Encyclopaedia Biblica/Gothoniel-Haggi

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


Contents

GOTHONIEL[edit]

(ro6ONmA [BN c - a A], [X*]), the father of CHABRIS (q.v. ), JudithGis- name is identical with OTHNIEL ( /S OrW).

GOUED[edit]

(frp;p ; KOAOKYN9& [BAQ]; Jon. 46, -NTH [AQ* bis] \ 7 , -NT&N [A] ; 9, -NTH [AQ a ] ; 10, -NTHC [AQ a ]f), rather, as AV m * palm-crist, RV m e- Palma Christi i.e. the castor-oil tree, Ricinus communis, L.

The rendering gourd is that of and Pesh. ; Sym. and Vg. render ivy ; but Jerome s remarks in his commentary (quoted Ges. Thes. 1214) point to the ricinus. Aq. and Theod. trans literate.

The Hebrew word (klkdyon} seems to be identical with, or derived from /C/KI, which, according to Herod. 294 Plin. 157, wa s the Egyptian name of the castor-oil plant, the Kporuv or Kpbruv of the Greeks. This plant, which in France, Germany, and the south of England, is an annual herb of noble foliage, growing to a height of 4 or 5 feet, becomes in the Azores, and the warmer Mediterranean countries, as Algeria, Egypt, Greece, and the Riviera, ... a small tree, 10 to 15 feet high (Fliick. and Hanb.f 2 567). Its rapid growth (de C. Orig. 341) and the effective shade given by its large leaves, support its identification with the Klkdyon.

On the other hand, in favour of the rendering gourd or the like, a statement of Kazwlm (2 309) may be noted (see also JONAH, BOOK OF, 5).

Speaking of Mosul, Kazwlni describes the custom of making tents of reeds (on the snores of the Tigris), in which the inhabit ants pass the summer nights, when the water is becoming low. As soon as the earth, where the tents are, has become dry enough, they sow gourds, which quickly spring up and climb round the tents (G. Jacob, Altarabische Parallelen, ijf.).

EVmg- proposes gourds for B ypB in i K. 618 (BL om. ; iiravoLVTaytis [A]); it should also stand for 3 in 7 24! (VTTO- <rn)pi y,u.aTa [BAL], om. in clause /3) (EV knops, in the former verse they have mg. gourds ). The word is commonly explained gourd-shaped ornaments ; but though the form of the colocynth (see next article) would suggest a graceful decoration, there is too much uncertainty about the text (see Klo.) to permit us to acquiesce in this explanation. Cp TEMPLE and SEA (BRAZEN). N. M.

GOURDS, WILD[edit]

(iTfB> nV|9B ; ToAyiTH AfPi* [BL]; om. AppiA 1 [A]), 2 K.isgf. EV agrees with the ancient versions and tradition. The kindred Ar. ftikka denotes the colocynth 2 (Dozy); .and although the etymological connection with the root yps, which has the sense of splitting or bursting, is not quite clear, it may be explained by the tendency of the ripe fruit to split when touched, or even of its own accord (see below). 3

The fruit intended may be (i) the colocynth or bitter apple ; the fruit of Citrullus Colocynthis, Schrad. , a slender scabrous plant with a perennial root, native of warm and dry regions in the Old World, over which it has an extensive area. Its fruit is a gourd of the size and shape of an orange, having a smooth, marbled- green surface. The pulp of which it consists is nearly inodorous, but has an intensely bitter taste (Fliick. and Hanb. W 2 95)- ( 2 ) The squirting cucumber,

yielded by Rcballium elaterium, A. Rich, a plant which is common throughout the Mediterranean region and was known to the ancients as the wild cucumber. 4 It has a peculiarity which might be connected with the etymology ofpakkif&k: the fruit when ripe separates suddenly from the stalk, and at the same moment the seeds and juice are forcibly expelled from the aperture left by the detached peduncle. Tristram (Smith s Z>Z?( 2 , s.v. ; NHB, 451) thinks that the details in 2 K. 439 point clearly to the colocynth. The squirting cucumber is not so bitter, nor does it bear the same resemblance to the good fruit. It is also common everywhere and should have been at once recognised. One who came to Gilgal from another part, however, might mistake the colocynth for the wholesome globe cucumber, because it only grows on barren sands like those near Gilgal and round the Dead Sea. But was the Gilgal of the narrative the famous one near Jericho? Buhl thinks otherwise (see GILGAL, 4).

At any rate, the fact that the plant on which the pakkuolh grew is described as a wild vine is against the identification with (3) A/omordica elaterium, which is a coarse, hispid, fleshy, decumbent plant without tendrils (Fliick. and Hanb.< 2 292).

Both (i) and (2) are extremely bitter; and the fact that the taste instantly suggested poison (2 K. 440) is another example of the close association of the ideas of bitterness and poison in the Hebrew mind (cp GALL).

