to social separatism. (b) The inferiority of foreign gods implied the religious inferiority of foreigners, (c) The foreign invaders did not recognise that they were instruments of Yahwe ; they went beyond their commission in oppressing Israel, and did not acknowledge Yahwe s supremacy. Hence they excited the righteous indignation of their victims ; they set themselves in opposition to Yahwe, and goylm came to represent a world at enmity with him, and therefore doomed to destruction (Jer. 1625 ; Schultz, O T Theol. 2 373 / , ET). (d) The exaltation of Yahwe, the God of Israel (Dt. fassim], implied the exaltation of Israel. Israel is the wife of Yahwe (Hos. 2 3 Jer. 2 2 Ezek. 16 Is. 54s/".), united with him by a special covenant (Hos. 2i8[2o] Jer. 11 10, etc.). Judah (and especially Jerusalem) is exalted as the special dwelling of Yahwe : Am. 1.2 Mic. 4 1-3 = Is. 22-4 (the authorship and date of these passages is matter of controversy).

The growing tendency to particularism is clear in the literature. The prophets consistently denounce foreign alliances.

E, in the relations of Abraham the Prophet to Abimelech, Gen. 20 2122-31, foreshadows the spiritual pre-eminence of Israel (Bertholet, 84). According to Smend ("197) the concep tion of the anti-religious character of the Gentiles is first found in Hos. 8 10 9 i. Dt. 7 1-6 displays fierce hostility to the Canaanites of Western Palestine, probably as types of foreign races. All intermarriage with them is forbidden. In Dt. 23 3 [4] the Ammonites and Moabites are excluded from the con gregation of Israel to the tenth generation. So in Hab. 1413 Israel is righteous (p 1S) and the Chaldaeans wicked (i cn). Lam. 1 10 says of the goyini who sacked Jerusalem whom thou didst forbid to enter thy congregation.

ii. Universalism. Nevertheless, the prophetic exalta tion of Yahwe tended not only to particularism but also to universalism. It was, indeed, natural that the suprem acy of Yahwe over the nations should be thought of as manifesting itself in their chastisement ; thus many of the oracles of the nations seem to contemplate their utter ruin, especially Jer. 2615-33 4628. Naturally, too, in Is. 60, etc. , Israel shares Yahwe s political supremacy. Still, as time went on, it was obvious that although many calamities befell the goylm, and great empires like Assyria disappeared, yet the goylm as a whole remained. The fact that their extinction was not, at any rate, the immediate purpose of Yahwe is recognised and explained in two ways : (a) Some passages speak of the restoration or renewed prosperity of at least a remnant of certain nations e.g. , Jer. 4626 1 (Egypt) 4847 1 (Moab) 496 1 (Ammon) 4939 1 (Elam) Ezek. 29 13 ff.^ (Egypt). (b] Other passages contemplate a double judgment of the goyim, one in the immediate future from which they may recover, and another later, which will involve their complete and final overthrow. In Ezek. 38/. , after the overthrow of Chaldasa, which was to be the prelude to the restoration of the Jews, Gog and Magog are induced to attack Judah that they maybe totally destroyed (cp Is. 24 22 66 18/ Zeph. 3 8ft , Smend, 381/1). Again, however much Israel might be interested in its own political supremacy, politics were closely connected with religion. Thus Yahwe s supremacy implied religious claims upon the goyim, his supremacy was not complete unless they acknowledged and obeyed him ; but he was the God of Israel, and such obedience implied the religious supremacy of Israel.

So in Is. 2 2-4-= Mic. 4 1-3 all nations are to come to Zion to learn the true religion ; in Is. 19 18-252 Egypt and Assyria are to be united with Israel as Yahwe s people ; in Is. 23 17 f. * the merchandise of Tyre is to be consecrated to Yahwe (interpreta tion doubtful) ; in Jer. 12 ^\ff. the neighbours of Israel ate to be restored if they will learn the ways of Yahwe (cp 817 f. ~ 16 \qff.\ These ideas of the comprehension of goylm amongst tin- worshippers of Yahwe, and of the mission of Israel to reveal him, reach their climax in the passages in which 2 Isaiah sets forth the servant of Yahwe i.e., Israel as a light to the Gen- tiles and my salvation unto the ends of the earth (49 6; cp 51 4). So in 42 5 Yahwe s care is for all mankind, in 45 22 Yahwe appeals to all the ends of the earth to turn to him, in 44 5 45 14^ 604/1 the restoration of Israel leads the gdyiin to recognise Yahwe as the one God ; cp i K. 8 41-43.

1 According to Kau., Co., Jer. 4626 496-39 are by Jeremiah, but 48 47 is a gloss (not in ). All these passages are somewhat doubtful. Cp Jeremiah ii.

Similarly ; Dt. shows a kindly feeling towards some of the kindred nations ; in 2 1-13 it was Yahwe who gave Esau and Moab their inheritance, and the children of Esau are the brethren of Israel; in 23 7 [8] Edomites and Egyptians are commended to the kindly consideration of Israel. Yahwe is not wholly taken up with Israel, he cares in like manner for Philistines and Syrians (Am. 9 7). Nebuchadrezzar is his servant (Jer. 25 9) and Cyrus his anointed (Is. 45 i). /

Moreover Dt. extends to the resident alien a share in the religious duties and privileges of the Israelite (1610-17; parti cipation in feasts). The provision of sabbath rest for the gcr in Ex. 20 10 23 12 is often regarded as due to R D (Bertholet, 102).

Whenever OT consciously deals with the doctrine of man it recognises a religious relation of man as man with Yahwe ; hence the goylm are the objects of the justice of Yahwe and may perish under his chastisements, but they may also honour and obey him and receive his favours.

5. Judaism.[edit]

We have seen that the prophetic revelation, in exalting Yahwe above other gods, initiated two apparently contrary tendencies towards (i.) Jewish particularism, (ii.) umversalism in religion ; with a tendency to identify the gcrim more closely with Israel. We have now to trace the further development of these tendencies.

It should be noted, however, first of all, that the prophetic exaltation of Yahwe by no means developed, as we might have expected it to do, into an abstract monotheism. It is not upon the imaginary character of other gods that Judaism dwells, but upon their subordination to the only God worthy of the name (Ps. 1831 [32]). The constant reference to the sacred objects of hemhenism as abominations, filth, etc., suggests of itself that a kind of reality, a kind of sanctity (enp) attaches to them (Smend, 206, n. i) ; they continue to belong to the class of superhuman beings, either as angels or as demons. This, how ever, does but intensify the earnestness of Jewish opposition to heathenism. Hence the old question as to the position of \.\&ger~un came to be viewed in a new lic;ht. If the Jews were to be absolutely separate from the goylm, they had to decide whether to exclude the gcrim altogether or to include them in Israel. They adopted the latter course. The gcrim, who had shared the captivity, shared also the antagonism of the Jews to the Chaldaeans ; the differences between Jews and gerltn were forgotten in the infinitely greater differences between both and their oppressors (Bertholet, no). Thus, for Ezek. 4722 and P (Ex. 1-49, etc.), the religious status ofthcgirim is prac tically identical with that of the Jews. Two important non- Israelite bodies were at last formally incorporated into the Jewish community by being genealogically connected with Israelite tribes, the Kenites with Judah, i Ch. 2 55 413, the temple-servants with the Levites, i Ch. (i 31-48 [16-23] 9 1 4"34- See KENITE, NETHINIM.

i. Jewish particularism. The shame and misery of the exile and of much of the post-exilic period fostered and deepened Jewish hatred of foreigners. Their con sciousness of spiritual pre-eminence prompted them to claim political distinction. Yahw6 gives Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba as a ransom for Israel (Is. 483). They were constantly exasperated by the contrast between their claims and their achievements. The old prophetic con demnation of Israel as corrupt, and the consequent sentence of ruin, lay in the background. The psalter which, at any rate in its present form, mainly ex presses the sentiments of post-exilic Judaism dwells with much iteration on the contrast between Israel, sinful indeed, but yet the righteous people of Yahwe, and the goylm, who are wicked (D ^TH) and God s enemies (Ps. 8a[ 3 ] 682 74 4-23 83 3 [ 4 ] 89 51 [52]). Israel still looked for deliverance through the ruin of the goynn (Hag. 2 2 i/. Zech. 1 18-21 [2i-4] 14 Dan. 12i Ps" 2; cp ARMAGEDDON, Rev. 16 12-16 19 11-21). The in tensity of Jewish feeling towards foreigners is specially shown by Pss. 7 35 69 1 09 and the Book of Esther. Moreover, the legislation from Dt. , through Ezek. , the Law of Holiness, and the various Priestly Laws, to the Mishna and the Talmud, all tended to make the Jews a race apart. Not only were foreigners excluded from the temple and intermarriage with them strictly for bidden, but the manifold regulations as to ceremonial cleanness produced mutual dislike and contempt be tween Jew and Gentile. They prevented any mitigation of race antipathy by social intercourse ; and made every distinction between Jew and Gentile a mark of religious superiority, a token that Israel is kadoS (EV holy ; see CLEAN, i), as becomes the people of Yahwe.

Even the two rites of the eucharist and baptism have been most fruitful sources of bitterness and schism in Christendom. The countless rites of Judaism worked similar results still more effectually. Theological contrasts intensified the mutual aliena tion. Prophets might see mankind at the feet of the God of Israel ; but there were no signs of any realisation of such visions. Meanwhile these same prophets had put an end to the old indiffer ence to and tolerance of the worship of other gods by foreigners. The fierce and scornful denunciation of these gods obviously involved the condemnation of their worshippers (Is. 4124 44 y 47g 52 i ii ; Smend, 371). As far as foreigners understood the Jewish faith, this assumption of superiority would be intensely irritating, scorn would beget scorn, and mutual alienation and hostility would rapidly increase.

Thus the Exile would naturally incline loyal and zealous Jews to particularism ; and exiles who returned with Ezra and Nehemiah or at an earlier period would be specially loyal and zealous. Palestine, as they found it on their return, was wholly at variance with all their religious ideals. Indeed the very existence of revealed religion was in jeopardy. The population left behind in Palestine after Samaria and Jerusalem had fallen was probably as heterogeneous in race as that of the old Hebrew states. Samaria, moreover, had been partially repeopled by foreigners who, in a fashion, worshipped Yahwe and became amalgamated with the remnant of the Israelites, thus introducing a new link between Israel and the goylm. During the Exile rela tions were established between these Samaritans, the remnant of the Jews, and the neighbouring tribes. Thus the Jews in post-exilic Palestine tended to become a mixed community, with an eclectic faith, in which Yahwe, though the highest in rank, would have been indistinguishable in character from the foreign gods. The Jews, indeed, would have been a mere section of a loose aggregate of peoples in Palestine (Ezra 4 i_/i ). In spite of Ezra 43, We have nothing in common, that ye should join us in building a temple for our God, 1 in which Zerubbabel repudiates all connection with the Samaritans, it is clear that both among the nobles and among the people Ezra found many Jews who lived in the closest intercourse with their Samaritan and Gentile neighbours. The connection had been cemented by frequent intermarriage. Ezra and Nehemiah speci ally attacked this latter practice, and after a long and desperate struggle succeeded in dissolving many, if not all, of these alliances, and in rendering such marriages illegal in the future (Ezra 9/. Neh. 1030 13, see EZRA i. 5 _/! ). Thus they prevented the Jews from being merged in the neighbouring tribes, and made them a people by themselves, cut off from ihegoyim as by a physical barrier. By the establishment of a Samaritan religious community, with a temple of its own, Nehemiah s enemies confessed themselves defeated. They no longer hoped to force themselves into the temple at Jerusalem and the Jewish fellowship. Henceforward the orthodox doctrine re specting the goylm was that of P ; they were unclean persons, whose presence would pollute the sacred land, people, and temple, and who were therefore to be kept aloof from these as much as possible. Ezra 621 speaks of those who separated themselves from the unclean- ness of the goylm of the country. P s denunciations of the abominations (nbJJin) of the Canaanites and of all association with them are a standard to determine the behaviour of the Jews towards other foreigners (Lev. 1824-30 202 3 Nu. 3~3 50-56 ; cp Is. 358 52i Ps. 10i6 7Sss 79i).

1 In view of Kosters theory of the post-exilic period, it has been doubted whether these words are correctly ascribed to Zerubbabel (Bertholet, 125); but at any rate it seems certain that they were the watchword of a Judaistic party before the advent of Ezra.

ii. Universalism in Religion. The tendency to particularism, however, did not extinguish the uni- versalist aspect of the prophetic teaching ; partly no doubt because the writings of the prophets were read and their authority acknowledged. The actual political opponents of Ezra and Nehemiah seem to have been worldly and half-heathen ; yet earnest, spiritual men, who may have given a general support to the reforms, protested against pushing particularism to extremes ; Ruth (on the date see RUTH, BOOK OF) favours mixed marriages, and Jonah is a strong protest against hatred towards the gdyim.

Other universalist passsages were probably written without any thought of their relation to current particularism ; they were ideal rather than practical. The catholic spirit of the prophets, which (as we have seen, 4 ii.) especially manifests itself in 2 Isaiah, reappears in Is. 1919-25 (on the date, see ISAIAH ii., 9 [10]), Zech. 14i6 etc. This tendency shows itself even in the strictly Judaistic literature. P (Gen. 1 91-7) recognises the divine origin and sanctity of man as man; Zech. 2n [15] 97 Mai. In Tob. 13 n speak of many nations submitting them selves to God. Moreover the form of the Wisdom literature is cosmopolitan ; the contrast is not between Jew and Gentile, but between wise and foolish.

Finally, particularism and universalism blended in proselytising. Mankind might all enjoy the divine favour, and yet this favour might still be strictly limited to Jews, by the simple condition that mankind must become Jews, must receive circumcision, the physical token of Judaism, and adopt its social and religious customs. Even in this attempted combination the old antagonism broke out afresh. The school of Hillel (cp Mt. 23 15) were zealous in proselytising and sought to make admission to Judaism easy ; the school of Sham- mai were strongly opposed to proselytes ; and relics of the conflict are still to be read in the Talmud (Bertholet 3 I 9jT-)- On tne other hand, Jewish particularism was constantly endangered by the influence of HELLENISM (q.v.} and by political relations with foreign powers.

The Jews prayed and offered sacrifices for their suzerains (Jer. 29 7 Ezra (jgf. 7 15-23 i Mace. 7 33 Bar. 1 n Jos. BJu. 17 2) and for friendly nations (i Mace. 12 ii : Spartans) ; Pss. 45 and 72 have been supposed to be written in honour of Ptolemy Philadelphus. The Maccabees and the Herods had very close and often very friendly relations with foreign powers, Greek, Roman, Arab, Syrian, and Parthian. These relations often led foreigners to adopt Judaism and circumcision ; but they also exercised a strong influence upon the Jews. The DISPERSION (?.v.) of the Jews had a similar twofold effect.

Thus from B.C. 200 we constantly meet with a strong Hellenising party in Palestine, and a similar tendency asserted itself elsewhere. It was checked in Palestine by the success of the Maccabaean revolt and the zeal of the Pharisees. Christianity, by drawing to itself the universalist elements, secured the victory over particular ism in Judaism. Judaistic Christians, indeed, attempted to secure that Gentiles should not be admitted to the Church, unless they became Jews ; but Paul finally delivered Christianity from Jewish exclusiveness by en forcing the principle that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Here we touch the fringe of a new and great subject HELLENISM (q.v.). Cp GALATIANS, i2/.

6. Literature.[edit]

Oehler, OT Theol. (ET), 1168-242 2398-405; Schultz, OT Theol, (ET) 2373-382; Smend, AT Rcl.-gesch. 111-119, 130-139 147-150, 348-423; Kayser, AT Theol. W (ed. Marti) and (3) (called Gesch. d. israel. Rel.~), 23. 35, 45 I Di- A T Theol. 15-52, 354-402 ; Cheyne, OPs. 291-297, 305-307; cp nS/I 131, 1457: 169 f. ; Benzinger, HA, and Nowack, ffA, s.v. Heiden ; Bertholet, DieStellung der Israelitenutidder Judcnzu den P remden ( 96).

W. H. B.


(n2| r-ANHBA9 [BAL]), son of Hadad the Edomite (i K. 11 20). The text is in much disorder (see HADAD i. , 3; MIZRAIM, zb). We shall best restore v. igf. as follows, assuming that Hadad had fled to Mizrim (the N. Arabian Musri), the king of which land, or of the larger realm to which it belonged, was called Pir u And he gave him as a wife the sister of his (own) wife, and she bore him his son Genubath and reared him (IH^JBI, Klo. ) in the midst of Pir u s house. And Genubath was in the house of Pir u in the midst of Pir u s sons. Probably Genubath, like his father, became a fierce enemy of Israel. His name (Gunubath?) may mean foreigner ; cp Ar. januba, peregrinus fuit (cp, however, NAMES, 63, 78). Speculations based on Egyptian (PSBA 10372^) are misplaced. See JQR 11 551^ ( 99). T. K. c.



I . Descriptive :

  • Early notions (1).
  • Cardinal points (2).
  • Extent of known world (3).
  • Seas, rivers, mountains, deserts (4-7).
  • Foreign countries : Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria ( 8-10).
  • No maps (11a).
  • Geographical lists (11b)

II. Development of geographical knowledge :

  • Early period (12 a).
  • Tenth century (12 b).
  • Eighth century ( 12 c).
  • J's list (13-17).
  • Fifth century B.c. ( 18).
  • P's list ( 19-23).
  • East in Greek period ( 24).
  • Apocryphal books ( 25).
  • New Testament (26).


  • Geographical horizon of Israel at various periods.
  • Map no. 1. Pre-monarchic.
  • Map no. 2. In l0th cent.
  • Map no. 3. In 8th cent.
  • Map no. 4. In 5th cent.
  • Map of the world according to Strabo.

The object of this article is not to discuss the identi fication of places. That can in general be done better under the several place-names, 2 and is here a means, not an end. The object is to investigate the nature of the geographical conceptions of the Hebrews and the extent of their geographical information. The last three centuries ( 200 B. C. - 100 A. D. ) of the period covered by the scheme of this Encyclopedia are treated more briefly, because, as the Hebrews became more and more a part of the Hellenistic or the Roman world, they came to share more and more fully the general geographical ideas and information of a world that lies beyond the immediate scope of the work ; see Strabo's map (below).

1 The outline maps are tentative and suggestive merely. Nothing is indicated as known at any period for which there does not appear to be documentary evidence ; on the other hand, the argument from silence is net to be pressed with reference to details, and the actual line dividing the known from the unknown must have been vague and fluctuating. The maps are intended only as hints to aid the reader in forming some general idea of the expansion of Israel s horizon.

2 On the further question of the correctness of the traditional reading of some place-names, see NAMES, 88.

1. Early notions.[edit]

Among the ancient Hebrews there is little evidence of interest in geography as a scientific study. Their view of the earth as a whole seems to have been for the most part unreflecting and dependent on their common experience of natural phenomena.

Chief among these were the apparent rising and setting of the heavenly bodies (especially the sun), and the horizon-line enclosing the visible earth.

The sun goes out (xs% Judg. 631 Gen. 19 23 [J] Is. 13 10 ; XS1D is sun-rise, Ps. 19 7 [6]) in the morning, and at night goes in (xi3. Gen. 15 12 17 [J] 28 ii [E], and often ; man is sun-set, Ps. 104 19= West, Dt. 11 30 Jos. 1 4). Reflection upon this appears in the very late passage Eccles. 1 5.

The earth is a stationary mass ; its trembling is a sign of supernatural power (Judg. 64 Is. 21921).

That its surface is relatively flat and circumscribed, seems to follow from the expression (poetical and comparatively late ; but this may only arise from the fragmentary character of our sources) r-\x DSX> ends of the earth (Dt. 33 17 i S. 2 10 Mic. 64 [3] Jer. 16 19 Ps. 2s; cp WIND), as well as from the story of the flood (Gen. "/.).

In the earliest times the question of support for this earth, felt to be solid and firm, was not raised.

There was water beneath it (Ex.204 [E], Gen. 49 25 [older poem in J, whence Dt. 33 13 ; see Dr. ad lac.] ; cp Gen. 7 n [PJ) ; but not until Ps. 24 2 (probably post -exilic, see Ols. , Ba. ,Che. OPs. 236) does the conception of Yahwe s founding the earth upon the seas appear. This may be nothing more than poetic imagery ; and the same remark will apply to the thought of its resting on pillars (poet, and late ; i S. 28 Ps. 104 5 Job 38 4 Is. 48 13, etc.). A still bolder conception is that of Job 20 7 : Who hangeth [the] earth upon nothingness" (nO 73 ! Che. o ^3n).

2. Cardinal Points.[edit]

The rising and setting of the heavenly bodies gave the Hebrews, like other peoples, the standard of direction. They took their stand facing the sunrise.