N. M.

1 The aypiav is apparently a hexaplaric addition (see Field, ad loc.). Sym. had ftoravt\v aypiav, and another translator ito\OKvv8i&a.s , so Vg. colocynthidas agri.

2 Its more ordinary meaning, however, is mushrooms."

3 Others explain it by reference to medicinal effects. Riehm, HWBW.

  • A kindred species was named by Linnanis Cucumis pro-

phctarum,

GOVERNMENT[edit]

  • Tribal relations, 1-3.
  • Formation of tribes, 4-7.
  • Position of individuals, 8-10.
  • Union of Tribes, 11-15.
  • Administration, 16-24.
  • Persian period, 25-27.
  • Greek period, 28-29.
  • Roman period, 30-31.
  • Literature, 32.

1. Israel's nomadic origin.[edit]

Until the institution of the monarchy the B'ne Israel represented the stage of political organisation that we are wont to call tribal. This type of constiution is not peculiar to Israel. It is to be found amongst the most diverse peoples at a certain stage of civilisation. The OT records, however, belong for the most part to a much later age, and supply us only with an imperfect and even (in many points) misleading picture of the real nature of the old tribal life. Hence in trying to ascertain what the actual conditions really were, we are compelled to turn to what we know of such life amongst other peoples, especially the pre- Islamic Arabs and the modern Bedouins. We must suppose that similar conditions at one time prevailed amongst the Hebrews. The justification of this inference lies in the essential identity of the external conditions that called forth the tribal organisation amongst the ancient Hebrews and Arabs and have held the Bedouins to this very day at this stage of political development, namely, the nomadic life of the steppes.

2. Theory of genealogists.[edit]

Hebrew, like Arabic tradition, in the form it has reached us, has reduced the mutual relations of the tribes to a fixed system in genealogical form. Such systems rest on the theory, common to the Hebrews and the Arabs, that the tribe is an expanded family. See GENEALOGIES i. , 2.

This conception has a certain amount of foundation in fact. The bond that holds together the family or the clan is not any form of political organisation ; it is the feeling of consanguinity. For the ancient Semite, blood-relationship was the only basis on which a stable society and absolutely binding duties could rest.

This appears most clearly in the fact that alliances with strangers, and obligations towards them, did not acquire inviol ability till the lacking blood-relationship had been artificially produced (see KINSHIP, i).

3. Early idea of kinship.[edit]

We must not, however, follow the old genealogists and at once infer from this feeling of blood-relationship, actual descent from a common ancestor. Not to speak of the numerous traces which indicate that amongst the Hebrews, as amongst the Arabs, descent was in the earliest times reckoned not from the father but from the mother (matriarchate ; see KINSHIP, 4), it is clear enough that the feeling of community of blood was not quite the same thing with the ancient Semites as sense of relationship is with us. The latter varies according to the degree of nearness ; in the case of the Semite, on the other hand, community of blood knew, theoretically at least, no such thing as degree. A man who belonged to a given kindred group was connected equally with all its members, irrespective of degree of relationship (see KINSHIP, 2). Moreover, this blood-kinship can be artificially brought about by blood-covenant between persons belonging originally to alien groups.

This representation must not, however, be pressed too far. In practice, at least in historical times, it is the narrower circle of closer kindred that has been most intimately bound together by unity of blood..

Within the larger tribes the several families and clans frequently constituted closely united groups, carrying on blood- feuds amongst each other a proof how naturally the feeling of unity of blood became weaker in the larger groups. Robertson Smith cites cases (AV. 159) that show how the feeling of kinship bound together families of alien stock. We may adduce also the line in the Hamasa (367) : Ally thyself with whom thou wilt in peace, yet know : In war must every man be foe who is not kin. Among the Hebrews, moreover, the blood-feud, as we meet it in the OT, was confined to the limits of the family i.e. the nearest relatives.

In this emergence of relationship by descent, indeed, Robertson Smith sees the decay of the ancient tribal system (Kin. 52, 57, 160). He regards it as the first appearance of a new principle, quite foreign to the original tribal organisation.

We must leave this an open question. We cannot here enter into the problem how the Semitic families and clans were con stituted in the earliest times before the various Semitic peoples separated from each other. It is indeed a question that in our opinion cannot yet be answered with certainty.

4. Aggregation of families, etc.[edit]

Although kinship by descent through the father played in historical times a great part, the records show that even then there were also other factors in the formation of the tribes. The Hebrew tribes, like the larger Arabian tribes, were not simple but composite, comprising several kindred groups.

These groups are commonly called in the OT mispahoth (ninSE ID) clans. though an older designation, which at a later time fell into disuse, seems to have been hai On), the commonest term in Arabic. (Cp Kin. 39 f. ; Nold. ZDMG 40 176; i S. 18 18 according to We. TBS p. iii, and Dr. TUSiig ; 2 S. 23 13 ; also preserved according to Nold., I.e., in TX niin; see HAVVOTH-JAIR.)

We must indeed admit the possibility with Noldeke (ZDMG 40is8 [ 86]), that in the case of these clans the families that formed the nucleus were often really descended from a common ancestor whose name they bore. Even in this case, however, it remains true that the family did not grow simply by the natural process of marriage and birth.

It grew also by accession from without. Slaves were acquired ; freedmen remained as clients of the family of their master ; individual strangers, cut loose for some reason or other from their own clan, sought refuge in the family ; poor and weak families attached themselves for the same reason to the more powerful. These all reckoned themselves as belonging to the family of their adoption and bore its name.

In order to understand this process one must realise how, amid the endless feuds of the desert, it was only the man or the family supported by a powerful group of kinsmen, ready to avenge an injury, that was safe. This insecurity also made necessary a certain amount of cohesion. The individual was no doubt at liberty in time of peace to sever himself from his clan ; but as he went farther away from it his security propor tionally diminished, unless he obtained admission as a sojourner in some other clan. Thus it is the dwelling together and roaming together, rather than the common descent, that is the characteristic feature of these kindred groups. The Hai is the community of people that live and travel together (Nold. ZDMG 40 176 ; WRS Kin. 38).

5. New tribes.[edit]

The same process is repeated in the formation of tribes. The instinct of self-preservation drives the clans into closer association. It is plain that here also local contiguity must have been an important factor in forming tribes ; clans that were in the habit of meeting on adjoining pasture lands and at common wells were by that very circumstance bound together by a certain community of interests (cp ISRAEL, 8).

It is not the case, as is frequently supposed, that the Bedouin tribes roam at large over the entire Arabian wilderness ; on the contrary, now, just as in ancient times, each one has its own definite territory with the pasture lands and wells belonging to it, and the proprietary rights of the tribe over such territory are jealously guarded against the encroachments of other tribes.

Many other causes contribute to the formation of a tribe, and produce a constantly shifting result ; new tribes arise, old ones disappear. Mutual jealousy and feuds, migrations, the disuniting influences of war, and other circumstances, may result in the separation of a clan from the main body. This almost necessarily happens as soon as a tribe has become very strong or extended itself over a wide area. Should a subordinate tribe in these circumstances succeed in asserting itself without becoming incorporated with a foreign tribe, should it, for example, have grown by attaching other clans to itself, it then, in course of time, forms a new tribe which assumes a new tribal name (after that of a prominent family, one of its leaders, or the like). Legend next comes in, and soon gives it a patriarch, the original bearer of the name, and the connection of the new tribe with the old also finds some expression here, the heros eponymus of the tribe being brought into some sort of relationship (usually that of a son) with the patriarch of the older tribe.

6. Alliances.[edit]

In other cases tribes have arisen out of alliances that originally were only of a temporary character. In the tribal history of Arabia, such federations (called hilf) play a prominent part (Goldziher, Muh. Stud. 16+). Sections of a larger tribe enter into closer relations with one another or with outside clans ; whole tribes form treaties with one another, and sometimes even these federated groups in turn form connections with other similar groups. Such alliances do not arise out of considerations of kinship ; they are determined by the daily exigencies of offence and defence, and, in particular, by the necessity felt by the weaker of seeking support from the stronger, the instinct of groups, weak in themselves, to attain the strength that comes of union.

In many cases the alliances are formed for particular and definite ends, as for example for the sake of a common blood- revenge. Their formation is often inaugurated in a very solemn way, as with sacrifices, oaths, and the special ceremonies con nected with blood-brotherhood (see KINSHIP, i). Sometimes they are quickly dissolved again after their immediate object has been gained ; but sometimes also the temporary becomes a permanent relationship ; the component parts become completely fused, and the group naturally takes a new collective name by which the old and proper names of the individual elements are often driven completely into the background. Thus the formation of new tribes is a process that is related on the other side to the seeming or real decay of old ones.

7. Terminology.[edit]

Clearly, the process is capable of taking place in a very great variety of ways, and it would be quite a mistake to try to explain them all in accordance with a single scheme. In the continual process of modification it cannot surprise us to find in Hebrew (as we do in Arabic) tradition that the most contradictory statements are made as to the relation of the clans to the great tribes.

Finally, it results from what has been said that the words tribe and clan (subordinate tribe) are used only relatively ; they express nothing as to size.

A tribe may, if numbers be regarded, fall below the strength of a clan, and yet at the same time, if it remains independent, it will continue to bear the designation of tribe. Thus in the OT Dan is at one time spoken of as a tribe (BriE , sebhef) at another as a clan (nnSE D, tnifpahdK); cp, e.g., Josh. 1040 Judg. 18 \\ff. In Arabic phraseology the change in the use of the words is much more strongly marked (cp Nold. ZDMG 40 1 75 ff^) , in Hebrew tradition the relative persistency with which either word is used is a result of the arbitrary limitation of the application of the word BntP to twelve (or thirteen)! tribes.