What we call the East they called the Front (nip> Gen. 2 8 12 8 [J], and often) or place of dawning (jrtf& ; iraroAij). So our West was for them the Behind ("linN, Is. 9 12 [n], cp Zech. 14s Joel 2 20), but usually (from their situation in Palestine) the direction of the sea (CT, Gen. 12 8 13 14 28 14 [J], and often). The North they called the Left faoto, Gen. 14 15 Job 23 9 Josh. 19 26) but usually the Hidden, or Dark (pBS) probably (if this be the true interpretation) 1 because in N. latitudes the N. is farthest from the course of the sun. The South was the Right (J D , i S. 23 24 [J], etc. ; |D B, Zech. 6 6 9 14 Job 39 26 Ex. 26 18 [P] ; chiefly in P, Ezek., and late poet.), but also (most prob ably) the Shining (Dm ; also poet, and late ; Dt. 33 23 Job 37 17 Eccles. 1 6 113, and often Ezek. [v. BDB 204 i]), and also the Dry, Barren (3JJ, Gen. 12 9 [J], and often, see Di. on Gen. 129; 333 n is, however, usually a specific name the South Country, the southern part of Judah and the adjoining region to the south). Cp NEGEB, EARTH (FOUR QUARTERS OF).

3. Extent of known world.[edit]

How far did the knowledge of the Hebrews extend in these several directions ? The extreme limits, as far as our canonical books testify - and their information was doubtless often fragmentary and vague - were these : On the E. to Media, Elam, Persia, with an allusion to India (nil ; see INDIA) in Esth. 1 1 Sgt (OPHIR and SINIM are doubtful); on the N. to a range of (peoples and) countries extending from Northern Armenia (Magog, Ashkenaz, Ararat, Togarmah) across Asia Minor (Gomer, Tubal, Meshek) ; on the W. , past Cyprus (Kittim), Ionia (Javan), Crete (Kaphtor), Carthage (or Sicily [Elisha]), to Tartessus (Tarshish) in Spain ; on the S. to Ethiopia (Cush), and Southern Arabia (Sheba, Hadramaut).

It is possible that Hebrew knowledge extended still farther ; the Greek historians learned of regions farther N. (Thracians, Kimmerians, Herod. 4n/~. , Strabo, vii. 22, Frag. 47) ; the Phoenicians, if the Greeks can be believed, sailed farther W. and NW. , and, commis sioned by the Egyptians, circumnavigated Africa (on the same authority, Herod. 442 ; it was under Necho, 610- 594 B.C. ; cp E. Meyer, GA I. 411 ; Wiedemann, AG 627; Junker, Umschiffung Afrikas durch die Phonizier, 1863); the Assyrians pushed farther to the NE. Some thing of this knowledge may have come to the Hebrews in Palestine, and doubtless did to the Jews of the Dis persion, before our last canonical OT book was written. Here, however, we can only conjecture. We are with out definite testimony.

1 Earth conjectures a relationship with Ar. sa&z = east wind, the meaning having become changed. This seems very doubtful, but cp EARTH [FouR QUARTERS], i.

4. Seas.[edit]

Within these limits certain great physical features are noted, such as seas and rivers, and (less often) mountain ranges and deserts.

i. Of seas the Mediterranean naturally takes the first place ; it is the sea.

D .l, 'the sea' (Nu. 1829 [E], and very often in all periods [see D = West, above]) ; so also plur. D 2 , Judg. 5 17 and (prob.) Dan. 11 45 (Meinh., Bev.) ; more fully the great sea of the sun set, Josh. 14 2:i4 ([both D] ; so in Assyrian tiaintu ralntu sa sulniu satiisi, Schr. Nainen der Meere, 171 ff.), and simply the great sea (Nu. 34 6 f. Josh. 15 12 47 [all P or R] ; cp Josh. 9 i Ezek. 47 10 15 19 f. 4828); great and wide-stretching sea (Ps. 104 25) is rather a description than a name ; also the hinder (or western) sea, Dt. 11 24 342 (perhaps with pedantic explicitness) Zech. 14 8 Joel 2 20 (in these by contrast with the front [or eastern] sea ).

Particular parts of the Mediterranean were known as the sea of the Philistines (Ex. 2831 [E]) and the seaofjoppa (2 Ch. 2 16 [15] Ezra 87).

ii. The RED SEA [q.v. ] is yam Siipti (fpD Q ), referring usually to the western arm between Sinai and Egypt (Ex. 10i 9 [J] 13i8 [E] and often).

Sea of Suph also may be simply the sea, when the reference is clear from the context (Ex. 14 1626 [E], and often) ; also sea of Egypt Is. 11 15). In i K. 926 ]lDTr denotes the gulf of Akaba ; cp the parallel expression Eloth on the shore of the sea in the land of Edom (2 Ch. 817).

iii. Of local importance and often mentioned is the Salt Sea i.e., the Dead Sea.

n^?n D^ (Gen. 14 3 Josh. 3 16 [JE], etc.), called also sea of the Arabah (n31j;n D ), Josh. 3 16 Dt. 3 17 2 K. 14 25, etc.; the front ( = eastern) sea, 3b"lj3ri Djn, Ezek. 47 18 Zech. 14s Joel 2 20 (see hinder sea, above, 2, begin.) ; and simply D^ (Is. 168 Jer. 48 32).

iv. More rarely we hear of the Sea of Chinnereth or of Chinngroth ( = Lake Gennesaret, Sea of Galilee), rn33 D^, Nu. 34 n Josh. 1827 [both P], and nr\33 D;, Josh. 12 3 [D] ; simply n% Dt. 33 23 (see CHINNERETH, GENNESAR).

These seas are thus known under slightly varying names in all OT times.

The OT knows nothing of the Euxine and Caspian Seas, and nothing of the smaller but nearer lakes of Van and Urumiyeh. Its acquaintance with Magog and the early history of Gomer, as well as with NE. Assyria and E. Armenia, is therefore imperfect, or else its interest in these great sheets of water is not sufficient to secure mention of them. It is possible that the Persian Gulf is to be recognised in the phrase desert of the Sea (D -isnp), Is. 21 1 (so Di. ; but the text is doubtful ; see Che. SBOT}.

The phrase from sea to sea occurs three or four times (OT3 tT"iy, Am. 8 12 Zech. 9 10 Ps. 72 8 ; cp DV3 D^> Mic. 7 12) marking the limits of the region from which the Jewish exiles will return (in Mic. 7 12 read from sea to sea ), and of the dominion of the great future king of Israel (Zech. 9 10 Ps. 72s). In Am. 8 12, however, if the passage be genuine, the two seas intended will be the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. It is true this seems an improbable designation of the boundaries of the northern kingdom. Hence (and for other reasons ; see AMOS, 14) Am. 8 ii f. may be a later insertion.

The general term sea (or seas), as a comprehensive name for the watery portion of the earth s surface, is a late idea. The contrasted idea is that of dry land, which, in the cosmogony of P, is thought of as having emerged to view by the process of collecting within certain limits the waters that originally covered the entire earth (see Gen. lg / 21 ff. Job 88816 Ps. 6935 89g 104 (>ff. Prov. 829 Eccles. 1 7, etc.).

5. Rivers.[edit]

Rivers played an important part in the history of OT times.

Of foreign rivers the most important are the Euphrates and the Nile.

i. The EUPHRATES is often simply the river.

rns, Euphrates (Gen. 2 14 [J]), rns-in: (Gen. 15 18 [J] Dt. 1 7 11 24 Josh. 1 4 [D], etc.), the River, n.Tjri (Gen. 31 21 Ex. 23 31 Nu. 22 5 Josh. 24 *f. ^f. [all E] 2 S. lo"r6 Is. 7 20 i K. 4 24 [5 4] 14 15 Jer. 2 18, etc.) ; less often, redundantly, the river, the river Euphrates (Dt. 11 24), and the great river, the river Euphrates (Gen. 15 18 Dt. 1 7 Josh. 14); it is called rj because of its vast- ness and might (Jer. 51 36 [Graf, not Gie.], and according to Del. also Is. 21 1).

The people believed that across the Euphrates lay their early home (Josh. 2l2/. H/ [E]). On the question of the earliest historical seats of the Israelites, see ISRAEL, iff.; EXODUS i., i/.\ HEBREW, i. ARAM-NAHARAIM (Gen. 24 10, etc. [J]) contains cer tainly a reference to the Euphrates ; it became the ideal boundary of their land on the NE. (Gen. 15iS [JE] Dt. 1 7 Il2 4 Josh. 1 4 [all D]), a boundary which, according to Israel's tradition, Solomon for a time realised (i K. 421 [5i] 424 bis [64]) ; not only did the crossing of it make an epoch in the individual life (Jacob, Gen. 31 21 [E]), but the Euphrates formed also a real boundary between the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms and the territory to the W. Just as, on the one hand, we find Assyrian kings noting with care the fact of a passage of the Euphrates (see, e.g. , COT on i K. 20 1) as a departure from their own soil, so on the other, the challenging Egyptian army under Necho went thither against Assyria (2 K. 2829), and of Nebu chadrezzar s conquest it is said that the king of Baby lon had taken, from the river of Egypt [see EGYPT, RIVER OF] unto the River Euphrates, all that pertained to the king of Egypt (2 K. 24?) ; and so we have the promise of the return of scattered Hebrews from Egypt even to the River (Mic. 7 12). The Euphrates became in poetical usage one of the boundaries of the known world, in the phrase from the River unto the ends of the earth (Ps. 728 = Zech. 9io).

ii. THE NILE is known as IN , -rix , a word of Egyp tian origin meaning stream (see EGYPT, 6), but usually employed in the OT with the art. as a proper name.

So in Gen. 41 1 f. 318 Ex. 122 Am. 88, and often; in Am. 88 9 5 it occurs also as Q ISD IN (Nile), stream of Egypt, and in Is. 19 5 Nah. 38 bis even as Q< ; cp Is. 27 i and Q a, Ezek. 32 2.

Although the Nile was historically less important (to the Hebrews) than the Euphrates, the references to it show a more intimate and particular acquaintance.

It was bordered by reeds or sedge ( nN, Gen. 41 2 18 [see FLAG, 2]; rpn> Ex. 235 [see FLAG, i]; cp ?UJ5 [see REED, i] and rpD, Is. 196) and by meadows (n ny, Is. 19 7 [see REED, 2]); it was divided into arms, branches, or canals, D lSD "IX) (Is. 7i8), niso nx; (Is. 196), Nile-streams of Egypt (cp SHIHOR OF EGYPT) ; it was used for bathing (Ex. 2 5) ; its water, for drinking (Ex. 7 1821 24); it had fish (Ex. 7 21 Is. 198, cp Ezek. 29 4), and frogs (Ex. 8 3 [7 28] 8911(5 7]) all in JE passages of Hex. ; it had its periods of rising and falling (Am. 8s 9 5); it occasioned abundant crops hence the phrase the seed of Shihor, the harvest of the Nile (Is. 283, but on the text see SBOT Isaiah ) ; the drying up of the Nile was therefore the worst calamity for Egypt, Is.l95_^ OiJJ> river, is applied to the Nile only in Is. 19 5). On the rivers of Cush (Is. 18 i Zeph. 3 10) see CUSH, i.

iii. The Tigris (HIDDEKEL), being mentioned in only two books, can be treated more briefly.

Gen. 2 14 [J] mentions the Tigris as one of the Eden rivers. The description (which is probably later than the mention of the name) is as follows : This is the one that flows in front of Assyria. Dan. 104 s tne only other passage which refers by name to the Tigris ; it is noteworthy that the Tigris is here styled the great river (elsewhere the Euphrates); in Dan. 12s bis, 6f. it is called IN another indubitable sign of late date.

This scanty reference to so important a stream cannot fail to surprise us. Even more strange is it, however, that the nearer river Orontes is entirely ignored. Nor do we hear the names of Araxes and Kyros ; the Oxus and the Indus are as little known as the Ganges, the Danube, or the Tiber. The most easterly stream men tioned is the Elamite river UI.AI (q.v. ), and that not until the second century B.C. (Dan. 82).

iv. Within a narrower area the water - courses or wadys (^ni = l\.&\. jiumara] attracted attention, being especially characteristic of Canaan and the adjacent territory, and conditioning its development. As the Euphrates was the ideal limit of Israelitish domain on the NE. , so a ravine (and its stream) served the same purpose on the SW. This is the Wady el-Arish, the natural frontier of Palestine towards Egypt (see EGYPT, ii. ), described by Esarhaddon (Del. Par. 311) as the wady of Egypt where there was no river.

The term nahal mat Musur ( .wady of Egypt ) exactly represents Q ^D Vrn an d we have a right to be surprised to find the phrase Q lSD ina in Gen. 15 18 (JE ?). The subject is treated elsewhere (EGYPT, RIVER OF) ; but the present writer may express his opinion that -|ru s an error of tl.e text (observe "1H3 almost immediately afterwards) for ?riJ. True, has airb TOU TTOTtifiOv for the usual xei/juippov, or, as in Josh. 164, <t>dpay- yos ; but it has wora^ov also in i K. 8 65.

6. Mountains.[edit]

Few but the most familiar mountains or mountain ranges are brought before us. Outside of Palestine the most famous mountain is that connected by tradition with Moses (see SINAI), NE. from which lay Mount SEIR (strictly, the mountain region of Seir). See also HOK, PISGAH, ARARAT, 3. That Mt. Taurus should be ignored is surprising, for this was the barrier between Syria and Asia Minor. Nor is anything said of Mt. Zagros, NW. of Media ; or of the Elamitic and Susian mountains. The Caucasus would be beyond the Israelitish horizon.

7. Deserts.[edit]

Of deserts (i3ip) as an important feature of the earth's surface the Hebrews were well aware (see DESERT) .

i. There were among them (see EXODUS i. , 2/1.) early recollections of the sparsely populated region offering pasturage yet often desolate and wild, and not the natural home of a settled people stretching from their own southern border farther southward to Elath and to Sinai, forming the western boundary of Edom, and extending SW. to the confines of Egypt. This is the wilderness or desert referred to in Gen. 146, with which compare Gen. 21 21 (E, Ishmael dwelt in the wilderness of Paran ), Nu. 12 16 (E, a station in the wanderings), 10 12 (P, distinguished from, and bordering .on, the wilderness of Sinai ), 183 (whence explorers were sent out), 26 (both P ; the addition of Kadesh in v. 26 seems to be from R). It was, according to the representation of P and D, in the desert of Paran that Israel spent most of the forty years of its wan dering (see WANDERINGS). It is called the desert of Edom (n nx I3np) in 2 K. 38. Abutting on the desert of Paran (pxs) on the N. seems to have been the desert of Beer-sheba (Gen. 21 14 [E]). In P the more com prehensive name of the desert N. of Paran was the desert of Sin (js lanp ; see ZIN); it was the southern limit of the land explored by the spies (Nu. 1821, cp 343), and in it lay Kadesh (20 1 27 14 bis, 8836 Dt. 32 51; see on the other hand Nu. 1826, above). S. of the desert of Paran lay the desert of Sinai (see above), mentioned by name in Ex. 19 if. Lev. 7 38 Nu. lug and eight times more in P, commanded by the Sinai group of mountains ; NW. of that, toward Egypt, lay the desert of Sin (not Sin), ppna-iDi Ex. 16 1 (between Elim and Sinai) 17 1 Nu. 33 n /. (all P). The portion of the desert immediately bordering on Egypt is in the older tradition connected with Shur (Ex. 1522 [JE]), and in the later with that of Etham (Nu. 338 ; cp Ex. 1820, both P). Nearly the same seems to be meant by the wilderness of the Red Sea (Ex. 13 18 [E]) and the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea (Dt. 140 2i). The simple term the wilderness is applied, now to the whole desert of the wandering (Ex. 2831 [E], etc.), now to a particular part (e.g. , Ex. 162 f. and often), subject to the ordinary principles of clearness.

ii. Of the great Arabian Desert we hear comparatively little, and that little relates to its western edge. The desert which is before Moab, on the sunrise side, it is called in Nu. 21 n [JE].

In Tudg. 1122 the wilderness (-Qnan) i- s the (eastern) limit of Israelitish territory E. of the Jordan ; like a steppe-dweller ( 3~!j;2) in the desert, Jer 3 2, is a simile of lying in wait ; Jer. 25 24 speaks of all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the border tribes that dwell in the desert (Gie., Co. emend text by excision ; cp ; but the reference to the desert remains). From the desert comes the east wind (Hos. 1815 Jer. 4n, cp Job 1 19). The Sabaeans of Ezek. 23 42 must, however, be given up, and per haps the whole reference in that verse to the wilderness or desert (which without the Sabaeans loses its value for our present purpose). Some familiarity with this desert is indicated also by the allusion to the ostriches in Lam. 4 3 Job 39 13^

The wilderness of Damascus, i K. 19 15, is the upper part of the same desert (if text and transl. are right ; see KINGS, BOOK OF, 8; HAZAEL) i.e., the Syrian Desert. This is, denoted also by the descriptive phrase (Tadmor) in the wilder ness (2 Ch. 8 4), after which i K. 9 18 Kr. has been shaped ; the original TAMAR (y.v.) of i K. 9 18 does not allow such an inference. The verses just cited (it maybe observed in passing) show that cities might flourish in the midst of desert see also the other late passages, Josh. 15 6i/. 20 8 (all P) i Ch. C 78 [63], not to mention Is. 42 n. (On smaller deserts in the W. Jordan territory cp PALESTINE.)

8. Foreign Countries.[edit]

Even this imperfect survey shows that the Hebrews had no great interest in geography as such. The various characteristics of the earth's surface were not noticed or thought of by them except as they came into some direct relation with their own life. The poetic imagination no doubt often laid hold of natural phenomena, and has left us some vivid pictures. From the nature of the case, however, these are general, not specific. The spirit of exact scientific observation does not appear. Such reports as may have reached Israel of the nature of the coun tries in which the more distant nations dwelt seem to have made little impression. Outside of their own experience they were more concerned with persons and peoples than with soil and mountain-peak and stream, with desert and sea.

[here goes Strabo's Map of the World. After C. Muller].

9. Egypt.[edit]

Among the first countries with which we should expect to find the Hebrews making (or renewing) acquaintance would be Egypt and Ethiopia. The latter country (the African Cush) seems to have come within their ken in the eighth century (Am. 87, and especially Is. I8i6 Zeph. Sio 1 Is. 203-5 [bat cp ISAIAH, BOOK OF, 9, beg.] 2 K. 19g), when the 25th Ethiopian dynasty was making itself felt in Palestine. 2 An increased familiarity with Egypt is also attested by the writings of the prophets.

Isaiah (30 4) refers to ZOAN and HANES, Hosea (96; cp Jer. 2 16 etc.) to Moph or Noph i.e., Memphis and Nahum (3s), with great particularity, to the Egyptian Thebes (No-AMON, [ /.&.], Ass. Ni-i, cp Egypt nt city, Steindorff BAS Isg6yfi; for later references to No = No-Amon, see Jer. 4625, Ezek. 30 14-16). Such remoter neighbours of Egypt as Put (213 ; see on Gen. 10 6 below, 22) also, and Lubim (Q 3? 7 Libyans if it be not the same as Lehabim [C 3rp] Gen. 10 13 [see below, JSW) occur for the first time in Nah. (3 9).

1 These words at least in this disputed verse may be original.

2 In Nu. 12 i 2 S. 18ai f., etc., it is only a question of isolated individuals (see CUSH, 2 b \ CUSHI, 3).

10. Babylonia and Assyria.[edit]

It was, singularly enough, the Babylonian conquest of Judah that made many Judaeans better acquainted with Egypt. The fear caused by the murder of GEDALIAH led a large remnant of the people to flee into Egypt (Jer. 41 17 f. 481-7), and then began the familiarity with Egyptian cities exhibited by Ezekiel. Of course, this was but a small part of the geographical debt which the Hebrews owed to the Babylonians and (we may now add) the Assyrians. Contact with these nations did more than anything else to change their geographical knowledge of the country E. of the Euphrates from fragmentary tradition to definite acquaintance.

Direct contact with Babylonia began after the fall of the N. kingdom with the famous embassy of MERODACH- BALADAN to Hezekiah. Contact with Assyria naturally began earlier. In the historical books the name appears first in 2 K. 161929, which tells that Tiglath - pileser (III.), = Pul, devastated (n.C. 734) the same northern districts that Benhadad had ravaged 175 years earlier (Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh [of Naphtali]) and Gilead as well (cp his own record, COT ad loc.) ; but Israel had already learned to know Assyria in the previous century under AHAB and JEHU (qq.v.}. Amos does not name it (but see AMOS, col. 149, foot) ; yet he certainly refers to it (614), and the expectation of the coming of the Assyrians underlies his book. Hosea names it often (613 7" 89 9s 106 lls u 12i[2] 14s [4]). It is even possible that Shalmaneser IV. (2 K. 17s) is referred to in Hos. 10 14 as Shalman (see BETH-ARBEL). We find Assyria in Micah (5s Mf.. cp 7 12), and abundantly in Isaiah (7 8 20 1 etc.). Nahum s prophecy is devoted to an announcement of its overthrow (cp Zeph. 213); 2 K. 17i-6 gives the account of Samaria s fall before it, and the deportation of the inhabitants to various places in the Assyrian empire.