1 See JOSEPH i., i n.

8. Religious meaning of tribes.[edit]

For a full comprehension of the tribal system it must further be observed that these social unities (family, clan, tribe) are at the same time religious unities. Not only among the Semites, but also among thee Greeks and Romans, it was their common worship that marked the clans and held them together. This is not the place to discuss the many (still disputed) questions as to the nature and character of the tribal gods among the Semites. However these questions may be decided, there remains the fact that the original religious society was the kindred group, and all the duties of kinship were part of religion (WRS Rel. Sent. 47). Community of blood between man and man derives its absolutely uniting character precisely from this, that it is at the same time a real community with the divinity.

The tribal god stands in just the same relationship of blood- community with his worshippers, the members of the clan. Every sacrifice seals anew this mystic oneness of the members with each other and with the deity.

Where a person of alien blood is received by blood- covenant (see above, 2, 6, and cp KINSHIP, i) into clan-fellowship, he is at the same time by the covenant- sacrifice received into blood-fellowship with the deity. Every violation of the duties of blood-community thus becomes a crime against the deity. *

9. Flexibility.[edit]

The tribal constitution is excellently adapted for the steppe and for nomads. Its importance here lies in this, that, on the one hand, it allows the necessary freedom of movement to the individual and the smaller aggregates (family and kindred), whilst at the same time it creates a certain natural social unity which satisfies the demands and necessities of the nomadic life. In the wilderness no great tasks present themselves, such as demand the strength of a whole people. What the individual, and the group of kinsmen, require, in this state of universal war, is some protection for life ; and this is guaranteed by belonging to a clan. For blood-revenge and mutual help in war are the most sacred duties of those who are united by community of blood. Conversely, the individual who has been expelled frqm his tribe is a wanderer and a vagabond so long as he has failed to gain admission to some other clan. It is this that gives its power to tribal custom and law, a power from which none can shake himself free. On the other hand the freedom of the individual and of the separate clans is tolerably unrestricted in times of peace. The organisa tion of the tribe exists only for purposes of war and of migration ; it is only in these conditions that the sheikh has any say and any command ; in times of peace his authority is purely a moral one : it reaches just so far as the influence he has been able to acquire by his personal qualities can carry it. He can only advise, not command. In a dispute he can, doubtless, give a decision ; but he has no power to execute his judgment if those affected by it refuse to submit to it ; he can neither declare war nor conclude peace, neither pitch the camp nor break it up, until the leading men of the tribe have been consulted. 2 In a tribe of those related by blood all the individual members are brothers, and thus on a footing of equality ; there is no such thing as permanent authority or subjection, for even the Roman patria potestas was unknown among the Semites. The freedom of individuals and of clans reaches so far that in time of peace they can separate from the main camp without any ceremony and go their own way, if only they have strength enough to give the feeling of security. It is in this, as Goldziher (Muh. Stud. 168) and Well- hausen (IJG 24 f.) have rightly pointed out, that the moral importance of the tribal constitution lies. In proportion as the feeling of kinship becomes weaker when set against the wider tribal bonds, in the enjoy ment of such freedom, its place is taken by that public spirit which acts freely and is capable of making sacrifices for the public good. Fidelity to covenant obligations extending beyond the narrow bounds of kin is reckoned by the Arabs among the higher virtues.

1 On this sacral character of sacrifice, see e.g., WRS Rel. Sent. 26gjT. 312^ < We. Arab. Heid. \igff.

2 Burckhardt, Bemerkungen iiber die Beduincn, <)s,f.

10. Ancestor-worship.[edit]

It is in the way we have indicated that we must picture to ourselves the condition of the Israelite tribes before their migration into Palestine. With them, too, family and clan were originally a community of worship, held together by common ancestral cults. Many of the old and famous sanctuaries appear to have owed their position as such to their being regarded as the burial places of heroes. There was a sacred stone at the tomb of Rachel (Gen. 35 20) ; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were buried at Hebron (Gen. 25g 8629 50 13), Joseph in Shechem (Josh. 24 32 Dt. 11 30), Miriam at Kadesh-barnea (Nu. 20 1), and Deborah under the sacred tree of Bethel, Gen. 358 (see the several articles).

11. Traces of clan cults.[edit]

Within historical times we have one recorded instance of clan worship = none the less convincing that it is the only one - in 1 Sam. 20:5+ David excuses his absence from Saul's table at new moon on the ground that his clan are celebrating their yearly festival at this season an excuse which is regarded as perfectly adequate. In like manner we may take clan worship to be presupposed in the question with which the Danites seek to induce Micah the Levite to accompany them ; 'is it better for thee to be priest unto the house of one man, or to be priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel?' (Judg. 1819).

12. Uniting of tribes.[edit]

How far the tribes, which afterwards constituted the people Israel, had already been welded into one before the settlement is a more difficult question. That they were firmly knit together as a people and felt themselves to be so, as is assumed in the OT tradition, is refuted by the simple fact that even after the immigration, during the so-called period of the Judges, such a people, with an ordered government and the like, did not exist (cp ISRAEL, 7).

It is now universally recognised that the Judges were not rulers of the whole people but only heroes of particular tribes. Neither does the manner in which the immigration took place gradually, by tribes and clans show any evidence of a unified organisation.

All this by no means excludes, however, as Winckler (GI 1 i\ff. 21 ff.} and others suppose, every sort of con nection between the immigrating tribes. On the con trary, the analog)- of the Arab tribal history makes it in every way possible and probable that those tribes which had a point of contact and common meeting- place at the oasis of Kadesh (see KADKSH, i) may, on one occasion or another, have entered into a solemn covenant, after the manner referred to above as prac tised by the Arabs (cp COVENANT, 4). The covenant- sacrifice in Ex. 24 1 ff. exactly recalls the ceremonies elsewhere practised on such occasions. The adoption, by the tribes, of a common worship, the service of Yahwe, gave to the alliance an enduring character still more than solemn oath and sacrifice had done ; and the common name, B ne Israel, assumed by all (perhaps after the name of the strongest of the contracting tribes), was the outward expression of the firmness of the bond. Such a confederation was loose enough to allow of the independent advance of the individual tribes and clans, in the process of the settlement as we now read of it in the sources before us ; but just on this account it was firm or elastic enough to survive the various changes within the separate tribes and the reconstructions and readjustments of their mutual relations, which were the inevitable results of the settlement in the territory to the W. of Jordan (see below). What was necessary for its continuance under the altered conditions was not a rigid unity or a strong executive authority, but something quite different, namely, that the common worship of Yahwe, as the god of the B ne Israel, should already have taken a hold that was deep enough. The Song of Deborah plainly shows that their common worship was the sole bond of unity in those times, but also that it was sufficiently strong ; the war of the confederate tribes is a war of Yah we, and whoever fails to come to their help, in so doing has failed to come to the help of Yahwe (Judg. 523). Winckler (6/1.34) will have it that the reference to Yahwe in the song ought to be deleted as a. later addition. Even so, however, the song bears witness to the subsistence of a confederation of Israelite tribes, to which even the tribes eastward of Jordan belonged. Such a confederation cannot possibly have arisen for the first time after the settlement, for the territories E. and W. of Jordan have no common interests of such a kind as would lead to a junction ; on the contrary, the main tenance of intimate relations was always a matter of difficulty, owing to the nature of the respective territories, as is shown by their history. On the other hand, no bond between the eastern and the western tribes, entered into before the settlement, could have survived all the vicissitudes of such a time otherwise than by the inter vention of some factor which stood supreme above the divergent political interests. Such a factor was supplied by the common religion. Even, therefore, if their common worship of Yahwe did not manifestly appear in our present sources as being the uniting bond of the confederation, we should still have to postulate such a community of religion in order to explain the continued subsistence of the Israelite tribal union. Hebrew tradi tion is, therefore, justified in regarding (as it does) the union of the tribes with one another, and their accept ance of the religion of Yahwe as coincident facts, and , as both of them having been accomplished by the instru mentality of one and the same person MOSES (q.v. ).

13. Individual tribes.[edit]

What were the tribes that originally joined in this covenant can only be matter of conjecture. No historical validity can be claimed for the conventional statement of the genealogists, according to which Israel was, from the first, composed of twelve tribes, a number which never afterwards varied (cp GENEALOGIES i. , 5, ISRAEL, 2). It is possible that, originally, different genealogies may have been kept at different sanctuaries ; the present form apparently being, as Stade has pointed out (GI 1 145 f. ), the result of compromise. An ancient tribal list has come down to us in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5), where Ephraim, Machir, Zebulun, Issachar, Reuben, Gilead, Dan, Asher, Naphtali are enumerated. To this list may be added Simeon and Levi (see below). The Kenites also seem to have been an old tribe that had disappeared at an early period (Judg. 1 16 624 ; see i KENITES) ; on the other hand, Judah (and Benjamin), ! also absent from the Song of Deborah, may have come into existence at a later date. It seems very doubtful whether, from the circumstance that Naphtali, Gad, and Asher figure in the genealogy as sons of concubines, we are entitled to infer that these tribes did not come into the confederation till after the sons of Leah and Benjamin (We. IJG 16). With regard to the tribe of Joseph a further conjecture may perhaps be permis sible ; if the view that the ark (see ARK, 10) was originally the sanctuary of Joseph- Kphraim be correct, we may venture to infer that in the federation this tribe, from the first, had in some sense a leading part.

14. Their diverse fortunes.[edit]

The settlement in Palestine at once brought with it, as a necessary consequence, a series of far-reaching changes in the condition of the tribes.

Simeon and Levi disappeared from their number ; it is probable that they became disintegrated in the course of the struggles of the occupation, and that the fragments that remained were re ceived into other tribes (cp Gen. 495^, and see SIMEON, LEVI, DINAH). The case of REUBEN seems to have been similar ; in ancient times one of the most powerful of all the tribes (cp Gen. 49 3./), it seems to have steadily lost ground. At an early date Eglon of Moab figures as ruler of the Reubenite territory (Judg. 812^); the list of towns in Nu. 32 34^ exhibits this same territory largely curtailed, and entirely surrounded by the tribe of Gad ; and in the inscription of Mesha the Gadites alone are .spoken of as having been masters in these regions.