11a. No maps.[edit]

It need hardly be said that the Hebrews, so far as we know, made no at tempt to construct a map of the world. If they had done so, it would doubtless have appeared to us grotesque enough. Even the comparatively sober geographical data of Eratosthenes (3rd cent. B. C. )and Strabo (near the beginning of the Christian era ; see the accompanying reproduction), who combined all the information they could procure, with painful laboriousness, yield maps quite recognisable, it is true, but much distorted. Hebrew cartographers of the seventh or the fifth century B.C. would have produced much more astonishing maps, we may be sure. Attempts have been made to construct maps of the world as known to the Hebrews, or at least of the central portion of it, on the basis of the description of Eden and its rivers in Gen. 2. 1 These attempts are interesting in a high degree ; but the data are not sufficient in amount or in certainty to make them secure. The utmost we can say is that one or two of them are quite possible. At best they can claim to give only the view of one writer, at a single period.

The four maps given here (after col. 1696) have a much more modest aim. They are meant simply to indicate the actual regions on the earth s surface as now known, which were embraced by Hebrew knowledge at different periods. For purposes of com parison, at least, these may perhaps be quite as useful as an attempt to construct such as the Hebrews themselves would have drawn.

1 See especially Haupt SBOT, Isa., note on 18 i ; PAOS, Mar. 94. p. ciii. ; Liter Land u. Afeer, 1894-5, no - 15 (with map). Cp also WMM Asiett u. Europa, 252^

11b. Geographical lists.[edit]

Little interest as the Hebrews had in geography in the abstract, they could not remain impervious to the influences which were enlarging their knowledge of the world, nor wholly escape the impulse to systematise that knowledge. The most convincing evidence of this appears in the lists which tabulate it in some detail. These lists were arranged on a genealogical scheme, representing assumed racial connection, or contiguity or historical association (see Di. Gen. 168) ; see GENEALOGIES i. , i/. They were compiled by the same hands that undertook the story of the national life.

The motives underlying the lists can be only conjectured. An interest in geography pure and simple was hardly one of these motives, although the geographical order is here and there dis cernible in the arrangement of names. The names are usually those of peoples, and it would be more exact to call the lists eth nographical. They appear to represent the circle of peoples (arranged with some regard to locality) which at the time fixed the attention of the authors. Their purpose is not the same as that of the Assyrian catalogues of tributaries, or the more formal Egyptian lists of foreign cities and tribes. In those we have chiefly the parade of conquest. The Hebrew lists show a much more impersonal, or at least more dispassionate, interest. They include peoples with whom the Hebrews had no practical con- cern ; and their own conquerors are named with perfect calmness. All indications point to an intellectual purpose. The impulse to write history was already at work, and with it the desire of providing a setting for the history, which should present what was known of other peoples, and indicate their organic relations.

The first consecutive list of this kind appears not earlier than the end of the ninth century. Israel was firmly established in its own land, had a fixed point of observation. David had made it compact and powerful. The commerce and foreign relations of Solomon had led the thoughts of the people outside their own land. The Phoenicians were followed, in thought, as they traversed the Mediterranean, and their reports were heard in Jerusalem as well as in Samaria. The national self-consciousness was beginning to assert itself even although the political life was divided so as to develop the historical instinct, and lead to the recognition of other peoples ns historical units, like themselves. Finally, a great new power was looming up on the eastern horizon. All these circumstances contributed to the formation and systematic arrange ment of historico-geographical ideas.

The document which embodies such an arrangement is the genealogical table of the descendants of Noah s three sons in Gen. 10. This is really a list of the peoples which, at the time of the writers, seemed of consequence. The chapter is not homogeneous. It is formed by the union of two distinct lists of different dates. The older (J) was probably compiled about 800 B.C. ; the younger (P) perhaps 350 years later.

There is great unanimity among critics in assigning to P w. 1-7 20 22 f., 3I./T, and practical unanimity also as to J (VTJ. 8-19 21 25-30); the (slight) divergences relate to the different layers of J, and to the work of the Redactor, to whom v. 24 is assigned by almost all. Neither list is preserved in its original form.

12a. Development Of Hebrew Geography: Early Period.[edit]

The lists of J and P afford the framework for a geographical scheme. When we attempt to combine these with the other data, however, for the purpose of tracing the growth of geographical knowledge among the Hebrews, we are met by difficulties which can be surmounted only in part ; our results must often be provisional.

The nature of our sources is such that it is impossible to be always sure at which point in the history a given geographical fact first appeared. The documents have passed through so many hands, that conceptions of different dates may easily be present. Conversely, geographical ideas may have existed long without finding expression in the surviving literature.

Especial difficulty attached to a clear representation of the geographical horizon in the early period.

Very early documents are few, and the later accounts of early matters have to be received with discrimination. Each particular statement must be carefully weighed, and the probabilities con sidered. Direct Egyptian and Canaanitish influence on early geographical knowledge in Israel is an unknown quantity. We cannot jump to the conclusion that the Amarna tablets, im portant as they are, represent knowledge which was, or speedily became, the common property of the Hebrew invaders a century or two later. By degrees, no doubt, much geography known to the Canaanites would be appropriated by the new-comers, but how much, and how long it took, we are wholly without means of deciding. Uncertainty meets us, also, as to the amount of genuine geographical material in the traditions of early nomadic wanderings. We are quite in the dark as to Hebrew contact with the Hittites and the Aramaeans between the conquest and David s time.

In these circumstances it has seemed wisest, both in the following descriptions and in the accompanying maps, to deal somewhat rigidly with the materials, and to require a maximum of evidence for the facts presented. A careful student will be able to expand the area of certainty, as evidence may seem to justify.

It would appear that to the generations following the Hebrew settlements in Canaan the outside world was of little consequence. The unanimity of traditions point ing to Egypt compels us to regard acquaintance with that country as among their earliest possessions. There is no reason to think that they had any but the vaguest ideas of Africa to the W. and S. of Egypt. The same is true of the lower shores of the Red Sea and the interior of Arabia. The roving Amalekites on their southern border, the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammon ites, to the SE. and E. , were of course in full view. Midian, on the eastern side of the eastern branch of the Red Sea, was closely associated with their early wander ings, and was looked upon as Israel s half-brother (Gen. 252/. ), and the story of Gideon preserves an account of a desperate conflict with a branch of the same people predatory Bedouin, like the Amalekites, during the time of the Judges (see MIDIAN). There were traditions of an early Aramaean home, and even, as there seems no good reason to doubt, of a still earlier one in Babylonia ; l local traces of Babylonian influence in Canaan may have revived and confirmed these tradi tions ; but they can hardly have been outlined with geographical clearness. As to the northern boundary of Hebrew knowledge in this period our sources are very scanty. The one great literary monument of these troubled years, the Song of Deborah, composed in the N., and dealing with events in the N. , does not carry us beyond the immediate vicinity of the plain of Megiddo. Hazor is mentioned in Judg. 4 a good source of the second order as also in Josh. 11 (JE), and Judg. 131 83 (cp Josh. 118) carry us northward on the coast as far as Sidon. Hints at wider knowledge of northern geography are afforded only by late docu ments. Reminiscences of Egyptian campaigns may no doubt have preserved on the soil the names of northerly regions ; but from the Hebrew documents themselves we cannot derive, for this period, any acquaintance with territory northward of aline joining Sidon, Lebanon, and Hermon.

On the W. the sea was the limit. There is no evidence that in this period the Hebrew mind ventured across it. If the first intercourse with Phoenicia brought knowledge of Phoenician traffic, no trace of this know ledge has been left in the records of the early time.

A much more extended area and a more detailed acquaintance with Babylonia and with Aramaean localities must be recognized for this period if we could suppose that Gen. 14 represents knowledge in the possession of the Hebrews at this time, whether due to their own ancient tradition, or to local history appropriated by them after the conquest. The question of the existence in this noteworthy chapter of good historical material cannot be discussed here (see GENESIS, 8 a). It is quite possible to answer the question in the affirmative, and at the same time to maintain, as the evidence requires us to do, that the chapter cannot be used as a source of information for the geographical knowledgeof the time of the Judges. Cp Lehmann, Altar. Chron. p. 84 ( 98).

1 Ur Kasdim in J (Gen. 1128 167) cannot be discussed here (see UR [i.l). The present writer believes that fewer difficulties are occasioned by regarding it as original with J, and as representing old tradition, than by denying either of these things.

12b. Geographical knowledge in l0th cent. B.C.[edit]

The advent of the Philistines, the alliances and conquests of David, and the alliances and luxury of Solomon widened the Hebrew horizon, and filled in spaces which were nearly or quite vacant.

David's wars (see DAVID, 8) with Hadadezer and his allies must have afforded some definite acquaintance with the Aramaean country as far as the Euphrates. Maacah, Geshur, Zobah, Hamath, and Damascus now grew familiar. Mesopotamia became a neighbour. David s friendship with Hiram of Tyre must have led to knowledge of lands beyond the sea, and the Philistines brought with them to the shores of Canaan the news of Caphtor as their early island home : Caphtor is with probability identified by most scholars with Crete (see PHILISTINES; but cp CAPHTOR, CHERETHtTEs). 1

As the Philistines were new-comers, some report of their origin would naturally spread at once ; hence, although the name of Caphtor does not appear till the eighth century, it is probable that it was known under David and Solomon.

Solomon's reign enlarged the Hebrew world still more. That there were variant traditions of the extent of his kingdom appears from i K. 54 compared with 65 (EV 42425) and with 1124; we cannot even tell whether the Euphrates was sufficiently known in Solomon s time to justify the mention of Tiphsah (Thapsacus) in the late passage i K. 5 4 [4 24]. The mention of Tadmor (i.e., Palmyra) in 2 Ch. 84 is at any rate valueless for the time of Solomon (see TAMAR). On the other hand, the probable emendation of i K. 1028/. which finds there a mention of the northern lands Musri and Kue as the source of the Hebrew supply of horses (see MIZRAIM, 2 [a], CHARIOT, 5, col. 726, n. i), brings us to the very foot of the Taurus mountains, S. of which the Syrian Musri lay, and even through the mountain-passes of the Amanus into Cilicia, to which Kue belonged (see CILICIA, 2).

A still more notable extension of geographical knowledge took place toward the S. If the story of the visit from the queen of Sheba stood by itself it might not be enough to assure us of the actual acquaint ance of Solomon s time with Southern Arabia. But the impulse given to exploration and commerce by Solomon s luxury led to the fitting out of ships on the gulf of Akaba, which sailed away southward on long cruises, bringing them into close contact with the Arabian shores. Besides the various tropical products (not all quite certain ; see APES, GOLD, IVORY, OPHIR, PEACOCKS), with which they contributed to the splendour and the entertainment of the court, they brought reports of distant lands, and whether or not OPHIR (q.v. ) was in Arabia, it is certain that at least Arabian territory bordering on the Red Sea must have been observed and described. The same is true of the African shore of the Red Sea ; how much further S. and E. the new knowledge stretched we cannot tell, and the voyagers themselves may have been as ignorant of the real geographical relations of Ophir as Columbus and his sailors were in regard to the West Indies ; but it is quite certain that a large extent of the earth s surface, before unknown, must from that time onward have been taken into the more or less definite concep tions of the educated Hebrews.

It is probable that those conceptions now embraced at least one remote point in the W. Phoenician voyages, colonies, and settlements were already opening markets in many quarters to the trade of the cities from which they set out. It is likely that the Phoenicians had planted themselves before the tenth century on the coast of Spain, at Tartessus. 2 Since Phoenician seamen went with Solomon s ships, and these ships are called ships of Tarshish i.e., large sea -going vessels, such as were fit to go to Tarshish (i K. 1022, cp Is. 2i6) there is a presumption in favour of some Hebrew knowledge of Tarshish in Solomon s time (although i K. 10 was written much later), and TARSHISH ([i.] q.v. ) is admittedly Tartessus.

1 The question of the identification of Caphtor is connected with that of the origin of the Philistines, who are derived thence in Am. 9 7 Jer. 47 4, and probably Dt. 2 23. For recent evidence that the Philistines came from Crete, see A. J. Evans, Cretan Pictographs ( 95), 99^

2 Strabo, i. 3 2 [48] says that the Phnenicians had sailed beyond the Pillars of Hercules soon after the Trojan war. Cp iii. 2 12^. where he speaks of Tartessus, and cites Homer s mention of it.

12c. In 8th cent. B.C.[edit]

Solomon's fleets were not successfully imitated by his successors ; but a new agent now appears. After these fleets the strongest influence in enlarging the Hebrew view of the world was the westward extension of Assyrian power.

That power took a fresh start under Asur-nasir-pal (885-860, see ASSYRIA, 31), who marched to the Mediterranean, and received tribute from the Mediterranean cities. Of direct con tact with Israel we do not hear ; but the silence of the Hebrew records cannot prevent us from saying that, with the intimacy between Phoenicia and the house of Omri, then on the Israelitish throne, Israel must have learned lessons in Assyrian geography from Asur-nasir-pal. We cannot of course tell how far even the names of territories overrun by him on the remote Assyrian borders Kummuh, the Muski, the Nairi-lands, the regions of the Upper and the Lower Zab, and the rest became known in Palestine ; but Eastern Mesopotamia, the Tigris and its cities, must have begun to take a place in Hebrew thought.

Shalmaneser II. (860-825 B.C.), whom Ahab s men faced, under Benhadad, in 854, and who received tribute from Jehu, must have continued the geographical teaching begun by his father. Ramman-nirari III. (812-783 B.C.) brought it apparently still closer home, for not only Phoenicia and Israel, but also Philistia and Edom recognised his sovereignty by tribute, and since prob ably the former, and certainly the latter, in its mountain fastnesses, would hardly do so without previous personal contact, we must suppose, either that two streams of Assyrian invasion enclosed Judah on the E. and on the W., or, if Edom was reached by the western route, that the southern border of Judah was skirted. In any case, by the middle of the eighth century, at which time, certainly, J s geographical survey was complete, the kingdom of Judah, in which J wrote, had facilities nearly as ample as those of Israel for knowing the main features of Assyrian geography. Judaean embassies were, it is true, not yet passing to and fro, carrying tribute, and bringing back new impressions and the stories of strange lands, but the knowledge gained in this way by their neighbours would in the course of time naturally become theirs.

Shalmaneser II. and his successors had come into close relations with Babylonia, and ancestral tradition would lead the Hebrews to an especial interest and even inquisitiveness regard ing it, which would result in some familiarity with local names, while by no means yielding precise and full knowledge, or dis pelling the mystery overhanging that ancient Semitic home.


13a. J's Babylonia.[edit]

The first part of J's list that is preserved to us looks toward the E. It begins abruptly with a summarised statement regarding an individual monarch of Babylonia - NIMROD [q.v.], son of Cush. The sites of BABYLON and ERECH are well known; those of ACCAD and CALNEH (i) are not yet identified. Shinar (i{w) most probably represents the Babylonian Sumer, or its dialectic variation Sunger. l Whether the term land of Shinar in Gen. 10 10 includes all Babylonia, from the sea northward, we cannot however say. Another tradition preserved by J makes a plain (nypa) in the land of Shinar the scene of the building of Babel, and of the sudden dispersion of the race (Gen. 11 1-9 ; see BABEL). The only contribution made by this passage to the vexed question as to the geographical limits of Sumer consists in the requirement that it shall contain both Babylon and Erech. Familiarity with the name is indicated especially by the expression a goodly mantle of Shinar (Josh. 721 [JE] ; see RV m e-) ; land of Shinar occurs also in Zech. 5 n Dan. 1 2, and Shinar, Is. 11 n.

If J located his Eden (Gen. 2) in Babylonia, his geographical information concerning the region must be regarded as still vague. The Euphrates and the Tigris approach each other there, and were doubtless connected by canals ; but as to the rest, the description is unrecognisable. This, however, would not of itself disprove the theory that he had that locality in mind. Without entering into the vexed question of CUSH (q.v.), mentioned in Gen. 213 108, we may note here that Ashur-nasir-pal and Shalmaneser II. both encountered the Kassites, and it is by no means impossible that in the mind of J there was already confusion between the Kassites and the Arabian and African Kus. The embassy of Merodach-baladan to Hezekiah (2 K. 20), at the end of the eighth century, although it seems to presuppose some mutual acquaintance, was plainly a novelty, and is quite consistent with much mutual ignorance, as well.

1 Paul Haupt, Ueber ein Dialekt der Sumerischen Sprache," GGN, 1880, no. 17 ; Akkadische Sfracke, 1883 ; Akkadische u. SumerischeKeilschrift-texte = X^. Bibliothek, Bd. l( 8i/); Del. Par. 198 ; Schr. COT on Gen. 11 1 ; Tiele, BAG, 74^

13b. J's Assyria.[edit]

The assignment of the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom to Babylonia, and the stress laid on the subsequent founding of Assyrian cities, points to an ultimate Assyrian source for at least vv. 10-12. Assiir, EV Asshur (T*B : N), is undoubtedly here, as in 2 14 and elsewhere, the country of Assyria (see especially land of Assyria, parallel with land of Nimrod Mic. 56 [5]), not the old capital Asur on the W. bank of the Tigris (at Kal at-Sherkat about 45 m. below Nimrud ; see ASSYRIA, 5).

The Assyrian kingdom, like the Babylonian, is repre sented by four cities (see NINEVEH, CALAH, REHOBOTH- IR, RESEN), for the words, that is the great city, in Gen. 10 fib, which imply the view that these several cities made up the one great Nineveh (cp Jon. 1282411, where the city is of enormous size), are probably a. gloss. It is J also who mentions the Tigris (see above, 5, iii. ).

Western Mesopotamia becomes familiar. Not only do we find the city of Nahor and AKAM-NAHARAIM (ij.v.), 1 besides other references to this region as of early interest in Hebrew migrations (Gen. 24 10; cp 1 lvoff. 28 10, etc., J), but the exiles of Samaria are planted by the Habor (Chaboras), the river of Gozan (2 K. 176), and Gozan, Harran, Reseph, (Bit-)Adini and Telassar all figure in the conquests of Assyria (2 K. 19 12), and all show knowledge of the same region, by the close of the eighth century.

14. J's knowledge of the West.[edit]

The northern border of Assyria is still obscure. At the NE corner of the Mediterranean, whilst on land we do not get across the Amanus, in the sea the island of Cyprus (Kittim) comes into view. It is not in J's list; but it meets us in Nu. 24:24 (JE) as well as in Is 2:3.

It is doubtful whether Nu. 24:24 belongs to an early stratum of JE, and, without claiming Kittim where it first occurs in the much disputed oracle of Tyre (Is. 23 i^), we may admit Kittim in v. 12 as belonging to the poem, and may not unreasonably ascribe it to the hand of Isaiah. It is true that this would of itself take us back no further than 725 B.C. ; but the reference to Kittim is made in such a way as to imply previous acquaintance.

15. J's Egypt etc.[edit]

From Assyria in the NE. J's list passes to Egypt in the SW. In the same group are eight other peoples, marking as many territorial distinctions ( Gen 10 ^/. = i Ch. In/).

1. First are the LUDIM, who are quite distinct from the LUD (q.v. ) of Gen. 1022 (P) = i Ch. 1 17, and must be sought in Africa. More we cannot say, and our present ignorance extends to several other names in the same group. The very next one is an example.

2. Of Anamim (only here, and in i Ch. In) we know nothing geographically, and the name is not even certain textually. 2

3. KASLUHIM, EV CASLUHIM, S is just as obscure. See PHILISTINES.

4. LEHABIM perhaps = Lub!m, Q m 1 ?, Libyans. AEL > however, has Aa/3iei/x, or A.ajSeii i Ch. [A], whilst D 31 1 ? is Ai"/3ves (see Nah. 3 9 [BNAQ] 2 Ch. 12 3 [BAL], 16s [BAL] ; and D^S Dan. Il4at Baer) ; read also Lub, 31^> for Heb. 313 (AV CHUB, RV CUB), Ezek. 80s ; BAQ Ai/Sves (Co. WMM As. 11. Eur. 115). The passages do not help to fix the boundaries of Libya.

5. Naphtuhim is in doubt. Possibilities are 4 : (i) Napata (in Cush), a view of Tuch and de Goeje ; see also Di. ; (2) Na-ptah, (people) of Ptah i.e., inhabitants of Memphis (where the god Ptah had his chief seat), and Middle Egypt generally (Kn. ad loc., Ebers) ; and (3) the origination of Q nnSJ out of DTICDS i.e., pltlinhi, northern land (cp [6], so Erman, ZA TW 10 us./).

6. Pathruslm (n cnns) is the, gentilic from Pathros (DITTIS, i.e. , in Egyptian, land of the S. ; in cuneiform, Paturisi], which is referred to in Jer. 44 1 as a region distinct from Migdol, Tahpanhes, and Noph, in Jer. 44is (Graf, Gie. ) and in Is. 11 n ( Bct/SiAwi/ias [BXAQ]) as distinct from Mizraim or Egypt, and in Ezek. 30 14 among the Egyptian towns and districts (Noph, Zoan, No, Sin, etc.) on which judgment shall fall. In Ezek. 29 14 it is called the land of the origin (RV m &-) of the Egyptians (a good historical tradition).