On the other hand, new formations have to be noted. Perhaps it was only after the settlement that Joseph split up into the two branches of Ephraim and Manasseh (cp Josh. 17 i\ff. , but see also above). The case of Gilead may also have been similar (Judg. 5 17 2 5 ft) ; its place is subsequently taken invariably by Gad and Eastern Manasseh. Judah, which has not yet come into prominence in the Song of Deborah, first became a great tribe in the reign of David in all probability, as the result of the coalescence of several minor tribes in the south, such as the Calebites (Nu. 32 12 Josh. 14614), the Kenites (i S. 27 10 ; cp Nu. 102gy? Judg. 1 16), the Jerahmeelites (i S. 27 10), and the absorption of the sedentary Canaanite population (Gen. 38). Doubtless, also, the transference of individual clans from one tribe to another, must have been of frequent occurrence. This has already been suggested above, with reference to the surviv ing portions of Simeon and Levi, and another example is pre sented by the Kenite clan of Jael, which figures in the Song of Deborah as an isolated fragment in the north (Judg. 5 24 ; cp 4 17). See the articles on the tribes and clans named.

15. Tribes displaced by local ties.[edit]

The most important consequence of the settlement, though it did not manifest itself so immediately, was the complete dissolution of the entire tribal constitution. The form under which the unions of tribes and clans were maintained - the fiction, namely, of a common descent - was kept up, it is true, for a long time, one might almost say, indeed, permanently ; but its contents and its significance underwent essential change ; once settled on the soil of Palestine the clans and tribes became metamorphosed into local communities and territorial unions (cp ISRAEL, 8).

It is an inevitable process wherever nomad tribes take to a settled life. Noldeke adduces instructive examples from the Arabian tribal history (ZDJ\fG 40 183) ; Caliph Omar found it needful to exhort his Arabs to hold by their genealogies and not to do like the peasants of Irak, whose answer to the question, From whom comest thou ? was From such and such a village. In like manner it was said of the people of Khorasan . Their villages are their genealogies. What happened in the case of the Israelites was precisely similar.

Families living together in the same place united to form a clan, held together by community of interests. Thus it is that in so many instances place-names and clan -names are identical. Here little question was made as to descent ; Canaanite clans were quite readily received into Hebrew clans and genealogies (cp Gen. 38 Judg. \ zl ff. etc.).

With this may be compared the observation of Burckhardt (Nold. ZDiWG 40 183) that all Arabs of the Nejd, settled in Baghdad, belonged to the tribe of Okail, whatever their descent might have been. Under such circumstances, even if the old formulas applicable to the clan and the family were transferred to the new local communities, in other words, if the families living in the same locality continued to express the fact of their belonging to one another by alleging descent from a common ancestor, this none the less meant, substantially, the transition from a tribal to a civil constitution.

16. Organisation.[edit]

In the Canaanite communities which had formed themselves around a city as the central point, we already find a species of nobility who were designated by the peasants as marna, 'our lords' , (pjetschmann, Gesch. d. Phan. 198). In the towns, which in process of time peacefully threw open their gates to the Israelites, we may suppose these nobles to have retained their rank and to have shared it with the more prominent Israelite families. The heads of these leading families (not, as under the tribal consti tution, the heads of all the clans) constituted the lords or elders of the city (sdrlm, bifaltm, zgkenim ; Judg. 814). It would seem also that, from the first, the villages adjoining the cities stood to these in a relation of subordination. In the old sources frequent mention is made of the cities and their villages, 1 or of the cities and their daughters (Nu. 2X25 32 Josh. 17n); similarly, a city is occasionally spoken of as a mother in Israel (2 S. 20 19). Even if we must not think of these elders as having, from the first, constituted an organised magistracy, yet the development advanced naturally in that direction ; it was necessarily involved in the settle ment that the rule of the heads of the communities should tend more and more to organise itself on an assumed basis of legal authority (Ex. 2228 [27]). In respect of jurisdiction, in particular, the local community had a direct interest in seeing that the judicial findings of its heads were given effect to.

17. Territorial divisions : Tyranni.[edit]

The tribes also gradually came to acquire mainly a territorial significance, just as the clans had done. After its union with Caleb and the other tribes of the S. (see above, 14) Judah was no longer a tribe to be placed in the same category with one of the large Bedouin tribes ; it was also a geographical idea - a primitive state, capable of embracing elements of the most diverse kind as long as they were geographically connected.

For an interesting proof of this, see the parenthetic note in 28. \ibf. on the words a Beerothite of the children of Ben jamin. 1 Cp also the Deuteronomic phrase in all thy gates (Dt. 1(5 is), which is parallel to throughout thy tribes, and the use of tribal names as geographical terms Ephraim, Gilead (in Judg. 10_/ the two are interchanged), Judah, Gad (2 S. 245), etc.

In this process the tribes lost the character they had possessed as communities of blood involving strict obli gations. When the separate clans of a tribe settled in separate localities and became amalgamated with the native population, they lost their mutual interdependence. Each had its own interests and went its own way, regardless of the weal or woe of the other. The nature of the country facilitated this parting ; and it was further assisted by the circumstance that, even in the time of the monarchy, Canaanite settlements still maintained themselves sporadically throughout Israelite territory. Henceforth it required unusual firmness and energy to stir even a single tribe, and still more a number of tribes, to concerted movement. The territorial character which the tribes had now assumed shows that the patriarchal leadership of the elders was no longer sufficient ; the new circumstances demanded the tyrannis (so to speak) of petty kings such as there had already been among the Canaanites. The so-called judges mark the tran sition stage. These were, in the first instance, clan chiefs ; but some of them (among whom JEPHTHAH and GIDEON \fiq.v.~\ still live in the fragments of tradi tion) succeeded in becoming tribal kings. Israel was now, perhaps, in a fair way to fall asunder into petty kingdoms."

18. The monarchy.[edit]

How this fate was averted and from what causes the transitional period issued in a united kingdom and a united people, is told elsewhere (see ISRAEL, 10+). The practical transformation of the tribes into unions of communities, linked together by identity of local interests, however, did not remove the danger arising from ex cessive tribal feeling and consequent tribal rivalry. The proof of this is found in grave internal complications in the early regal period. David had good cause for devising some means of neutralizing this danger, and such a means he found in the creation of a very small permanent force (see DAVID, n[]). Hence, whilst Saul in time of peace was little more than a tribal chief, David, with the aid of his body-guard (gibborlm], re tained his supremacy even when no danger threatened the land. Saul s simple way of life gave place to an imposing establishment at Jerusalem, and a series of officials supported the king. With a view to regulating the military service and the collection of the revenue, a census of the citizens was taken even in David s time (28. 24 1 ff.}, whilst Solomon, as a further step in advance, divided the whole land into administrative districts, over each of which he set an officer called nissab (3x3 ; i K. 4?^). A division of the northern kingdom into mUdinoth (rririp, administrative circuits ) is mentioned also in the time of Ahab (i K. 20 14^.). It is a noteworthy fact that in the arrangement of his districts Solomon purposely ignored the ancient tribal distinctions (see 19 and Benzinger on i K. \.-j ff.}.

1 See BEEROTH, ISHBAAL, i, and cp Nold. ZDMG ( 86)40 183.

19. Royal prerogatives.[edit]

The most essential duty of the ruler was then, and ever continued to be, the administration of justice ; David, the pattern king, was pre-eminent in this (see DAVID, 11-12.). In fact, in that age it was self evident that the king must be supreme judge. A case was naturally decided by the man who had the power to enforce his decision. Thus the second main element of the power of the old etkenlm (a :pi) of the clans was taken from them, when every one could go directly or appeal against them to the king (28.152 i K. 3i6 Dt. 17 9, where EBBS sophet = ruler i.e. king ). What these lost the officers of the king gained, for they also obtained a share in his jurisdiction and dispensed justice in his name.

According to the notions of the age, it was also self-evident that the king was the priest of highest rank, who represented his people before their God.

Saul and David sacrificed in person (i S. 1433^ z S. 6 13), as indeed at that time eve^ Israelite was at liberty to do. David wore the epliod bad, the priest s gown ; it was as priests that David and Solomon blessed the people at great festal gatherings (28. 618 i K. 8 14), and it was as Pontifex Maximus that the king was anointed.

Still, on the whole, the priestly character was not as prominent in Israelite kings as, e.g. , in Babylonian and Egyptian ; they discharged their priestly functions for the most part through the intervention of their officers, the ordinary priests ; for such were the priests at the royal sanctuaries (28. 20 23^).

These priests were appointed and removed by the king at pleasure (28. 817 i K. 226, etc.); they held office by royal ap pointment, not by hereditary right. For the royal citadel it was an indispensable requisite that it should contain a sanctuary. It was as such that Solomon built the temple ; and, even as late as Ahaz, the king made free with it as private property.

20. Fiscal institutions.[edit]

Any other information that we have regarding administrative affairs has to do for the most part with the collection of the revenue, the most important work of oriental princes.

Nothing is told us of Saul in this connection ; for the main tenance of his simple establishment on his paternal estate there was needed, in addition to the produce of his own land and the customary share of any war booty, nothing but the voluntary gifts of his subjects who came to do homage or to seek justice and protection (cp i S. 10 20).

Under David the forced labour became the special care of an officer of rank, and probably taxation in general was then regulated (2 S. 2024).