7. On Caphtorim and (8) the Philistines see 126.

1 For a different view see HAURAN.

2 In Gen. aLvefieTieLft. [A], cvefj.eTi.eLv [E], au eia^ueijx [L] ; in Ch. ava.fiufi.ft. [A], a.Lvofi- [L] ; B om.

a In Gen. x a < r ^ wl/t "^ [A], -<rAu- [L], xaAoei/u. [E] ; in Ch. Xa<r\tavLeLfiL [A], -\iaeLfi. [L] ; B om.

ve<f>ea\L(LfjL [A], -\eLfi. [EL] ; in Ch. -Aiju. [A], -6<a<reiiJ. [L] | B om.

16. J's Canaan, etc.[edit]

From Egypt J's list passes northward along the coast, and mentions Canaan and his sons. Verse 15 names two of these - viz. SlDON and Heth - The Hittites, or sons of Heth, are treated elsewhere ( see HITTITES). Suffice it to notice that for J they are simply an aboriginal Canaanitish people, by the side of the Phoenicians.

The following verses present several difficulties. They contain gentilic nouns, which is peculiar, not in itself, for already in v. 13 f. the genealogical scheme has become a transparent fiction, but because of the disagreement in form with Sidon and Heth.

In part the verses suggest the familiar list of Canaanitish peoples which Israel is to dispossess, as contained in the account of the Exodus and march to Canaan furnished by J and D (e.g. , Ex.38 Dt. 7i); but in part they are different. The PERIZZITES (q.v.) are wholly lacking. The Canaanites do not appear ; Canaan is here, not one among the particular peoples, but the comprehensive term uniting all the rest. Heth is an unusual form, and is set apart from the rest of the list. There are here also five names (v. 17 f.) which do not occur in the lists elsewhere, and differ from the four preceding (except the Jebusites of Jerusalem), in being plainly geographical.

1. The Arkite is a gentilic derived from the city name Arka (Ass. Arka, COT; mod. Tell Arka, Burckhardt, Travels, 162 ; Rob. BR 3 App. 183), northward from Tripolis at the NW. foot of Lebanon. See ARKITE.

2. The Sinite is of doubtful derivation. Del. Par. 282 proposes to read VB? and to connect with the city Siannu ( = Sianu) on the shore of the sea mentioned by Tiglath-pileser III. with A rka (and Simirra) 3 R. 9 46. Strabo (x vi. 2 is) mentions a town i>inna, j erome (Quiestt. ad foe.) a civitas Sini in this region, and Breydenbach (Reise, 1483) a village Syn about 2^ m. from Nahr Arka. See SINITE.

3. On the Arvadite see ARVAD.

4. The Zemarite is from the city Simir(ra) mentioned repeatedly by Tiglath-pileser III. and his successors, 745^ B.C. (Schr. COT on Gen. 10 18, Del. Par. 281 f.), and long before in the Amarna letters, as Sumur (Bezold, op. cit. 155 ; otherwise Winckler, op. cit. 40*) ; it was known to the Greeks as <ri/nupa (see reff. in Di.). It is perhaps the modern Suima, between Ruad and Tripolis (Bad. Pal. 1 ?} 407; see other reff. in Buhl-Ges. Lex., s.v.). Cornill restores DHOS in Ezek. 27 n (see GAMMADIM).

5. Finally, the Hamathite, from the well-known city of HAMATH (q.v.) on the Orontes.

All these are places in the extreme N., and can be, in most cases, with certainty identified.

This increases our surprise at finding them combined (v. i6f. ) with the Jebusite and the GIRGASHITE (q. v.) and the HIVITE (q.v. ), which are either in the S. or are geographically vague.

The Amorite is a name which requires separate treatment. We may understand it to be used here in the same sense which it bears elsewhere in the stereotyped lists of Canaanitish peoples, and assume that v. 16, as well as the Hivite in v. 17, is not a part of J s original table (see AMORITES).

The account of the sons of Canaan in J comes to an end with two more general remarks: v. 18 and afterward (i.e., after Canaan had begotten these sons = in the course of time, by degrees) were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad ; v. 19 in its turn, gives the boundary of the Canaanites.

It is evident from a comparison of w. 18 and 19 that in both cases the Canaanites are the inhabitants of Canaan (Phoenician colonies, e.g. , are not included). ^!SJ, v. 18, must therefore mean, spread out so as to occupy the land of Canaan. Verses 15-18, however, contain names (i.e. in v. idf.) which certainly cover substantially the Canaanitish territory ; v. I &b is not in telligible if the whole space over which they spread is already occupied by them. The characteristic names of the present list are, however, all in the N., and it seems highly probable that the others (Jebusite, Amorite, Girgashite, Hivite) are not original, but inserted by a scribe who missed the familiar forms.

If the above criticism be sound, what J tells us is that the original seat of the Canaanites was in the N. ( = Phoenicia and Hamath), and that they spread from that region over Canaan.

This obliges us to take a further step.

Verse 19 cannot give the boundary of these original northern Canaanites. It does not even include them, for it goes no farther N. than Sidon, and all the other names under consideration (Heth, Arka, Sin, Arvad, Simir, and Hamath) are to the north ward of Sidon. Moreover it passes down at least as far as Gaza (reading JTT13, towards Gerar ) ; but Gaza is near the southern border of the Philistine territory, which must therefore be included in the Canaanitish border ; but evidently the Philistines are, for J, not Canaanites (v. 14).

It appears, then, that not only the five names in vv. 16 ija, but also the border-tracing v. 19, are later additions. If this is the case, however, the lsB}( spread abroad ) of v. 18 is no longer to be explained by v. 19, and may well refer to the planting of Phoenician colonies, which is more in accord with the meaning of via (e.g., Gen. llsyC Zeph. 3io Is. 24 1 Ezek. 11 17 and often).

The next geographical reference in J is in v. 26.

Verses 21-25 simply connect the Eberites with Shem, the eldest son of Noah, and fix the time of the division of the peoples.

Verses 26-30 name the sons of Joktan (see JOKTAN), and give their locality. The names, as far as identified, prove to be Arabian (see special articles).

17. J's sons of Joktan.[edit]

The interior of the Arabian peninsula, whose coast had been skirted by Solomon's fleets, was gradually disclosing itself. Hadramaut (HAZARMAVETH, Gen. 1026= i Ch. 1.20) appears for the first and only time in the OT, side by side with Sheba (see 3). The more settled Arabian communities are coming into view. Amalek and Midian, the wilder Bedawin of the desert, have disappeared. 1

Verse 30 gives the limits of the territory of these descendants of Joktan : from K!?D towards TBD the 'mountain of the East'.

The change of Mesha to Massa (nb D)) a branch of the Ishmaelites, is plausible. Massa would then mark the northern limit of the tribes of Yoktan. See MESHA i.

Sephar, the opposite limit (ISO), must be sought in the S. if NB D is in the N. It is usually identified (but with doubtful warrant) with the ancient Himyarite capital Tafar, perhaps (Ges. and liuhl) the seaport of Hadramaut (near Mirbat) now called Isfdr or /s/<ir(sec SEPHAR).

The 'mountain of the East' is too general an expression to give precision to undefined geographical terms (cp GOLD, i r).

The list of J ends here. It was doubtless once fuller than it is now ; R has contented himself with a selection.

The only sons of Shem to whom J devotes space, besides Eber and Peleg, are Joktan and his Arabian descendants. We miss, e.g., all reference to Aram, which J would not ignore.

J has contributed only part of the materials to Gen. 10. We have now to consider the contribution of P.

18. Geographical knowledge in the 6th century B.C.[edit]

The longer the relations with Phoenicia and with Assyria continued, and the closer they became, the greater their effect on the geographical knowledge of the Hebrews. . The fall of the Northern Kingdom and the settlement of foreigners in that territory meant less to them geographically than it would have done if there had been northern writers to make use of new knowledge that the colonists brought. The exile of Judah took place under very different conditions, and, after the Babylonian power had passed to the Persians, the religious and literary activity at Jerusalem not only manifests a vivid acquaintance with distant countries before known only by reports at second hand, but also shows that there were men who had learned from their own observation, as well as from the heterogeneous character of the armies which had con quered them men who knew something of the remoter campaigns of their foreign sovereigns, and who had a growing familiarity with the traffic of the world.

Accordingly the circumference of P's map is greater than that of J. He follows a different order ; but, to aid in comparison, it will be simpler to rearrange his material, and begin, as in the case of J, with the East.

1 We find Midian still in the later writers of Is. 606 and Hab. 87, where they are simply poetic representatives of distant peoples. In i K. 11 18 the text is doubtful (Then. ,cp Benzinger). As for Amalek, if credence can be placed in i Ch. 442./C the last remnant of it was destroyed in the time of Hezekiah. In Ps. 887 [8] the mention of it is in a poetic figure, either to designate present foes by the title of an ancient foe, or to describe the character of the present ones (cp Baethgen).

19. P's Eastern and Northern Geography.[edit]

We have particularly a wealth of eastern, north-eastern, and northern details. Babylonia is of course familiar (see below) ; Elam (Gen. 10:22) and Susiana are now well known - Nehemiah was at home in Susa (SHUSHAN, Neh. li), Media (MADAI) appears often (Is. 1817 Gen. 102 etc.), and had indeed probably been known for centuries (2 K. 176) ; it is the Assyrian Madai (Ramman-nirari [812-783 B.C.] -Esar-haddon [681-668]), E. of Assyria, NE. of Babylonia ; its capital, ECBATANA (ACHMETHA) is mentioned in Ezra 6 2. Persia appears first in Ezek. 27 10 885 (see however, PARAS), and then abundantly in Ezra.

Persia is not explicitly connected with Cyrus before the time of the Chronicler (when it is superabundantly joined with his name ; 2 Ch. 3lJ22yC Ezra 1 -if. 8 87 4^5). The contemporary mention of him in Is. 4428 45 i does not, it is true, reveal any knowledge of Anzan, or Susiana, as his early dominion ; but neither does it displace such knowledge by the inexact substitu tion of Persia, which afterwards grew so familiar.

P's list as preserved does not mention Babylon. It was needless. Familiarity with Babylonia is of course a marked feature of the exilic and post-exilic literature.

Besides the frequent mention of the Chaldaeans from the time of their appearance before Jerusalem under Nebuchadrezzar (Jer. 2225 2149 etc.) we have frequent mention of the land of the Chaldasans.

Specific mention, in Jer. 24s 25 12 (om. <B, Hi., Gie., etc.), also 50 1 8 25 45 51 4 54 Ezek. 13 12 13 ; reference, in Jer. 50 10 51 24 35 Ezek. 11 24 1629 23 i$/. Dan. 9 1 (in Is. 23 13 the text is corrupt).

For the Hebrews the land of Chaldaea is the land of which Babylon was the chief city. Of an earlier Chaldaean home in S. Babylonia they show no knowledge. 1 It was only after Babylon became the Chaldaean capital that the Chaldaeans attained importance for Israel (Judah ; cp Merodach-baladan, 2 K. 20).

Chaldaea is identified with Babylon in Ezek. 12 13 23 16, cp Jer. 50 i ; see also Jer. 214 etc. In Ezek. 2815 we have ex plicitly sons of Babylon, whose home-(lit. kindred-)land is Chaldaea. The mention of both Chaldaea(ns) and Babylon is by far most frequent in Jeremiah (Chaldaea 46 times ; Babylon 169 ; the land of Chaldsea, especially Jer. 50y!) ; the expression land of Babel (Babylon) is peculiar to Jer. 5028 51 29 ; the kingdom of the Kasdim in Dan. 9 1 is the kingdom of Darius.

There is a reference to Southern Babylonia in the (land) MERATHAIM (rather Merathim) of Jer. 502i, if this is equivalent to the Ass. (mat] marrati, sea-land i.e. , land on the shore of the Persian Gulf (so Del., Schr. ). In what part of Babylonia PEKOD (Jer. 502i Ezek. 2823) is to be sought is unknown ; the cuneiform Pukudu does not help us. The general situation of SHOA and KOA seems to have been determined (E. of lower Tigris).

20. P's Northern Geography.[edit]

I. The absorption of Assyria into the Babylonian Empire has not prevented P and his contemporaries from maintaining an acquaintance with more northern countries. Eastern Armenia (ARARAT, i) had been introduced to the Hebrews through the account of Sennacherib s murder (2 K. 193?), was known perhaps in a wider sense to the author of Jer. 6X27 before the Persian conquest of Babylon, and was incorporated into P's version of the flood (Gen. 84). It has been observed [ 4], and it is not a little surprising, that neither here nor anywhere do we find biblical mention of the Armenian lakes, Van and Urumiyeh. If Arpachshad (Gen. 1022 24 ; see ARPHAXAD) contains the name of Arrapachitis, then P's knowledge actually penetrated into the region between these lakes, and yet he does not name them. MINNI and ASHKENAZ \qq.v.~\ are also in Armenia, and RIPHATH and TOGARMAH at least in Western Armenia, whilst P knows GOMER [i] (the Gimirrai of the Assyrian inscriptions appear in Cappadocia from the time of Esarhaddon) ; see Gen. 102/1 It is plain therefore that, when P's list was made out, the Taurus and the Amanus, although still unmentioned (see above, 6), have ceased to be an absolute barrier.

1 Except such as is indicated by the name Ur Kasdim, which J has used, and which P repeats (Gen. 1131 157, cp Neh. 97). It is not certain, however, that P had a definite idea of the site of Ur. Still less does it appear that he associated the Chaldaeans specifically with S. Babylonia.

The fifth son of Japhet is Tubal, the Assyrian Tabali, and the sixth Meshech, the Assyrian Muski (Gen. 102= i Ch. 1 5), almost always named together; only in Is. 6019 does Tubal appear without Meshech (as a distant nation ; but reads Moo-ox for Heb. 3B>D, see Du., Che. SBOT, Marti), and in Ps. 120s Meshech without Tubal ( j| or opp. Kedar). Since Bochart they have been identified with the Moschi (jiO<r\oi) and Tibareni. Schrader (/CfG, I.e.) shows that as late as Esarhaddon the Tabali bordered on Cilicia, and that the MuSki were just NE. from them. They push up from the south like a wedge, between Cappadocia and Armenia. Since they appear in the second row of P's northern peoples, it is now clear that P knew them before they were driven farther N. See TUBAL.

Tiras (Gen. 102 = i Ch. 1 5) is the seventh son of Japhet ; not identified with certainty; on a possible connection with the ancient Tyrseni, see TIRAS.

On the difficult name Magog (Gen. 10 2) see GOG. We can only infer that P set Magog in the N. The traditional identification of him with the Scythians (Jos. Jer.), though without definite evidence, is plausible. The Scythians came down, as fierce northern raiders, late in the seventh century (Zeph. Jer.), and little would be known with precision about a region so distant as that from which they came.

2. Before passing entirely away from the N. and E. we must notice P's account of the Aramaeans.

Gen. 1023 gives four sons of Aram who in i Ch. 1 176 appear as sons of Shem. Gether is unidentified.

For Uz, the connection with Nahor (Gen. 22 21) would lead us to look beyond the Euphrates, and the relation to Aram (Gen. 1023) would make no difficulty.

The exegetical details of Job will be treated elsewhere. There is no objection to locating Uz somewhere on the N. side of the Arabian desert, where indeed Ptolemy (v. 182) speaks of a people called the Aio-iYai who lived W. of the Euphrates. We also find Uz connected with Edom (Gen.3G28 P, and Lam. 4zi [om. <D]). So, too, (S s addition to the book of Job refers to him as dwelling in the Ausitid land on the borders of Idumaja and Arabia. 1

On Jer. 25 20 see Uz. Del. (Par. 259) claims to have found the name Uz, under the form. mat Ussy, on an inscription of Shalmaneser II. (Obelisk, /. 154); if correct, Uz must have been near the Orontes, but Winck. (KB 1146) reads Kun(V)-uzza as a man s name. Del. (ZKF 2 Sjf.) thinks of the extreme N. of the Syrian desert, in the region of Palmyra; 2 but Lam. 4 21 opposes this. All these data cannot be made to refer to one single region ; but Robertson Smith s suggestion that Uz denotes all the scattered tribes or rather the various tribes who worshipped the same god, Aud (py), 3 a god well known to heathen Arabia is not favoured by the connection of py with Aram, or with a home E. of the Euphrates, although this is not conclusive.

MASH [q.v.], which occurs only here, is connected by Di. (after Ges. Tlies.) with Mons Mas(ius), now Tftr A/idin, north ward from Nisibis the mountain range separating Armenia from Mesopotamia (Straboxi. 142 ; Ptol. v. 18 2), which may well have been peopled by Aramaeans. Accepting this conjecture, we might proceed to identify Hul, the remaining son of Shem, with the district Haifa (from Ass. hiilu, sand ?), mentioned by Asur-niisir-pal in connection with Mons Masius (Del. Par. 259). This, however, is uncertain.

21. P's Western Geography.[edit]

In the time of P light has been pouring over the W. also. It is possible, notwithstanding the present order of the names, that Lud, fourth son of Shem (Gen 10:2) is to be identified with Lydia (which Cyrus's conquest had made familiar. Identification with the African Lud (Ludim, v. 13) is out of the question; and to connect Lud with the Egyptian Rtnu (Ruten) of Northern Syria (WMM As.uEur. 143 ff.) is opposed by phonetic laws (Erman in COT, ad loc. ). The connection of Lud with Shem is no insuperable obstacle to its identification with Lydia. See LUD.

The next name (in geographical order) is quite certain. The fourth son of Japhet is Javan = the Ionian. In Dan. 821 11 2 1020, and probably in Zech. 9 13 (if the text is correct), the reference is to the Macedonian power. In Ezek. 27 13 Is. 66 19 the original reference to lonians is more prominent. See JAVAN.

Four descendants are assigned to Javan (Gen. 104). Of these, Tarshish and Kittim, as we have seen, early became familiar to the Hebrews ; ELISHAH [q.v.~\, which occurs elsewhere only in the phrase N >, coast-lands of Elishah (Ezek. 27?), may perhaps be Carthage ; on the fourth descendant see DODANIM. The intervening spaces offer room for the unnamed islands and coastlands (Q ian "N, Gen. 10s) so abundantly referred to in the later literature.

1 tv [tevyrj KarotKwf rn Av<r[e]iTiSt t jri rots opuns nrjs I5oi/ju.at as itai Apa^ias. Cpalso Job 32 2, where & adds after Elihu . . of the kindred of Ram "... rrji aucrcirifios \wpas.

2 So Jos. (Ant. i. 64) says that Uz (OUOTJS) was the founder of Trachonitis and Damascus (cp Jer. Qu&st. Gen. 1023); but whence had he the tradition?

3 See WRS Kinship, 261 ; RS(^ 43 ; We. IfeiJ.Pl 146 ; and on the other side Niild. ZZWG40i83. Notice too that <B s adjectival form av<r[e]iTi? points also to a pronunciation Aus = Aud, there being no distinction in Heb. between the two Arabic consonants s and d.

The term N (Q"N) is only here in P ; but it is characteristic of the late literature, and has a consistent, although general, geographical use. The singular NH appears in Is. 206 used of the Palestinian coast (including Judah) and so in 23 2 6 of the Phoenician coast, and in Jer. 47 4 of the coastland of CAPHTOK (y.v., i) ; in Jer. 2622 we read of the kings of the coastland which is beyond the sea (with kings of Tyre and Sidon). In the wider application, however, it is elsewhere pi., and is sometimes more, sometimes less, defined. It always, as far as can be determined, refers to coasts of the Mediterranean. It is other wise quite indefinite (of coast-lands, whether of islands or con tinents, often with idea of distance) Jer. 31 10 Ezek. 20 15 18 bis 2731535 396 Is. 41 1 5 42 4 ioi2 49 1 51s 59 18 60g 6619 Ps. 72 10 97 i Dan. 11 18 ; fully D n ".X Is. 11 n 24 15 Esth. 10 1 ; D;uri "K occurs Zeph. 2n as in Gen. 10s; less often the pi. is used of particular coasts : of Kittim Jer. 2 10 Ezek. 276, and of Elishah Ezek. 277; once it means islands, Is. 40 15, and once (if the text is right; see SHOT, Isa. Heb. 201) habitable ground, Is. 42 15. The earliest indefinite use of the pi. is Jer. 31 10 Zeph. 2 it ; all the others are in Is. (second and third) Ezek. Esth. Dan. and late Psalms, unless Is. 11 n be an exception, which, however, in view of the usage, is most unlikely. See further, ISLE.

22. P's Sons of Ham.[edit]

In v. 6 P goes on to the sons of Ham. These are Kush, Misraim, Phut, and Canaan. The first two are unquestionably African. Kush here is probably the same as in Is. 18 1 etc. (a ig low i a) - i.e., the country S. of Egypt (see ETHIOPIA). Misraim (see MIZRAIM) has no doubt substantially the same meaning as in J ( 15) ; Phut occurs as early as Nahum (89).

Also in Jer. (46g, with Ku5 and Ludim ; read perhaps Lubim), Ezek. (30s with Kus and Lud, probably also Lub ; see Co. ; in both these last as part of the Egyptian army ; 27 10 with Paras [see, however, PARAS] and Lud, as in the Tyrian army; 885 with Paras [see, however, PARAS] and Ku5 as be longing to the hordes of Gog), and in Is. 6(3 19 (Tarshish, Pul [rd. Pfit, <t>ovS, BQmg-], Lud, Tubal, Javan). In Jer. 409 and Ezek. 27 10 885 reads Ai fiues ; see Jos.; in Nah. 89 rrjs </>vyrjs Kai Ai/Sucs represents D 3?7l E 3.

On the whole s) points to identification with the Libyans, or a part of them adjoining Egypt on the W.

For another view see PUT. WMM As. u. Eur. \\\ff. argues strongly on phonetic grounds for Punt (on the African shore of the Red Sea) ; but he minimizes and explains away the evidence of &. He also adduces the order of names in an inscription of Darius (v. Spiegel, APK 54 /. 30); Putiya, Kusiya, Mafiya i.e., Punt, on the Red Sea coast (beginning from the E.), Kus, inland, etc. ; but as Yauna= Javan precedes, the order from E. to W. is by no means certain. The whole matter is doubtless involved and difficult.

P's list of the sons of Misraim has not been preserved ; knowledge of Egypt, however, although perhaps not covering greater distances than in the eighth century, was certainly more intimate, from Tahpanhes on the frontier (Jer. 43?^ etc., Ezek. 30i8) to Thebes, far up the Nile (No; Nah. 38 Ezek. 30 ~nff. ; see these w. also for other Egyptian cities). Ezekiel (29io) takes us as far S. as Aswan ( from Migdol to Syene [read Sezeda = Aswan]), to say nothing of Cush (see 23).

23. P's sons of Cush.[edit]

If we reserve Kush, the only non-African son of Ham, according to P's list (as far as preserved to us), is Canaan. This represents the pre-Israelitish population of the land which bears the same name (see CANAAN).

Passing over SEBA and HAVILAH (q.v.}, we pause at the difficult tribal name Sabtah (Gen. 10:7, where 21 codd. have jcn3b||i Ch. 19).

Tuch and Knobel propose <7a/3/3a0<x or Sabota (see reft", in Di.), an ancient Arabian commercial city, Sab. ni3B* (but E = D X whilst Glaser (Skizze, 2252 /) thinks of o-a^Sa (Ptol. vi. 7 30), near the (W.) shore of the Persian Gulf.

Sabteca (Gen. 10?) is unknown. See SABTECA.

We have left Ra ma(h) (Gen. 10? KDjn i Ch. Ig), with his two sons. Of these sons, Sheba has been considered already ( 3, 17). For the other see DEDAN.

The descendants of Ra'ma(h) being Arabian, it is not surprising that the same is true of Ra'mah.

The name occurs elsewhere only in Ezek. 2722 among the traders of Tyre (with Sheba). The g in s) forms (see RAAMAH) agrees with Sab. nDJh- It is plausible to connect with the pa.y.^a.vlta.1 (Strabo, xvi. 4 24), between the pivotai and the Xa.Tpafnarlra.1, for Sab. nDjh > s near MJin (|yD > SW. Arabia). See further RAAMAH.

In this connection it is interesting to notice the increase in other exilic and post-exilic writers of names of tribes living in the N. Arabian and Syrian desert. ISHMAEL (q.v. ) is known to J, who specifies the limits of the Ishmaelite rovings (Gen. 25 18) ; but he is better known to P. It is partly that the desert tribes en croached on former Israelitish territory, and so became known, partly that the tribes dwelling nearer Babylonia became acquaintances of the Hebrews by way of Babylon, and partly that the movements of peoples and individuals were becoming, from various causes, more frequent and extended, and general information more widely diffused. The population of the desert between Palestine and Babylonia became more definitely known to the Hebrews as the Jewish community was preparing to take on its later form. Of precise geographical yield there is here, however, very little. The list of Ishmael s twelve sons (Gen. 25 13 /. [P] = i Ch. \zgff.) well illustrates the facts (see especially Di. and reff. ).

Such names as Kedar (Jer. 2io Ezek. 27 21 Is. 21 i6f. etc. ) and Nebaioth (Is. 60? etc. ; see on these, ISHMAEL, 2, 4) now begin to appear, and the prophets have already begun to use the name Arabian with a definite significance (Jer. 2624 Ezek. 2/21, see ARABIA, i).

At the end of Gen. 10 7 the list of P is interrupted by that of J. In v. 20 P reappears in a closing formula (as it does also in v.?>\f.). v. 2-2 f. deal with the sons of Shem (see above). With v. 23 P's list ends abruptly.

24. The distant East in the Greek Period.[edit]

It remains only to consider a few later notices. The trading habits of the Jews, developed in and after the exile not only resulted in the planting of Jewish colonies at various foreign centres such as Alexandria which naturally became sources of geographical knowledge, but also doubtless led them in the track of the conquering Macedonians (cp DISPERSION, ii /). We are therefore not surprised to find, in a late book, a mention of INDIA (Esth. li 89), which marks one of the youngest geographical notes of the OT and the farthest eastern point reached by biblical geography. If the land of Sinim in Is. 49 12 were China, the limit would be much farther eastward ; but this interpretation can no longer be maintained (see SINIM). It will be observed that even Strabo knows nothing to the E. of India.

It is noteworthy that down to the time of this late reference, even after the long Hebrew contact with Babylonia and the adjacent countries to the E. , there is no sign of acquaintance with the remoter Orient ; nor is there even yet any clear token of familiarity with over land trade-routes to countries as distant as India. This is quite in keeping with the silence of our Assyrian and Babylonian sources on the same subjects, and points to the conclusion that such trade-routes were opened much later, or were much more insignificant, and perhaps shorter, than some have been inclined to suppose.

25. Apocrypha.[edit]

The geography of the Apocryphal books shows the transition from the older Hebrew geography to that of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. We find much of the older geography continued and enlarged. Babylon is the familiar scene in Baruch, the Song of the Three Children, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, as Media (Ecbatana, Rages) is in Tobit. The river HYDASPES [q. v. ] appears as a novelty in Judith 16 and the city of Persepolis in 2 Macc. 82. Idumasa, i Macc. 42961 631 etc., is named often, Egypt occasionally (e.g. , i Macc. 11 113). In the distance are the SCYTHIANS (2 Mace. 447), as an example of a barbarous people. Arabia in a wide sense is frequent (e.g. , i Mace. 11 16). The names of Syria (e.g. , i Macc. 11260), COELESYRIA (e.g., i Macc. 10&9, 2 Macc. 3s), and Ptolemais (i Mace. 61522 etc.) now appear ; also the harbour of Tripolis (5i& rov Kara TpiwoXiv \L/J.^VOS ; 2 Mace. 14 i), Antioch (i Macc. 435, etc. ), and Daphne near it (2 Macc. 433).

As we move farther W. there is still more novelty. In the sea we have of course Cyprus (2 Mace. 10 13 12z) and the Cyprians (429), and Crete (e.g., i Mace. 106?) ; on land we have Cilicia (e.g. , i Mace. 11 14 Judith 1 7 12) and Tarsus (2 Mace. 430) ; Asia as a kingdom (i Mace. 86 11 13 etc. ) ; the Galatians (82; RV Gauls ). Cross ing the ^Egean we have Alexander the Macedonian (i Mace. 1 1), and besides [})] yrj xerriefyt (cp rbv irepffta Kirituv /3o<rt\<:a 85), in the same verse (and elsewhere) rrjv eXXdSa ; the Spartans (cr-ira/marai.) appear, especi ally in i Mace. 122 s/ 20 / We encounter an old man of Athens in 2 Mace. 61 ; but this is doubtful (see GERON). Especially noteworthy is i Mace. 1623, which contains a list of countries, including Sampsames, Samos, Rhodes, Gortyna, Cnidus, Cyrene, to which letters were sent from Rome (v. 15). The new power of Rome (i Mace. 1 10 etc. ) is often mentioned, and, farthest W. of all, the land of Spain (i Mace. 83).

The meagreness of reference in these books to territory E. of Media and Persia indicates in part a lack of geo graphical interest and in part the ignorance of the authors. The Book of Tobit, whose scene is laid in Media, shows little trace of real acquaintance even with that country. The mention of India in the additional chapters of Esther (13i 16 1) is a mere repetition of that in the Hebrew Esther, and that of i Mace. 88 is an obvious textual error. F. B.

26. NT.[edit]

A survey of NT geography would take us into regions that have hitherto hardly come within view ; but such a survey is not necessary for the purposes of this article (see above, introduction). A large part of it would almost resolve itself into a study of the missionary journeys of Paul (see PAUL, GALATIA). It is enough to refer to the wide range of his journeys in Asia Minor, Greece, and the Greek islands and lastly his journey from Jerusalem to Rome, journeys that are familiar from deservedly popular works, the latest of which is Ramsay s Sf. Paul the Traveller (a valuable contribution).

We might almost say that to study the NT geography is to study the geography of the Roman province of Asia. In fact not only the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul but also the Apocalypse of John (chaps. 1-3) send us mentally on a tour of investigation in Asia. It must not be forgotten, however, that whilst Rome could be introduced into the OT only by the Rabbinic device of taking Edom as a symbol for Rome (cp EDOM, 10), Rome itself stands written plainly again and again in the second part of the NT. Once the great missionary looks even beyond Rome not merely to Tarshish, but to Spain (Rom. 1524 28). Thus the realised and unrealised travelling purposes of Paul embrace a large section of the Roman empire. Against his will he even visited the island of Malta, where Punic was spoken. The soil of Africa he never touched, though in a remarkable catalogue of countries of the Jewish Dispersion (Acts 2 9 f. ) the parts of Libya about Cyrene are mentioned, and one would almost have expected to read in the sequel that Africa as well as Asia had been visited by Christian missionaries.

The passage, which, as Blass remarks, is in the style of prophecy, runs thus, Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea (?)and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them speaking in pur tongues the mighty works of God. Judaea, however, is plainly a scribe s error. Jerome would read Syria ; Tertullian Armenia ; elsewhere (see INDIA) Ionia is proposed. There is special interest in the mention of the Jews from Parthia (see PARTHIANS).

F. B. ( I-2 5 ).


(r-HWN [BNA]), Ecclus. 24 27 AV, RV GIHON,


(re(J>YPOYN t A l om - v - s y r -)> apparently the name of a city, called also Caspin (see CASPHOR), which was taken by Judas (2 Macc. 12 13 RV) ; but the relation between the two names is obscure. The former name might plausibly be identified with the Gephyrus of Polybius (see EPHRON i, 2), if the distance between the proposed sites of Caspin and Ephron were not too great to permit this.

Very possibly is corrupt (so RVmsr-). Some read n6\iv ye^iipai? (so cod. 55 ; cp Vg. Jirtnam pontibus), or yetftvpa.ii (Grot. Zo.), where yetf>. might have the sense of dams or mounds. AV translates, to make a bridge (yf>vpovv).


(5Oa., a compound of *1| ? 68 ; cp Phcen. N"l3 |~ H P& [BAL]), a prominent Benjamite division to which belonged EHUD (judg. 815), and SHIMEI, i (2 S. 16s 19i6 [17], i K. 28). This and the name BECHER [^.v.] are the only Benjamite divisions mentioned in the historical books.

Gera is mentioned in late genealogical lists in Gen. 46 21 (ADL adds that he was the father of ARD) and i Ch. 835 (yepa [B v. 5]) etc. (on the complications see H. W. Hogg, JQR 11102-114 [ 98], and cp BENJAMIN, 911. j3). It is omitted in Nu. 2638-40. Marq. (Fund. 22) discovers the gentilic IO3.fl in 28. 2836^ (MT Bani the Gadite, Han) ; but see HAGRI.


(i"na., prop, grain, Ass. girv, see Muss-Arnolt ; 6/3oXo? [BAFL], obolus [Vg.], -ma a, zuza [Pesh.]), Ex. 30 13 Lev. 27 25 Nu. 3 47 18 16 Ez. 45 i2f. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.


(Via, pep&p& [ADEL]), a P lace ( and a district ?) in the extreme SW. of Palestine or, perhaps more strictly (unless a second place of the same name be meant), in N. Arabia mentioned by J in Gen. 10i9 26i6i 7 2026, by E (?) in Gen. 20i/ (in v. z ya l yapap<i)v [E]), and by the Chronicler in 2 Ch. 14i3 ([.a]/. yeSup [BA]).

Since the time of Rowlands, it has been generally identified with the ruins called Umm el-Jerdr, about 5 m. S. of Gaza, in a deep and broad torrent-bed called Jurf el-Jerar (the upper part of the Wddy Ghazza). This identification suits 2 Ch. /. c. , where, after defeat ing Zerah near Mareshah (Mer ash, near Beit fibrin), Asa pursues his foes as far as Gerar ; also Gen. 10 19, where towards Gerar is given as an alternative geographical point to unto Gaza (even if the latter should be a gloss, it is probably correct), and 26 1, where Abimelech, who resides in Gerar, is called king of the Philistines (Philistia cannot have reached much farther S. than the strong city of Gaza). It is incon sistent, however, with Gen. 262i/". , where SITNAH and RKHOBOTH (q.v.) are localised in the valley of Gerar, and with Gen. 20 1 where and he sojourned in Gerar is an alternative geographical statement to and dwelt between KADESH (i.) and SHUR (qq. v. ). The passages just mentioned absolutely require a more southerly situation for Gerar than that proposed by Rowlands and adopted by Robinson, Socin (Baed.W 143), and Miihlau (Riehm s HWB). For these passages at any rate the site fixed upon by Trumbull (Kadesh Barnea, 63 f. 255) and Guthe (ZDPV&zis) seems indispensable. SW. of Ain Kadis is the Wddy Jeriir, a lateral valley of the W. esh-Sherd if, which issues into the IV. el- Arlsh ; the name, as Robinson who describes it re marks, nearly corresponds to the Gerar of the OT.

In short, it is probable that there were two Gerars, and that J, who was equally unaware of this and of the true situation of Rehoboth and the other wells, con founded them, and consequently made Abimelech a king of the Philistines, which the lord of Rehoboth and Sitnah cannot have been.

This view of the locality intended in the original form of the tradition, of which we have J's recast in Gen. 26, is confirmed by the version of the same folk-story given by J in his life of Abraham (Gen. 12 10-20), where the scene of the story is laid in Mizraim. That J understood the Mizraim of this tradition to be the land of Egypt, is obvious. There is indeed no special Egyptian colouring, but the mention of Pharaoh is enough to prove this reference. Elsewhere, however, it has been shown (see MIZRAIM, vb) that some of the early traditions may have been misunderstood by J, through his ignorance of the early application of the term Mizraim (or Missor) to a region bordering on Edom, and adjoining the Wady of Mizraim, in N. Arabia (see EGYPT, BROOK OF). This region probably included the territory between Kadesh and Shur, and also the wells Rehoboth and Sitnah. Winckler (AF \ 32) suggests that 1-133 13*1, And he sojourned in Gerar, in Gen. 20 1 may be an editorial addition, designed to harmonise the following narrative (E) with that in Gen. 26 (J). This is very probably correct; otherwise we must insert also, and attach the words in question to v. 2 (so Strack), a most un desirable expedient. The modern name Jerar means pots ; but this is no guide to the sense of the Hebrew Gerar (cp the modern name of BEER-SHEBA).

Of the two Gerars only the first is known to tradition. It is, however, not the K-ru-ru of the famous list of Thotmes III., which was hardly near Gaza (WMM As. u. Eur. 159). Josephus apparently knows of Gerara as a Palestinian city {Ant. i. 12 1). Eusebius mentions it as 25 R. m. S. of Eleutheropolis, and as capital of Geraritica (OS 240 28; cp 299 74 77 80). It seems to be mentioned in the Talmud (Neub. Ge"og. 65). Sozomen (Hist. 632) says that there was there a large monastery. Cp GERRHENIANS.

T. K. c.


In the original tradition of the casting out of the legion of demons it was, most probably, stated that Jesus was met by a demoniac, or by two demoniacs, in the country of the Gerasenes. The story occurs in three forms, and according to both AV and RV, the three evangelists differ as to the scene. In Mt. 8 28 AV gives Gergesenes, RV Gadarenes ; in Mk. 5i and Lk. 826 AV gives Gadarenes, RV Gerasenes. It is not very easy to say in each case which is the best reading.

In Mt., Ti., Treg., WH., and Weiss adopt yaSapyviav ; in Mk., Ti. and WH agree in preferring yepacnji wi ; in Lk., WH adopts yepa<r/]v!av, but Ti. yepye<n\vH>v (so N).

Gergesenes may, however, be confidently rejected. It has arisen out of Gerasenes, and supplies an ex ample of the tendency of the scribes to repeat the initial g in gad or gar at the beginning of the next syllable (see GIRGASHITE). It was equally the habit of the scribes to substitute a well-known for an uncommon name. Gerasenes therefore is to be preferred to Gadarenes, if we can only find a Gerasa which was on the E. coast of the Sea of Galilee ; to identify this Gerasa with JeraS (see GILEAD, 6) is out of the question. To start with, we have some reason to expect that there was such a place, because Origen (In Ev. Joann. 624) states that there was an ancient city called Gergesa near the Lake of Tiberias, and hard by it a precipice, with which the descent of the swine into the lake was traditionally connected. So also Eusebius (OS 24814).

Under Gergesa, where the Lord healed the demoniacs, he says, Kal vvv SeiKwrai. 7ri roO opovs Ki6/ar) wapa. rr)v \ift,vr)v Ti/3ept<5os eis TJV KOL oi x<npoi K<nfKpTHJ.vi<r6r]<Ta.v Kfirai Kal a.vla^ep<a. Further, in an earlier place (242 68), where yep-yaerei is treated of, it is defined as eire /ceii/a TOV lopSdvov Trapax- etju.eVr) TrdAis rta TaAaaS f/v eAa/Se <uAjj Mai/a<r<r>J. He adds that it is said to be Gerasa, a notable town of Arabia. And some say that it is Gadara. And the Gospel makes mention of the Gerasenes ; and under Gcsurim, 24424, we read that Gergasi is in Basanitis, from which the children of Israel were unable to expel the Geshurites (cp 127 18 under Gesom ).

The probability is that Origen and Eusebius had really heard of a place on the Sea of Galilee called Gersa, and now that it has been shown that on the left bank of the Wady Semak, and at the point where the hills end and the plain stretches out towards the lake, are ruins called Kersa, and that about a mile south of this the hills approach within forty feet of the lake, terminating in a steep, even slope, we can hardly doubt that here is the lost Gerasa. The site, says Sir C. W. Wilson, 1 is enclosed by a wall three feet thick. On the shore of the lake are a few ruined buildings, to which the same name is given by the Bedouin. Thomson (LB 375), who first of all in dicated these ruins, states (in harmony with Wilson) that though it was but a small place the walls can be traced all round, and there seem to have been consider able suburbs.

1 Recovery of Jerusalem, 368 ( 71). Cp Schumacher, The Jaulan, 179.

Thomson further states that there are ancient tombs in the high grounds about the ruins of Kersa (cp Macgregor, Rob Koy on the Jordan, 423). About Gadara on the Hieromax, caves are also abundant, and the territory of the city seems to have extended to the lake. GADARA (q.v. ), however, is at least six miles from the lake, and though this is maintained by Keim, was certainly not intended in the original tradition. The possibility that Kersa is Gerasa is not taken into account by G. A. Smith (HG 458/1), who identifies it with Gergesa, and considers Gergesenes to be the reading supported by the documents.

For a statement of the documentary evidence see WH Af>p. ii ; from which we can hardly avoid the inference that YaSapyviav is probably correct in Mt., repcurrji/ui in Mk. and Lk. The decision, however, is not historically of great moment ; yepa.<rr\viav is virtually supported by the MSS which present , i f<n\v!av, for the reason given above, and should be preferred. With the statements of Eusebius in OS, cp the parallel passages in Jerome (viz. 130 18 12627). The most important variation is at the close of the latter passage, which reads quidam autem ipsam esse Gadaram aestimant, sed et evangelium meminit Gergesenorum. The authority of Eus. and Jer. for calling it Manassite appears to be merely the general statement in Josh. 1829-31.


(oi rePY6C<MOl [BNA]), Judith5i6 AV, RV GIRGASHITES (q.v. ).


(DTU 1H [Sam. writes the two words as one, DT~)3"in] ; mountain of the GIRZITES [?-^-]; less probably from T13 = "lT3, to cut in two ; the vocalization of a certainly primitive name has but slight authority ; |-Ap(e)lzeiN [BAFL], but r&zlpeiN [A in Dt. Il2 9 Judg. 9?] and |-&piz[e]lN [VA] in 2 Mace. 623, EV GARIZIM), the mountain (now called Jebel et -Tor) on the southern side of the valley or fissure in which Shechem lies, facing Ebal which is on the north.

1. Situation.[edit]

The height of Gerizim (properly Gerizzim) is 2849 ft. ; that of Ebal 228 ft. more. The former is composed almost entirely of nummulitic limestone ; in its rocky slopes are large caverns which were probably once quarries. The ascent at the present day cannot be called difficult, and the splendid view from the summit amply rewards the climb. One feels that if the union of N. and S. Israel could only have been accom plished, the sacred mountains Gerizim and Ebal, with the beautiful city nestling between them, might have been thought by Israel's leaders to have superior claims to Mt. Zion and Jerusalem.

A remarkable description is given of the situation of Gerizim in a passage hitherto much misunderstood. Moses has set before the Israelites a blessing and a curse, and directs them, when they have been brought into the land of promise, to put the blessing upon Mount Gerizim, and the curse upon Mount Ebal, on the other side Jordan, beyond Jericho, towards the entrance into Shechem, in the land of the Canaanites, who dwell in the House of the Tower beside the sacred trees [tree ?] of Moreh (Dt. 11 29 /. ).*

2. Dt. 11:29-30[edit]

The terrible state of corruption into which this passage early fell, led Eusebius (CW 2 ), 243 89) to state that according to the Scripture Gerizim and Ebal were near Golgol which is Galgala (ToA-ywA, j KCU ToAyaAa. Taunjs etcai TrAijtrt oi 17 ypaipT) SiSdmcei TO Yapi^eiv icai rov TatjSaA opous), and an acute proposal has been made to identify the Gilgal of the received text with the ruins called Julejll, SW. of the valley of Shechem (see GILGAL, 5). This, however, does not suit the phrase over against (S^n) Gilgal, and on grounds of principle it is undesirable to attempt identifications until the passage containing a place-name has been thoroughly scrutinised from the point of view of textual criticism. Julejll may represent an ancient Gilgal or cromlech ; but this does not show that it is referred to in Dt. 11 30. On the other hand, the text, as emended, gives a thoroughly accurate picture.

1 Cp Gen. 126. We read nK^tO for non-K^n ; yrK 1 ?] for nrm ; npi& for vovn , TUDn ITS for rmjn wan 71.0- See Crit. Bib. All that can be done to make MT intelligible has been done, especially by Dillmann ; but few will call the result very satisfactory. C. Niebuhr (Gesch. 1 328^) has realized the doubtfulness of the text ; but his suggestions that a highway through the land of the Canaanites is spoken of, that Shechem is deliberately omitted, and that the Gilgal was a circumvalation of Gerizim are hardly felicitous.

The entrance into Shechem is completely commanded by these two grand mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, as indeed the description in another striking passage (Josh. 8 33) also presupposes. Near the eastern end, the vale is not more than 60 rods wide (Thomson), and from the highest gardens in the W. corner of Nablus we turn at once to the path which skirts the rocky slopes of Gerizim. At no great distance is a platform of rock, with a projecting triangular crag, about 10 ft. in diameter, from which, as from a pulpit, Jotham could easily have shouted his parable in the ears of the people below 1 (Judg. 9 7), running away afterwards (cp EV s naive rendering of on v. 21) before Abimelech could take him. Nor is this, probably, the only portion of the story of Abimelech which refers to Gerizim. When that tyrant heard that all the people of the tower of Shechem were gathered together, we are told, he took his men to a mountain close by to get wood to set their refuge on fire. With axes he and his men cut down branches of trees and carried out his stern plan (Judg. 947-49). The mountain referred to can only be Ebal or Gerizim, and the corruption of Gerizim into ZALMON [q.v. , i. ] or Hermon (< BAL ) is easy.

Dean Stanley s attempt to provide Gerizim with other historical associations (the meeting of Abram and Melchizedek and the sacrifice of Isaac) can hardly be called a success. The Samaritan traditions are of no historical value and have no sound biblical basis. One of them even represents Jacob as having had his great vision (Gen. 28 nyC) on the summit of Gerizim (on the ruins called Loze 2 [the Luza of OS( Z ) 274s 135 13] see Rob. BR). See SAMARITANS.

3. Other references[edit]

There are still two biblical passages in one of which possibly or probably and in the other beyond any doubt Mt. Gerizim is referred to viz., Is. 66 1 Jn 4:20-21. Certainly if Is. 661-4 is post-exilic (and it is difficult to maintain any longer an exilic date), we can hardly find any other concrete object for the passage than that first assigned by Duhm viz. , the intention of the Samaritans to build a temple to Yahw6 on Mt. Gerizim 3 (see ISAIAH ii. 21). Still, owing to the brevity of the passage we can scarcely claim more than high probability for this conjecture.

The second passage is also somewhat enigmatical. A modern writer quoted by Wetstein 4 remarks on v. 22, Christ and the woman were both agreed in the object of worship. The question she puts is only which is the true place for it. But how is that determined by the answer ? The truth is that Jesus goes beyond the question of the Samaritan woman. He asserts (or is made to assert) that neither the Jerusalem nor the Gerizim temple is a fit place for spiritual worshippers, but also denies that the Samaritans as a body worship the Father (who requires spiritual worship) at all ; and he looks forward to the time when the Samaritans shall give up the cultus on Mt. Gerizim without accepting (as the author of Is. 661-4 had doubtless wished) the cultus on Mt. Zion. 5 Thus Mt. Gerizim, which loomed above Jesus and the woman as they conversed by Jacob s well ( in this mountain," v. 20), gave occasion to Jesus, according to the Fourth Gospel, to enunciate the great principle of spiritual religion. We must not, however, allow ourselves to exaggerate the blame extended by Jesus to Mt. Gerizim. Partisans of the temple at Jerusalem were, in his eyes, not less sectarian than partisans of the temple on Gerizim. See SAMARITANS.

1 Moore (Jiidgcs 246) ascribes this very plausible theory to Furrer (l^am/erunfen, 244 f.)\ cp also Baed.( 3 )256. But as Thomson, LB [ 60] (473) remarks, several lofty precipices literally overhang Nablus. Similarly Porter (KJMo sBib. Cyclop. Gerizim ).

2 May we compare the name of the village Talluza, a little to the N. of Ebal, sometimes identified with TIRZAH (q.v., i)?

3 Kcinig, it is true, sees no necessity for any concrete motive such as Gressmann suggests (the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem). The writer of w. 1-4 wishes to emphasise his conviction that only a house of prayer (cp 667) was an appropriate place of worship for Yahwe ( The Exiles Book of Consolation, 201 f. [ 99]). Is. 66 1-4 according to him is an exilic passage, but 66 5 }f. were added after tue building of the temple.

  • Beaulacre, ap. Wetstein (Bowyer, Critical Conjectures,

143 [1782]). Cp B. Weiss, Evang. lies Jo/tanncs, 193 ( 86).

4. Ruins.[edit]

The summit of this mountain testifies to a succession of faiths. The most prominent monument is not the most import ant ; it consists of ruins of the castle built by Justinian in 533 A.D. to protect the Christian church erected in 475 A.D. (the foundations of which still remain). In the centre of the plateau, however, is something much more venerable a smooth surface of rock which is the traditional site of the altar of the temple of the Samaritans, and therefore their Holy of Holies. The cup hollow in it resembles those in many Syrian dolmens, and may well have been used in primaeval times for libations. Conder (Syrian Stonelore, i6gf.) suspects that, though this rock may once have been enclosed, there was no proper temple. Josephus, however, had no interest in exaggerating, and his words are plain a temple like that at Jerusalem (Ant. xi. 82). The drafted blocks of the walls of Justinian's castle may possibly belong to a still older structure (Baed.( 3 ) 256). In the founda tions of the western wall there are some ten or twelve large stones beneath which tradition places the twelve stones, brought up from the bed of the Jordan by the Israelites (Josh. 4 20). The place where the lambs of the Samaritan passover are killed is a short way down the W. slope of the mountain, a little above the spot where the Samaritans pitch their tents seven days before the feast. For an account of the passover ceremony, see SAMARITANS.

Gerizim rejoices in a copious spring of delicious water (the Ras el- A in), which may quench the thirst of the scanty band of Samaritans at passover time, but was naturally insufficient for the multitude gathered on the mountain and slaughtered by Cerealis in the time of Vespasian (see Jos. BJ iii. 7 32).

T. K. C.


an Athenian, introduced by RV m s- into an account of measures taken by Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish religion (2 Mace. 61). The text has yepovra AOrjvcuov [VA], which EV renders an old man of Athens. The || passage, i Mace. 1 44, speaks of messengers sent by the king. The leader of these messengers would naturally be either a civil or a military official under Antiochus.

Probably a.6T\va.lov is a clerical error for a.vn.o\ea. ; Vet. Lat. and Vg. have Antiochenum, which may of course be the con jecture of a translator, but is none the worse because it is ancient. It is a further question whether yepovra. is not itself corrupt; RVmg-, perhaps unintentionally, suggests this view. But Ewald s rendering, a senator of Antioch {Hist. 5 298, n. 5), is very plausible. The name of the official was not necessary ; the Ar. vers., however, gives it as Filkus (see Grimm, ad he.). For a subtle but hardly necessary critical conjecture see Kosters, Th. T 12 495 ( 78). T. K. C.


RV GERRENIANS, THE (ecoc TO)N peNNHpCON [A], e. T. repRHNOON [V]), evidently a term for the southern limit of the Syrian dominion under Antiochus Eupator (2 Mace. 1824). The town ofGerra (rayeppa, Strabo, xvi. 233 ; yep ^ov 8piov, Ptol. iv. 5n) lay between Pelusium and Rhinocolura, but can hardly be intended here, since the coast as far N. as Rhinocolura was at this time Egyptian (cp Polyb. v. 803). The Syriac reads G-Z-K. More probably, however, we should read yepaprjvwv, which agrees with the reading yepap-qpuv of one MS (cod. 55). From Ptolemais unto the Gerarenes (see GERAR) would represent the whole of Palestine in its widest extension from N. to S.

Compare the expression in i Macc. 11 59 where Simon is made captain of the country from the LADDER OF TYRUS (about 100 stadia N. of Ptolemais) unto the borders of Egypt.

1 For the orthography of Qtj-u ( = jt!n;i) see Frensdorff, Massoret. Worterb. 277 ; the two names are essentially identical ; cp Onam and Onan, Hemam and Heman.

2 Bennett (Exp. 8 [ 98] 78) points out a possible reference to Gershom in Judg. \1 7 CE -nj Kim, as though, and he (was) Gershom.


(Dbna, 1 cp IBnj in Sin. Inscriptions, and see GERSHOM, GESHAM ; rnpCAM [BNAFL in Ex. and Ch.]; in Judg. r-HRCOM [B], pepCCOM [A], THpcooN [L])-

i. The first-born of Moses and Zipporah (Ex. 2 22 18s), from whom JONATHAN (2), the priest of the sanctu ary at Dan (Judg. 1830), claimed descent. 2 We also find a Levitical name Shebuel b. Gershom in i Ch. 23 is/". 2624. The popular etymology, DE> 1:1, a so- journer there (Ex. II. cc. ), is followed by < (yrjpa-afj.) and Jos. Ant. ii. 13 i (yypaos}. See MOSES, and on Ex. 425, cp CIRCUMCISION, 2.

2. The head of the b ne PHINEHAS (3), a family in Ezra s caravan (see EZRA 1 2, 2 15 [i] d), Ezra 82 (yrjpcrw/x [BA], -<ra/t [L]) = i Esd. 829 GERSON (rapoo-OTo/Ltos [B], yrtpa-iav [A], -aafj. [L]).


(j l&jna, for which in Ch. regularly DfcTl} and D1KHJ with the exception of i Ch. 61 [627], reAetoN [A], 236 r Hpca>N [A] ; peAcooN [BAFL]), b. Levi, is mentioned only in P and Ch. He is the first-born of Levi in Gen. 46 u (y^pffiav [AD]), Ex. 616 (y-ripffwv [AF]) i Ch. 61, and makes up with Kehath and Merari the three chief subdivisions of the Levites. Although the first-born, he is overshadowed by the Kehathites (to whom Aaron belonged). His sons Libni and Shimei (Ex. 617 Nu. 81821 i Ch. 617 [2] 23?) were known, according to the Chronicler's con ception, already in David s time (i Ch. 287-11).

The sons of Gershon or the Gershonites ( iBhjiri ; 6 7e5<rwi [e]i [BAFL], 6 yqpffuv [e]i [BA]) are num bered at 7500 in the wilderness (Nu. 822) which has an artificial look when we recollect that the whole number of the Levites is enumerated at about three times that number, viz. 23,000 (Nu. 2662). P de scribes moreover their special work at the tabernacle and also the position taken up by them on their journey- ings (ib. 825 424 7?). Far more important, however, is the notice of the cities apportioned to them (Josh. 21 27 33 yrjpffwv [AL] ; i Ch. 662 [47] 71-76 [56-61] y-rjpcrwv [A]) ; these all lay to the N. , in Manasseh beyond Jordan, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali, and if we take this in connection with the notice of Jonathan b. Gershom b. Moses in Judg. 1830 it would appear that the priests of Dan formed a group which traced its origin back to Moses, and derived its name from his first-born. 1 In the post-exilic and priestly genealogies the place of Gershon b. Moses is taken by Gershon b. Levi ; com pare the similar case of ELIEZER b. Moses and ELEAZAR b. Aaron. See GENEALOGIES i., 7.


([-HPC60N [A]), i Esd. 829 = Ezra 82, GERSHOM, 2.


(On>p3 .n-TlJ), Jer. 41 17 Kr. See CHIMHAM.


OniD). x S. 278 Kt., AV m e- ; AV GEZRITES.


(peceM [BKA]), Judith 1 9 , RV GOSHEN.


or rather, as in RV, Geshan (|E"3., cp perhaps }*;!), b. JAHDAI, a Calebite (i Ch. 247; COOfAP [B], r-HpC60M[A], f-eiCCON [L])-

A S -yr/pcnoju. may be due to a misreading, or possibly enough points to an original QK>"n (so Ki. SBOT, see GERSHOM). It is noteworthy that in both cases the Calebite name finds evident analogies in names of N. Arabian origin.


(DB>4, r-HCAM [BXA], pc. [L]- GOSI-M), called the Arabian, an ally of Sanballat and Tobiah, and an opponent of Nehemiah (Neh. 2 19 6if. 6). In Neh. 66 the name takes the form GASHMU (IDC S, yofff/n, [N c - a m -], om. BN*A ; GOSEM] ; the correct form is prob ably Gushamu, a well-known Arabian name (cp Cook, Aramaic Glossary, s.v. ict/ j).

For the ending -u which occurs frequently in Nabatean in scriptions compare la So [Kr.], Neh. 12 14 (RV Malluchi, RVmg-. Melicu), JETHRO, and perhaps BOCHERU, and see Nold. in Eut. Nab. Inscr. 73 ; ZZM/&41 715. See ARABIA, 3. s. A. C.

1 A portion of the Merarite branch of Levites actually bears the name of Mushi i.e., the Mosaite. Observe that this Levitical name, in common with so many more, is remarkable for its S. Palestinian associations ; see GENEALOGIES i., 7 (v.).


("1-1 E?|). i. A territory in NE. Palestine, adjoining the Israelite possessions, and reckoned as Aramaean (2 S. 158). According to i Ch. 223 (om. Pesh. ), Geshur and other Aramaean peoples took the Havvoth-jair from the Israelites. It may often be dangerous to treat statements of this kind in i Ch. 1-9 as historical ; but the statement here made is not in itself improbable ; it implies that Geshur was at any rate N. of the Havvoth-jair. Still less reason is there to doubt the correctness of the geography of Dt. 814 Josh. 12$ (late as these statements are), except indeed as to the localisation (in Dt. I.e. ) of the Havvoth-jair in Bashan rather than in N. Gilead (see HAVVOTH-JAIR).

In these passages the Geshurites and the Maacathites are mentioned together as bordering on the territory of Og king of Bashan, and therefore on that of Israel. Hence Guthe (ZDPVV^z^}, Wetzstein, and G. A. Smith incline to place Geshur and Maacah in the modern province of J5lan (Gaulanitis) ; Geshur would of course be S. of Maacah.

Conder (Smith s DBW) and von Riess (Bibet-AttasP), 95), indeed, still prefer to identify it with the plain of Jedur, which is SE. of Hermon and NE. of en-Nukra. This view is not only linguistically hazardous, but also involves identifying en-Nukra with Bashan, and placing the Havvoth-jair outside the N. boundary of Gilead. Furrer (ZDPV 13 198) places Geshur still farther E. He identifies it with the LejS, that great lava plateau which lies E. of en-Nukra and NE. of the Jebel Hauran, and corresponds approximately with Trachonitis ; but his reasons are very insufficient.

It is a disputable point whether Ishbaal was really king over Gilead and over the Geshurites (28.29 Pesh. , Vg. ). For two reasons: First, because in Absalom s time (28. 158) Geshur in Aram (?) was an independent state, and secondly, because though in Josh. 13 ii (cp v. 13) Joshua is said to have assigned Geshur and Maacah to the two-and-a-half tribes beyond Jordan, we cannot safely accept this as correct in the face of the contrary statements in Dt. 814 Josh. 12s. The truth probably is that in Aram in 2 S. 158 and Geshurites in 2 S. 2 9 are incorrect readings. See GESHUR, 2 ; ASHURITES.

In Josh. 12s B has yep-yeo-ei, in Dt. 3 14 BAFL [but B* yapracret, see Swete] yapyaa-ei (cp Eus. in OS 244 24, who takes yea-ovpe t|u to be the city of yep-yao-ei in Bashan where the Israelites did not destroy the Geshurites) ; (5 AF in Josh. 12$ ye<rovpi, (5 L yecroupe. Other forms are : in 2 S. 13 37 14 23 158 yeStrovp [BA], ye<rcreip [L] ; in i Ch. 223 yeS&ovp [B], yecrtroup [A], yecroup [L] ; in Josh. 13 13 -yecretpei. [B], ye<rovp[e]i [AL]. In Josh. 12s Pesh. exceptionally has Endor.

2. ( "vm> jirt, the Geshurite. ) A district at the extreme limit of Palestine, S. of Philistia, Josh. 182 (AV Geshuri), i S. 278 (EV the Geshurites ; so RV in Josh. ). The former passage (late) introduces a description of the land in the SW. towards Egypt, which in Joshua s old age still remained unconquered. A reference to the northern Geshur is therefore impossible. In the latter passage the Hebrew text gives, as the names of peoples or districts attacked by David from Ziklag, the Geshurite, the Girzite or Gerizzite (see GIRZITES), and the Amalekite. , however, gives only two names ; one of the first two names in MT is doubtless a doublet. Wellhausen, Driver, and Budde give the preference to. the second name in the form sanc tioned by the Kre, viz. Hiarr, the Gizrite, i.e. , the Canaanites of GEZER (so RV m s-, see Judg. 129 ; i K. 9i6). But Gezer lay too far N. It is better to read either the Girzite or the Geshurite, 1 and the latter is on the whole the more probable, for the Girzites probably belonged to northern or central Canaan. It was probably a chieftain of these southern Geshurites whose daughter Maacah became one of David s wives and mother of Absalom. He is called Talmai, which is also the traditional name of a Hebronite giant (Judg. lio; see HEBRON, i) ; David s close connec tion with S. Palestine is well known, and the list of the children born to him in Hebron in 2 S. 82-5 mentions the son of Abigail the Carmelite just before Absalom. Maacah is given as the name of a concubine of Caleb (i Ch. 248). This theory accounts more fully than he rival view for Absalom s flight recorded in 2 S. 1837 (cp 1423 158). In the southern Geshur, close to and yet outside of Judah, the pretender would have every opportunity of preparing for his revolt. Ahithophel (Ahiphelet?) and Amasa, his chief supporters, belonged to S. Judah, and it was the tribe of Judah which was principally concerned in the rebellion (cp 2 S. 19 u [12] Jj^). 1 The only objection to this is that in 28. 158 Absalom says to David, Thy servant vowed a vow while I dwelt at Geshur in Aram. This specification, however, would rather be expected in 2 S. 1837. It is clear that D1X3 in Aram is a gloss (for mxa?), sug gested by the vicinity of the northern Geshur to that of Maacah.

1 Kamph., however, retains both names

The suggestion of Glaser (AHT 242) that in Josh. 132 i S. 278 we should read for niB jrii flB Kn (see ASSHURIM), should also be mentioned ; consistency would then oblige us to change Absalom s Geshur into Ashur.

<5 B in i S. I.e. gives only yecreipi = ii{j>3 ; (B* 1 - gives both names (yecj-epei [A] or TOP yrcrovpalov [L] and TOP yt^palov). After wards, instead of Shur, <5 L gives Geshur (yeercroup). In Josh. 132 B yeo-eipei, AI - yf<rovp[e]i, Pesh. Endor. In 2 S. 1837 (Sadds eis Tr)v iia^aS [B]( to the land of Maacah ), . yijffi. [A], e. y. xoAaajoia [L]. T. K. C.-S. A. C.


On|, perhaps ina = l-l^l [i.e. GESHUR, i]; Marq. ZATW 8155; ya6ep [AEL]), one of the sons of ARAM (Gen. 1023, i Ch. 117 yedep [L]).


(reGCHMANGi [Ti. WH] *.., oil press, see OIL; the word is Aramaic, but the somehiat uncertain [=(D)^O2> D3 Dalm. Gramm. 152.

1. In NT.[edit]

The forms yecrffr)-fj.avei, yr/ffafj.. =(D)\3D^ JO 3] ; GETHSEMANI, GESEMANI] is given in Mt. 2636 Mk. 1432 as the name of the place to which Jesus retired with the disciples after the Last Supper. In both passages it is called xuipiov (see FIELD, 9); EV renders place (but see RV m *-) ; the word answers to the Latin pradium (so Vg. in Mk. , but villa in Mt. ). What is meant is a piece of ground enclosed by a wall or fence of some sort ; this is confirmed by Jn. 18i, which speaks of a garden (K^TTOJ ; see GARDEN, 7) and uses the expressions he went in (dfffjKdev, v. i) and he went out (^rjXdev, v. 4). Lk. , like Jn. , does not name Gethsemane and uses the vague expression place (T^TTOJ ; 2240). Possibly it belonged to owners who willingly afforded access to Jesus ; at all events, he was in the habit of resorting to it (Lk. 21 37 2239), and the habit was known to Judas Iscariot. Doubtless the enclosure contained a press, perhaps also a house in which the other disciples, apart from Peter, James, and John, may have sheltered. It has been conjectured that the owner may have been Mary the mother of John Mark, that she may have had some kind of country-house there, and that the young man mentioned in Mk. 14 si/, may have been Mark himself suddenly aroused from his slumbers. In any case, we know that Gethsemane was situated (Jn. 18 1) to the E. of KIDRON [q. v. , 3] and was regarded as belonging to the Mt. of Olives (Lk. 2137 22 39). Thus we have to think of Jesus as quitting the town by one of the gates of the eastern wall, descending into the Kidron valley, crossing the bed of the brook, and reascending on the other side. It is at Gethsemane that the touching scenes recorded by the evangelists are placed the agony and prayers of Jesus, the sleep of the apostles, the arrival of Judas and his train, the arrest ; the NT does not enable us to fix the site more exactly.

1 See AJSL 16 153 1597.

2. Tradition.[edit]

Tradition became more precise. From the fourth century onwards, perhaps from the time of the visit of the Empress Helena, the garden of Gethsemane has been shown at the foot of the Mt. of Olives on the left bank of the Kidron, some fifty yards from the present bridge.

Eusebius tells us that in his day the faithful were diligent in prayer at the place, and Jerome says it had a church (OSW 13024; 24820). The Franciscans, to whom the ground now belongs it measures about 150 ft. by 140 surrounded it with a wall in 1848, adorned it with chapels, and laid it out as a European garden with walks, borders, and beds (the oriental garden is a plantation of trees ; see GARDEN).

It contains eight old olive trees which pilgrims willingly believe to date from the time of Christ, or at least to come from trees of that date. On the other hand, it has to be remarked not only that olives are not in the habit of attaining so great an age, but also that, according to Josephus (BJ vi. li/.), all the trees about Jerusalem were cut down by the army of Titus at the time of the siege. The earliest trace of a tradition relative to the olives of Gethsemane does not go back farther than to the sixteenth century. Some hundred yards to the N. of the garden a cave (ancient cistern), transformed into a Latin sanctuary the Grotto of the Agony is shown ; the suggestion is that here is the place spoken of by Lk. (2241) as about a stone s cast 1 from where the three apostles were. The Greeks have a garden called Gethsemane close to but distinct from that of the Latins ; the Russians also have built a church in the neighbourhood. See PEFQ, 1887, p. 159 ; 1889, p. 176.

The authenticity of the site, then, is not demonstrable ; but neither is it utterly improbable. In reality, however, the scene must at all events have been larger. It may have been perhaps more to the N. , or more to the S. , in the valley ; or, more probably still, further to the E. , higher up on the western slope of the Mt. of Olives, though not on the very top a site ill adapted for a retreat (Reland, 857). If Lk. (21 37 2239) had said fnl instead of et j (rb fipoy), the expression would have been more conclusive against the traditional site (Eus. OS 24820 has irpbs ry opei ; Jer. OSW 13024, ad radices mantis Oliveti]. The Emperor Hadrian caused exten sive terracings to be made in the Kidron valley ; by these doubtless the previous contours were considerably modified (PEFQ, 93, p. 80).

3. Literature.[edit]

Robinson, BR(ty \ 234 yC ; Tobler, Die Siloahquelle und der Oelberg, 191-229, Dritte Wanderung nach Paltestina, 353-55 ; Gatt, Beschreibung liter Jerusalem, 211^ ; Furrer, Wanderungen durch das HLP), 79- 8 1 ; Keim, Lebenjesu von Nazara, 8297- 301 ; Guerin, Jerusalem, z & &f. ; Petavel, Le Domaine de Gethsemanii, Chretien Evangelique, 88, pp. 219-25; The House of Gethsemane, Expos. 1891 a, pp. 220-32 ; Le Camus, Voyage aux Pays Bibliques, 1 252-56 ; Conder, Bible Places, 204. Lu. G.


JBKJ, majesty of God ; cp Gray, HPN 210; Sam. 7N1J ; royAiHA [B a? AFL] < ToyAmA [ B *(foot)b] . GUEL), b. Machi, a Gadite (Nu. 13isf).


("IT. 3, cp two places, one of them near Aleppo, called el-Jazra [Yakut, Mujam al-bulddn, 2?I l ^ most Usuall 7 T^zep [BAL]), an ancient Canaanitish city said to have been conquered by Joshua (Josh. 1033 [f&ZHC, BA] 12 12), and situated on the S. border of Ephraim (16s, not in MT [cp v. 3]; fAZApA [BA], -ROON [L]). towards the W. (i Ch. 7 28); a Levitical city (Josh. 21 21 [fAZApA,. B : -zep&, L]. i Ch. 667 [52]).

1. History.[edit]

It remained Canaanitish (Josh. 16 10 Judg. 1 29) until Pharaoh, king of Egypt, or, as has been conjectured, Pir u, king of the N. Arabian Musri (see GENUBATH, HADAD i. [3], MIZRAIM, 2 []), took and burned it, and gave it as a marriage portion to his daughter, Solomon s bride (i K. 9i6, yefrp [A]; for B see 433; L5s); Solomon fortified it (v. 17). It is mentioned in 28. 625 (AV GAZER, yafrpa [BAL]) = i Ch. 14 16 (yafapa [B], -ftpa [AL] = MT mi 3 ) as the limit of David s pursuit of the Philistines ; obviously it was on the border of the Philistine territory. In i Ch. 204 Gezer is given where the text of Samuel (2 S. 21 18) gives GOB. As Maspero has pointed out, it is the Kazir (W. Max Muller, Ka-di -ru) of Thotmes III. s list of names of Palestinian cities (RPW 651) ; in the Amarna tablets it appears as Gazri, whose ruler Yapahi protests his fidelity to the Pharaoh (KB 5 328 f. ). On its share in the revolt against Rameses II. see EGYPT, 58 ; and on the mention of it in the Israel inscription see EGYPT, 60.

As Gazara (yafapa) it is frequently mentioned in the Maccabaean wars (i Mace. 4 15 etc.) ; see GAZARA. In the time of John Hyrcanus it was taken by Antiochus VII. Sidetes ; but at the conclusion of the war the Hasmonasans were permitted to retain it, apparently through the intervention of the Romans (see Schiirer, GIV 1:206-207)

By Strabo (xvi. 2 29) it is mentioned as yaiapi s which also the Jews appropriated ; but he seems to have somewhat confused it with Gadara beyond Jordan. In Josephus (Ant. xii. 7 4) the form yaSupa also occurs for Gezer, and, in a Notitia Episco- patuum, peyeiav yaSdptav near Azotus is distinguished from yd&eipa between Pella and Capitolias. At a synod in Jerusalem in 536 there were two bishops, each of Gadara. In the OS (244 16 ; 127 10) it is Gazara (yafapa a villa or KW/O)) 4 m. northward from Nicopolis. (See ZDPV 17 36-41.)

2. Site.[edit]

The long-lost site of Gezer was discovered in 1873. by Clermont-Ganneau, close to the village of Abu Shusheh, a little to the S. of Ramleh, towards Jerusalem. It is the high and isolated point known as Tell Jezer, which being just 4 m. W. by N. from Amwas (Emmaus-Nicopolis) is no doubt the Gazara referred to in OS. The Tell is described (see PEFM 2428-440) as having terraces of rude stone, and a sort of citadel at its eastern end. There are also- rock-hewn tombs, and a great reservoir near the modern European farm, and the correctness of Ganneau s identification is placed beyond dispute by his discovery of three bilingual inscriptions one of which includes. the word nu Gezer * which are placed palasographically between the Hasmonsean and the Herodian periods.

For the present state of the archaeological questions which have been raised, see his Archteological Researches in Pales tine, 2257; Recueil d Archeol. Orient. 1351-391, cp 401. Ganneau has shown that Tell Jezer is the Mont Gisart, near which in 1177 Baldwin IV. gained a victory over Saladin. See also Lagrange, Rev. Bibl. 1899, pp. 422-427.


(njjn), Kr., for which Kt. THE GERZITES (AV m ^-) in i S. 278 (o pezp&ioc [AL]), where RV more correctly has GIRZITES (q.v. ; see also GIRGASHITE), mg. GIZRITES. The GESHURITES (see GESHUR, 2) and the Gizrites (?) are mentioned together. The Gezrites might mean the Canaanites of GEZER [q. v. ], but more probably should be deleted. See GIRZITES.


(IT 3 ; [-<M [BA], pez [L]), supposed to be the name of a place on the road in which Joab pursued Abner (2 S. 224). See, however, GIISEAH, 2 (6).


i. NET), HEn, rdpha , D\SET), r phalm, 28. 21 16 /. Gen. 14s etc., see RAPHAH (2), REPHAIM (i. ). According to Duhm, Rephaim means (a) giants, (d) the shades (Afanes), inasmuch as the God- defying giants were hurled into ShSol and became the chief among the inhabitants of Shfiol. See, however,. DEAD, 3.

2. D ^ DJ, n phillm, Gen. 64 Nu. 18331. See NEPHILIM.

3. "1133, gibbor (yiyas, often in (5). The rendering is based on the Ar. use ofjabbar"" for giant (cp Gen. 64) ; but moderns prefer the sense warrior ; cp David s gibborim or warriors.

4. D pJi?, ANAKIM [q.v.], may also be explained as giants.


(125 ; TABep [B], r &. [AL]). a district of Judah mentioned in the great post-exilic list, Ezra 2 20 (see EZRA ii. 9, 8 c).

It has been proposed to read Jlj;33, Gibeon (so Berth.- Ryssel as in || Neh. "25, ya/3aa>i/ [BNAL]), but against this see GIBEON, 3. Guthe prefers "1JV3 or "in 1V3 following i Esd. 5 17 (RV BAITERUS ; [viol] /Samjpovs [BA]). See BETHEK i.

1 The entire inscription, which is very short, is read iij cm. which M. Ganneau (Researches, 2 264) rightly renders boundary of Gezer, and supposes to define the sabbatic limit.


(pn23 ; r*BA660N [BAL]), a city which, according to i K. 1627 1615 (r&B&a>N [B]), 17, in Baasha s time and after it, belonged to the Philistines, and was apparently their frontier fortress towards Ephraim (see PHILISTINES). Possibly it is the same as Gibeah of Phinehas (see GIBEAH, 2 [2]). In Josh. it is Danite (1944 , fieytduv [B], yapardwy [L]) and Levitical (21 23; ytOeSav [B*], ytOaipav [B avid -], ya.pt- Ouv [A], yepOuv [L]).

Conder's identification with Kibbiah, to the NE. of Lydda, reappears in PEI f map, but not in those of Fischer-Guthe or Buhl. Kibbiah does not appear to be an important site. G. A. Smith (HG 351) favours it ; but it is surely too far N. for a Philistine stronghold. All memory of Gibbethon seems to have been lost from a very early date. Eusebius and Jerome (OSC 2 ) 12815; 24652) after enumerating several places named Gabathon, content themselves with adding : there is also another yaftaBuiv (Gabatha) of the Philistines in the Book of Kings.


Any isolated eminence such as those which abound in the central plateau of Palestine might be called Hr^X gib dh, as distinguished from har, mountain, mountain range, or mountain district. The distinction cannot, however, be rigorously carried out.

1. Without qualification.[edit]

We will first consider the two places called Gibeah without any descriptive qualification. It must be borne in mind that Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon are very liable to be confounded ; for example, in Judg. 20 10, and perhaps in v. 33 (but see Budde, ad loc.), Geba should be Gibeah ; in v. 31 Gibeah should probably be Gibeon ; in v. 43 Gibeah should perhaps be Geba. So, too, in i S. 13a 15 142 16 Gibeah has been written in error for Geba ; and in 2 S. 216 Gibeah of Saul for Gibeon ; see the commentaries of Moore, Budde, and H. P. Smith. On i K. 1622 see GEBA, i, and on i Ch. 829 ( = 935) see below.

1. A city of Judah, included in the same group with places to the SE. of Hebron (Josh. 1657 < yafiaa [BAL]).

In i Ch. 249 it is called Gibea (N^3J; yai/3aA [B], -|3aa [A], ya.j3/3aa [L]), and a Calebite origin is assigned to it. It may be (see Di.) either the Gabaa (ya.pa.0.) or the Gabatha (ya^aBa.) of Eus. and Jer. (OSM 246 55 ; 128 18). There is a Kb u, no. 114 in the name-list of Thotmes III. (KFW 5 53).

2. (ya.j3aa. [BAL] ; 6 /3owo s [often in < L ] ; ol Povvoi [Hos. 58]). A city of Benjamin ( G. of Benjamin, i S. 132 [?] ya.pfe [B], 15 [om. A], 14 16 ya/3fe [B] ; cp Judg. 19 14; also G. of the children of Benjamin, 2 S. 2329 ya.j3a.fO [B], but (5 L has TOV POVVOV). It seems to be identical with GIBEAH OF SAUL (^IKI? njna), i S. 11 4 (ya.paa.0a. [A*], 7 aa6a [A 3 ], 0ovvlv [L]), 13 2 (yapet [B]), 15 3 4 (povvov [L]), 2 S. 216 (ya.pa.wv [BA], povvy [L]), Is. 1629 ( ayyai), but not with the GIBEATH of Josh. 1828 (ya.pa.uO [BL], -aa.6 [A]), nor with Gibeah of God (see 2 [3]). In Hos. 58 9 9 (@ TOV POVVOV), lOg (@ r$ povvf) it is called the Gibeah (njnan). The reference in Is. 1029 is important as clearly distinguishing the two places Geba and Gibeah. The title 1 Gibeah of Saul implies that this was Saul s birthplace (cp SAUL) ; probably the true text of i S. 9i and of i Ch. 829 ( = 935) stated distinctly that Saul s father was of Gibeah of Benjamin. 1 The gentilic Gibeathite ( ri^rnn ; 6 yepuOfirris [BN], o yapauvirrjs [L], d ra/fa- 01T7JJ [A]) occurs once (i Ch. 12 3).

Gibeah was the scene of one of the most elaborate narratives of the Book of Judges ; chap. 20 describes how the assembled tribes captured the guilty city of Gibeah, and destroyed the Benjamite army, except 600 men (see BENJAMIN, 5 ; JUDGES ii. , 13). 2 In the history of Saul frequent mention is made of the royal city (references above). Two passages are specially helpful in fixing its situation. From Judg. 19 12-14 it appears that Gibeah was on or near the main N. road, and S. of Ramah ; and from i S. 10 2-7 10-13 that from Beeroth (see below, 2 [3]) to Geba and from Geba to Saul s home was an easy journey. Both passages become intelligible if Gibeah is located, as Gross and Valentiner first suggested, 1 and as Robinson established, at Tell (or Tuleil) el-Ful, a bare conical hill (2754 ft. above sea- level) about 4 m. N. of Jerusalem, towards er-Ram.

According to Josephus, Gabath Saul was from 20 to 30 stadia from Jerusalem on the way thither from Gophna (Ant. \. 2s and SJ v. 2 i combined), which suits the proposed site. Moore, however, would have been inclined from the narrative in Judg. 1 J to look for a site somewhat nearer to er-Ram.

1 In i Sam. 9 1 read with Marq. {fund. 15) J D 33 njn^D ( : for rrtwX and in i Ch. 829 correct Gibeon into Gibeah (Che.). The Bichrites (see BICHRI) dwelt at Gibeah. On the father of Gibeon, Jehiel, see JEIEL, 2.

2 Wi. s attempt to show that the ark was brought by some into connection with Gibeah, need hardly be considered here (see BENJAMIN, 6).

2. Compound names.[edit]

There are several place-names compounded with Gibeah or Gibeath ; 1-3 are represented as such in RV m e-. I. GIBEATH HA-ARALOTH (nyaa P niWn ; Sowdj TUV d.Kpopv<TTiwi>), the hill of the foreskins, RV m e- of Josh.

5i (J), between the Jordan and Jericho, connected with the report of the circumcision (cp GILGAL i. , i ). The name suggests Aralu, a Babylonian name for the kingdom of the dead ; a popular etymology arose when Aralu had been forgotten (Che. ). For another view see Stade, Z.ATW, 86, p. 132 /: See also HELKATH-HAZZURIM.

2. GIBEAH OF PHINEHAS (om B nya? ; yapaap [B], ya.pa.a.0 [AL], $[e]/eer), a city (cp Jos. Ant. v. 129) in Mt. Ephraim where Aaron s son, Eleazar, was buried (Josh. 2433). Possibly it is the same as GIBBETHON.

Perhaps the Geba (-yjj/Sa) of Eus. and Jer. (OSW 248 3 130 5), which was 5 R. m. from Gophna (Jifnu)on the road to Neapolis (Nablus), and, according to PEP Menr.Zzqo, corresponds to Jibia, NW. of Jifna, and only i hr. from Tibneh (Timnath-heres). It is of no importance that the tombs of Eleazar and Phinehas are shown at Awartd, situated in the plain of Makhna, SE. of Mt. Gerizim.

3. GIBEAH OF GOD (c-n^.i j, <5 rbv povvbv TOV 6eov i S. 10s ; but in v. 10 a simple Gibeah [@ UA rbv Povvbv, <@ L rbv pafj.a povv6v] occurs). The locality is defined as being where is the pillar of the Philistines (see SAUL, 2 n. ), and, since this definition was thought necessary, it may be questioned whether Stenning (Hastings, DB 2170*7) is right in identifying it with Gibeah of Saul. Prof. G. A. Smith (HG 250) considers it to be the modern Ramallah (Ewald s Ramah), about 10 m. N. of Jerusalem. The names agree in meaning, and the situation of Ramallah is quite consistent with regarding TABOR [q.v., ii.] in i S. 103 as a corruption of Beeroth (Bireh) and with the identification of Gibeah of Saul with Tell el-Ful. Still, the mention of the pillar of the Philistines is more favourable to the view that the Gibeah of God is identical with Geba (i.e. , Jebd}. We may suppose that Saul went straight across the hill- country from Beeroth ( Tabor in MT) to Geba, and thence by Ramah (i S. 10 13, see below) to Gibeah of Benjamin.

In i S. 10 13 he came to the high place should be he came to hti-ramah i.e., to Ramah (er-Rdt). BA has i? TOV POVVOV, L eis TOV fiovvbv pa/ia. ; cp v. 10. Either Saul s uncle dwelt there, or something has fallen out of the text between t . 13 and v. 14. This is the easiest emendation.

4. THE GIBEAH OF (THE) MOREH (Judg. 7 1). See MOREH i.


6. THE GIBEAH OF AMMAH (2 S. 224). The text is in great disorder.

Was there any wilderness of Gibeon ? and how was it that the pursuers got no farther than the district of Gibeon by sunset? Supposing some transposition and corruption to have taken place, an intelligible view of the situation can be produced. Jljna, Gibeon may be a corruption of c J 2i . Zeboim, and ,-ICN, Ammah of c ClN. Adummim. In i S. 13 18 (see H. P. Smith) we read of the hill which overhangs the valley of Zeboim. The same hill may be referred to here under the name Adummim. The ascent of AIJUMMIM [?.7 .] is the ascent which leads up from Jericho to the fal at ed-Dam ; some overhanging hill may, however, have borne the same name. Read, therefore, imDM T" C yiyn 3 JD Sv nc*N D CIK nj ZJ (when they were come) to the hill of Adummim which fronts the valley of Zeboim towards the desert. 2

7. THE GIBEAH OF GAREB (Jer. 31 39). See GAREB ii.

8, 9, 10. Conjecturally, the Gibeah of Baal-perazim (see GIBEON, i), Gibeath-jarib or Gibeath-jearim (see KIRJATH-JEARIM, i) ; and Gibeath-Elohim (in Is. 1032 ; see NOB). T. K. c.

1 St.Kr. 43, p. 1082 ; ZDMG 12 i6i_#: (Moore, Judges, 414).

- It will be noticed that the n in rPJ nere becomes n and is attached to the word which probably underlies jljnj. We. and Bu. eliminate n J altogether, and suppose the j to be a ditto- gram ; they read n for n, and prefix it to yn.


(ni^a : r &B^6 [A], r^B&ooe [L], rv(iApeiM) [B]), Josh. 1828. Usually identified with Gibeah of Saul, but perhaps rather a fragment of Gibeath-jearim [?]; see KIRJATH-JEARIM, i.


(ni^Tim TUfti), Josh. 5 3 RV m e-. See GIBEAH, 2(1); CIRCUMCISION, 2.


(^ninan). i Ch. 12 3 . See GIBEAH,


(Jiiqa, fABACoLN], BAL). a city of the Amorites (2S. 21 2), or more definitely of the Hivites (Josh. 93 f.).

1. History.[edit]

According to a redactor it was even greater than Ai. (Josh . 10z ) . but we can estimate its importance better from the fact that it was the head of a tetrapolis or confederacy of four cities, to which Chephirah, Beeroth (not perhaps the Beeroth which is disguised under MT s Tabor in i S. IDs, and which is the modern Bireh, but a place to the SW. of Gibeon 1 ), and Kirjath-jearim also belonged (Josh. 9 17). The humorous story of the deception by which they escaped the fate of Jericho and Ai is well known. It is evidently the attempt of a later age to account at the same time for the long independence of Gibeon and for the use of the Gibeonites (n jjnan ; oi 7a/3awi [e]tTCU [BX*AL ; A-ya/Jwi /njs N* once]) for slave-service in the Solomonic temple. The story of the war of the five kings of the Amorites against Gibeon in Josh. 10 1-5 is but the sequel of the story of the Gibeonitish ruse, and is therefore both untraditional and unhistorical ; this does not, however, necessarily involve the rejection of the at any rate traditional battle near Gibeon (Josh. 10io-i 4 ) ; see BETHHORON, 3. We next hear of the Gibeonites in the reign of Saul, though the event referred to, as most critics have held, is hot mentioned in due chronological order (cp Stenning in Hastings DD 2 170 &). Tradition told of a three years famine in David s time, which was regarded as a punish ment for Saul s having slain the Gibeonites and thought to destroy them (28. 21 if.). The motive of Saul is said to have been zeal for the b ne Israel ; the continued occupation of cities and villages by the Gibeonites (cp 2 S. 21 5, end) was inconvenient for the Israelites. It has been pointed out elsewhere (see NOB) that the deed referred to was not improbably the massacre described at length in i S. 22 17-19. We can not, however, suppose that the priests of the sanctuary of Gibeon ( Gibeon, not Nob, must be read in i S. 21 1 [2] 2291119) at the time of the massacre were Israelites. They must surely have been Gibeonites, and the fact that the Gibeonite priests aided and abetted David was probably the excuse which Saul urged for decimating the Gibeonite population. 2

The pool of Gibeon attained a melancholy notoriety through the event related in 2 S. 212-32 (but see HELKATH-HAZZURIM ; in v. 24 (5 L TOU fiovvov). It is mentioned again in the account of the violent conduct of Ishmael b. Nethaniah after he had assassinated the Jewish governor Gedaliah (Jer. 41n/i). Another act of blood-guiltiness was placed by tradition at the great stone which is in Gibeon (28. 208-io ; (S L rov /3owoD) ; perhaps it was recorded in order to degrade the stone, which had been treated as sacred like the great stone at Beth-shemesh ( i S. 6 14). The desecrating act was the murder of AMASA [q.v. , i] by Joab. A brighter memory was that of Yah we s great deed in the plain (poy) by Gibeon (Is. 2821), if the Gibeon referred to is really the well-known city of that name, and if Isaiah s words may be explained by 2 S. 625 (), where David is said to have routed the Philistines from Gibeon to the approach of Gezer (so, too, i Ch. 14 16, where { has yafiuv). Gibeon, however, though more possible than Geba (see Stenning in Hastings DB 2 171 a), is still too far from the Plain of Rephaim to be the starting-point of David s pursuit of the foe. Perhaps in all three passages we should read Gibeah and suppose the hill-town of BAAL-PERAZIM [q.v.} to be meant.

1 So Buhl, Ceog. 173.

- Where the tent of Yah we referred to in i S. 17 54 (emended text : see NOB) really was, may be left uncertain.

2. The Sanctuary.[edit]

We have already seen that there was an important sanctuary at Gibeon in the time of Saul - most probably a Canaanitish sanctuary. Early in the reign of Solomon we meet with this sanctuary again, and this time it is undoubtedly Israelitish. One of the young king's first cares was to go to Gibeon to sacrifice, for there was the great high place (iK. 84); the antiquity of the notice is proved by the anxiety of the Chronicler to justify the action of Solomon by the assumed fact that the tent of meeting and the brazen altar were at Gibeon 1 (2 Ch. 13). It is certainly remarkable that the sanctuary of Gibeon should even without the ark (which was still in the city of David, i K. 81) have been regarded as the right place for a newly made king to resort to for an oracle. But clearly without the spiritual aid of a great sacrificial feast Solomon could not have ventured on the solemn act of erecting a temple by which the ancient sanctuaries were to be overshadowed. Probably the sanctuary of Gibeon was chosen in preference to any other on account of its nearness to Jerusalem. Its central position made it the great high place, and accordingly, Stade thinks, it is referred to as such in Dt. 33 12 (but see BENJAMIN, 8).

3. Other notices.[edit]

There is little more to add. From Josh. 9 23 27 we infer that the Canaanites of Gibeon were made temple-slaves; cp i K. 9 21, and the phrase the children of Solomon's servants (Ezra 2 58 Neh. 7 60 11 3). In i Ch. 8 29-32 ( = ^35 3 8 ) there may be a confusion of two statements, one referring to Gibeah (where the clan of Becher dwelt), the other to Gibeon. The father (or son?) of Gibeon may have been J EDI AEL(I), who was the brother of Becher. The father (or son?) of Gibeah would naturally be Becher (see i S. 9 i, and cp GIHEAH, i [2 n.]). The sons mentioned in 8 30 ( = 936) are liichrites (cp KISH, i). In Josh. 1825 Gibeon is assigned to the tribe of Benjamin ; in Josh. 21 17 to the Levites. The men of Gibeon took part in rebuilding the wall under Nehemiah (Neh. 3 7 ; <S B N A pm., L ya./3awc<. T)s, ya/Sacoi/ei), and in one form of the post-exilic list of the men of the people of Israel the men of Gibeon are mentioned (Neh. 7 25). Since, however, Gibeon is separated by several names from the three other members of the Gibeonite tetrapolis, and its nearest neighbours are Bethlehem and Netophah, the correctness of the reading Gibeon may be doubted. Ezra 2 20 has instead Gibbar, which is a little nearer to the (probably) true reading "in 3, Bether (see GIBBAR).

4. Identification.[edit]

We can hardly hesitate to identify the ancient Gibeon with the modern village el-Jib. The ancient name is no doubt strangely mutilated ; 2 but the biblical data and the statements of Josephus and the Onomasticon 3 all point to the correctness of the theory. A mile north of Neby Samwil (see MIZPAH, i), at the point where the road to the coast divides into two branches, rises a low, isolated hill, composed of horizontal strata of limestone, which in places form regular steps, or small terraces, from bottom to top. At other points, especially on the east, the hillside breaks down in rugged irregular precipices. Round the hill is spread out one of the richest upland plains in central Palestine meadow-like in its smoothness and verdure, covered near the village with vineyards and olive groves ; and sending out branches, like the rays of a star -fish, among the rocky acclivities that encircle it. Upon the broad summit one sees old ruins notably one massive building which was probably a castle, and among the ruins the houses of the miserable hamlet. At the eastern base of the hill, beneath a cliff, is a fine fountain. The source is in a large chamber hewn out of the rock. Not far below it, among venerable olive trees, are the remains of an open reservoir or tank, into which the surplus waters flow no doubt the pool or great waters of Gibeon (28. 2 13 Jer. 41 12).

T. K. c. 1

1 See CHRONICLES, 7, n. 2. The same spirit which animated the Chronicler seems to have prompted the alteration of nD3rt into raien in the Heb. text of i K. 84 (see Benzinger).

2 Analogy forbids us to suppose that Jib has come directly from Gib on (Kampffmeyer, ZDPl^Uz-f).

3 Jos. (BJ ii. 19 i) places Gibeon 50 stadia NW. from Jeru salem ; Ant. vii. 11 17 less correctly gives 40 stadia; Kl-JIb is 5-6 m. W. or N. of Jerusalem, according to the road taken.


n), Josh. 13 5 i K. 018(32). See GEBAL i..


( ra ; foAoAAAe [L]), a son of HEMAN \_q.v.~}.

i Ch. 254, yo6oAAa0t [B], yeSoAAafli [A], v. 29 yoSofiadei [B], ye&Sf\0i [A], GEDDELTH1 [Vg.].


fcu. [God] has reared ; 50 ; r eAAHA [AL]).

1. The eponym of a family or group of NETHINIM in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA li., 9); Ezra 2 47 (iceSeS [B])=Neh. 749 (yaSri\ [BNL], <ra. [A])= i Esd. 5 30 ; EV GEDDUR (xeS&ovp [B], ye. [A], yar)\ [LJ), or CATHUA (/covo. [B], nadova. [A]).

2. (o-afiai 2 [L]) a group of Solomon s servants (see NETHINIM) in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9); Ezra 256 (yeSria [B])=Neh. 7 58 (yaSijA. [BK], -S))A [A], o-aSSai [L]) = i Esd. 633, ISDAEL (i(r6a>jA [BA]).


(flini, as if from V^l to fel1 - 66 - 77 reAecoN [BAL] ; GEDEON in Heb. 11 32 AV; the name appears also in the genealogy of Judith [8 i]) son of Joash, of the Manassite clan of Abiezer, dwelling at OPHRAH [q.v., 3], renowned through his success against the Midianites, otherwise called JERUBBAAL, Judg. 6-8, and referred to in Judg. 9 as the father of Abimelech, king of Shechem. The narrative is highly com plicated, and traces of composite origin abound. 3 The Hebrew text, too, contains many errors which must, if undetected, lead the student astray. No where has criticism been more carefully and acutely applied than here ; it is only in textual and historical criticism (especially in the former) that there is much still to be done. A fresh combination of textual, literary, and historical criticism, which owes much to predecessors, leads to the results given below. The degree of their probability varies considerably, owing to the large amount of success attained in the early fusion of the narratives. It is, however, scarcely open to doubt that Gideon (Gaddiel ?) and Jerubbaal ( Uribaal ?) are two different heroes (the one belonging to W. Manasseh, the other either to Gad or to E. Manasseh) whose respective legends have been combined and expanded by successive narrators and editors.

1 4 mainly from Porter s art. Gibeon in Kitto s Bib. Cyc. " The readings of <S L and in i Esd. of DA seem to point to a name containing TO.

3 Nothing can be clearer than the fact that 8 4-2115 not from the same source as 8 1-3 with its premises in the preceding narrative. Close examination shows that chaps. C 7 are not of one piece throughout; 625^, .^"., is not the continuation of 611-24; the second sign, 6 36-40, is strange after the miracle 621; cp also 634 with 63572-8, and on the other hand 635 with 723^ 8 i (Moore). Cp JUDGES, 8.

4 In Judg. 63 33 7 12 Pesh. reads cp~> 33 for MT s cnp <j> Now cpT (REKEM) is most probably a corrupt fragment of ^NEnV (Jerahmeel). Pesh. appears to have the right reading. The sons of Jerahmeel is a variant of the Amalekites ; for parallels see Job 1 3, i K. 5 10 (JoB, MAHOL).

5 Joash is the father of Jerubbaal, not of Gideon. See C 23

1. Gideon-story.[edit]

The Gideon-story in its earlier form began with the statement that nomad invaders 4 from the Syrian desert were wont to spread themselves at harvest-time over the fertile country near Shechem and over the plain of Jezreel, plundering the crops. Then Yahwe appeared to Gideon 5 at Ophrah of the Abiezrites as he was beating out wheat secretly in the wine-press, and bade him go with his trusty clansmen l against the Midianites. At once a divine impulse seized him ; he sounded the war-horn ; his clansmen joined him, and with them warriors of Manasseh and Ephraim. They marched early to Mount Gilboa, and took up- their position on a projecting hill of that range, by (above) the spring of HAROD [g.v., i], while the Midianites were encamped to the north of them, be neath Mount Gilboa, in the vale. Towards daybreak, Gideon crept down with his armour-bearer Pu(r)ah (an. Issacharite ?) 2 to the hostile camp, and heard one Midianite relate to another a significant dream which he had had that night. On his return Gideon called his men to the attack. They raised the war-cry, For Yahwe and for Gideon, 3 and threw the Midianites into such confusion that they fled as far as the distant slopes. of Abel - beth - maacah. 4 The Israelites, however, hurried after them, and took the two princes of the Midianites, 5 and brought their heads to Gideon. Thus Midian was subdued. And Gideon judged his people forty years. He had seventy sons, besides Abimelech, the son of his Canaanitish concubine.

The later insertions in this narrative are due partly to a desire to place the theophany above doubt, partly to a tendency of late editors to use the old narratives for edification (cp 7 2-8 with i S. 14 (J>), partly to a patriotic wish that as many tribes as possible might be shown to have had a share in Gideon s exploit (in vi. 35. Asher is probably a corruption of Issachar ), and partly to a desire to provide a link between this narrative and that in ch. 8. With regard to the last-mentioned point, it will be found that in 7 22^ the description of the direction of theflightof the Midianites, the text of which had become accidentally corrupted, was manipulated in such a way as to bring Gideon across the Jordan, ready to be enriched with the exploits which properly belong to Jerubbaal. The inserted passage, 8 1-3, stands by itself. It seems to be suggested by 12 1-3 and 28. 1941, and is a con sequence of the insertion of 7 24, in which the Ephraimites are said to have been summoned to cut off the fugitive Midianites. It should also be mentioned that Jerubbaal in chap. 9 seems to have been substituted by the editor for Gideon (Wi.).

8 29. The context of the former passage shows that originally Jerubbaal, not Gideon, was referred to.

1 nT"|nD3 in this thy strength (6 14) needs emendation ; read perhaps TjO jna (cp Gen. 14 14).

2 For rns (7 10) read perhaps .TJS PUAH [q.v., i] (Gen. 4613 etc.). Cp ISSACHAR, 4.

3 3^rt sword, in 7 20, is an interpolation (Moore, Bu. etc.).

4 Read nji Dvra ^3N n TON"ij; for n nnD ^an rfl?> ~\y

(722). The text is disfigured by transposition and corruption. The editor thought of nTIS (mis), which he placed near Abelme- holah. This agrees with the probable position of ZAR"ETHAN lff.v.1

5 On the (probably) true name of the princes (or prince?) of Midian, see OREB [i.].

6 Jerubbaal is possibly the same as ARELI ly.v.], or rather Ariel (Uriel = Uribaal ?), the name of a son of Gad.

? C. Niebuhr rightly observes that the early fortunes of Jerubbaal must be told in the passage underlying Judg. 25-32, if we could only recover it. Only a few words, perhaps, were legible to the later narrator to whom C 25-32 is due.

8 Read Ttt-jvaa for liana (S IB). See THEBEZ, TIRZAH, i.

8 Read nplj? *N3 (3 10).

2. Jerubbaal-story.[edit]

The Jerubbaal-story may have been somewhat as follows :

[At Jazer in the land of Gad (?) there dwelt a man of the Gadite family of Uribaal, which name he himself bore ; later generations changed it to Jerubbaal (?); 6 his father s name was Joash. Now the Midianites oppressed Israel, driving away their cattle, and plundering the fruits of the ground. And Jerubbaal, and ten of his household, went by night, and made a slaughter among the Midianites. 7 To avenge this the Midianites came upon Jerubbaal's brethren in Beth-sur, 8 their stronghold, and slew every one of them, whereupon they turned and went northward on their camels, plundering as they went, till] they came to Karkor, 9 S. of Hamath. Jerubbaal, however, called his clan together, three hundred warriors, burning with zeal for Yahwe, and with the desire for vengeance. They took the road of Damascus, 1 to the E. of Jogbehah (Ajbihdt], and Nobah (Kanawdf), 2 passing by Salecah 3 (or Salhad) and Penuel, at the SE. corner of the Hauran. 4 Faint and hungry, 8 Jerubbaal asked for bread for his band. The elders or princes (see GOVERNMENT, 16) of both places, however, feared the wrath of the Midianites and refused the request. Both places (Penuel was probably the citadel of Salecah ; cp v. 1 7 tower ) were threatened by Jerubbaal with punishment. And when he came to Karkor he divided his band into three parts (cp Gen. 14 15 i S. 11 u Job 1 17 ; cp 2 S. 182), and gave them empty jars with torches inside, and said, Do as I do. Then each company blew a blast on the horn, 6 and the three hundred broke the jars (with a clash), and held fast the torches. And the Midianites were panic- stricken, and Yahwe set each man s sword against his neighbour. Jerubbaal caught the two kings of Midian, 7 and returned. On his way he punished the rulers of Salecah and Penuel, 8 and so announced himself as king of Gilead. Then came the turn of Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian, who confessed their slaughter of Jerubbaal s brethren, 9 and underwent their doom. On their camels necks were necklaces of golden crescents, which were the marks of their high dignity. These the conqueror took for himself [for the people had made him their king]. 10 Then Jerubbaal ben Joash went [to Jazer ? u ], and dwelt in his own house. And he made for himself [a royal sanctuary in Jazer with an altar and] an ephod, the ephod which he had made with the golden rings (earrings ?) taken from the fallen Midianites.

The insertion in 822_/C reminds us of i S. 8 7 10 19 12 12 ff., Hos. 9g lOglSioyC, that in v. 27 expresses the view of later times that the use of the ephod was an act of infidelity to Yah we.

The essential features of the above reconstruction are the distinction between the Gadite (or E. Manassite 12 ?) and the W. Manassite heroes (due to C. Niebuhr) and the critical emendation of the text in Judg. 84-21. It is possible that the original Gideon-story represented the hero as accompanied only by his three hundred clans men, though, since the scene of Gideon's encounter with the Midianites is in the Great Plain, it is only natural to suppose that on his way thither Gideon gathered in fresh volunteers ; possible, too, that the enrichment of the Jerubbaal-legend by the story of the jars and torches is erroneous, and that this story really belonged to a second version of the Gideon-story. The similarity of the stories not unnaturally led to their combination.

If Jerubbaal dwelt at Jazer, the similarity of this name to Abiezer would facilitate the combination of the legends. We might also assume that Jerubbaal belonged to the Gileadite clan of Abiezer; in i Ch. 7 18 Abiezer is a son of Hammolecheth, the sister of Gilead. It should also be noticed that HAMMOLECHETH, like Zelophehad, is probably a corruption of Salecah (Salhad), the city which is so prominent in the story of Jerubbaal.

The religious interest of these stories in their combined and expanded form was very early felt (Is. 9 4 [3], 1026 1 ). To the modern student their historical and archaeological interest must almost necessarily be greater. See, however, Elmslie s striking lecture, Expositor, 1892 a, 50-65.

See Stade's and Kind's Histories of Israel ; and Moore s and Budde s commentaries; Wi. AOF 142-59 ; C. Niebuhr, Studien u. Bemerkungen zur Gesch. cics alien Orients, i. [ 94], 1-29 ; and the critical literature cited by Moore and Budde. T. K. C.

1 For D^.tNl J13BTI (8 u), which does not admit of any grammatical interpretation (Moore), read p&ETR = pK S n

Damascus. D ^HNl > s an exegetical insertion.

2 Nobah ought to follow Jogbehah.

3 Reading njSp for ni3D (8 5 etc.) ; see SALCAH, SUCCOTH, I.

4 Reading .ITlin for n^.TH (8 4). liy is either a gloss (Moore) or a corruption of [jliin-

5 Reading CTIlin (Bu., after (5) for G SVI (84).

6 See C. Niebuhr. We need not suppose 300 horns ! The horn takes the place of the war-cry in the corresponding part of the Gideon-story.

? Ste ZEBAH AND ZALMUNNA. The chiefs are here called kings, to heighten the glory of king Jerubbaal.

8 For B jIN (8 i6/) read probably ^J3\. There is some con fusion in v. 16 (see Niebuhr).

9 \7^ VJ3 means thy sons, O king. So Niebuhr; cp Kittel, Hist, tti, n. 1.

10 It isnoobjection to this that Judg. 7 spoints to an oligarchy rather than a monarchy. Jerubbaal was every inch a king while he lived, nor could the oligarchy of his seventy sons (9 2) have lasted long.

11 Something has clearly dropped out after s]7 l in 8 29.

12 E. Manassite, according to Niebuhr.