We can hardly be mistaken in connecting the census of 2 S. 24 i ff. with this control of the public works, which is explicitly said to have been the chief object of Solomon s division of the land into districts (i K. 4 7 ff., cp 4 27 [67]. If Judah was really exempted from this burden, this was a very significant con cession ; but the text is corrupt, and Stade (GV1 1 309) con jectures that Judah was perhaps mentioned as a thirteenth district (but see Benz. on i K. 4 ~]ff.).

These taxes and forced labours were felt by the people to be an oppressive innovation ( i K. 124). As they were the occasion of the secession of the Northern King dom, we must suppose that they were there dispensed with at first. For the same reason we can hardly assign a much earlier date to the institution of the king s tithe mentioned in i S. 815 17 (to which i S. 1?25 may also refer) than that of the document, the law of the king, in which it is mentioned. Unfortunately we are told practically nothing of regular taxes, although such were doubtless exacted.

A land tax seems to have been unknown, as Wellhausen rightly concludes from the mention of the introduction of such a tax in Egypt (7/C786). A property tax is mentioned only once, and then as an exceptional imposition (2 K. 2835). In such cases of extremity the kings of Judah had recourse to the temple treasures, which they always regarded as lying at their disposal. They also drew an income from crown lands, which they probably rented to trusty subjects (18.812). What is thus attested for Judah (Ezek. 45 7 /), we may assume for Israel as well. The king s mowings (Am. 7 i) probably refer to a contribution in kind from the first mowings in spring intended for the war horses, for the support of which the king was re sponsible (i K. 18s; C P S? r - RSm. Rechtsbuch, ed. ^Bruns u. Sachau, 121). Certain commodities were, in Solomon s time, a royal monopoly (chariots and horses i K. 1028^".), and a duty was levied on passing caravans (i K. 10 15) ; in certain cases the property of an executed man seems to have been confiscated by the king (iK. 21 iff.).

21. Officers.[edit]

Not much fuller is our information about the royal officers (sarim, C "i^). The commander-in-chief of the army (sar'al hassdad, Kasri Sy 1C ) and the captain of the royal bodyguard, the gibborlm, occupied probably the most influential positions. The mazkir (TDID I EV RECORDER) stands first amongst holders of administrative offices. He is not, as has often been supposed, a state historian, but, as the title shows (T3TD : =one who brings to mind), a kind of chief counsellor and state orator, the Grand Vizier of modern oriental states. By his side was the Secretary of State (sopher, TBD), charged with the duty of conduct ing the king s correspondence with foreign princes (see SCRIBE). The chief superintendent of works (at least in Judah ; see above) and the priest of highest rank, as already stated, were also high officials in attendance on the king (2 S. 20 23^). Later we hear occasionally of a master of the palace (or of the household, jrarr Sj? n^N, dler al habbdyith, i K. 46 2K. 18i8 Is. 22is), who, from Is. I.e. , appears to have been also called po (sokhen, see MINISTER [CHIEF]). Finally we come upon the designation king s servant (^Van iny) as the title of a high dignitary (2 K. 22 12, also on seals), most plausibly explained by Stade (G l r /\6y>) as the principal eunuch. Strange to say this official, so high in rank in modern oriental courts, is nowhere mentioned (unless this be he), although in a harem like Solomon s he can hardly have been lacking.

Of other officers of inferior rank, the prefects of the provinces have been mentioned already. Of court officials proper we meet with a cup-bearer (inaskeh, ~C D, r K. 10 5), a master of the robes (2 K. 10 22), and others. Chronicles speaks of twelve stewards of the royal treasury under David (i Ch. 27 25 jf.). Probably among the court servants were also the chamberlains (sdris un, CTjnD> iK. 22g 2 K. 8 6 9 32, etc.), an expression which we find later as the designation of the overseer of the harem at the Persian court (Esth. 2314 4/.). As such a saris is elsewhere called a captain (2 K. 25 19, cp Gen. 37 36 39 i) we can hardly regard the sdrisiiu in the earlier times as eunuchs. See EUNUCH.

The stage of civilization that had been reached placed great power in the hands of these officers ; for in the still quite undeveloped political relations of the time, no attempt was made, except in the case of the chief ministers mentioned above, to define the spheres of the several departments.

In particular there does not yet appear to have been any dis tinction drawn between administrative and judicial functions, or military and civil authority. The resident officer of state, wherever there was such, combined in his own person, in pro portion to the authority committed to him, the functions of commander of the forces, administrator of the province, collector of taxes, and also, and above all, judge (see above, 18).

The impression left by the description of this bureau cracy given us by the prophets is by no means flatter ing. It exhibits all through the radical vices character istic of the oriental official in all ages ; towards superiors, the unscrupulous tool of the royal pleasure (cp e.g., i K. \1iojf. 2 S. 11 14 ff.} ; towards inferiors, the overbearing, reckless tyrant.

No longer bound to their subjects by the ties of clanship, the governors took advantage of them for their own interests. Venality and partiality in particular characterised high and low alike ; all that distinguished the former, the Abners, Jpabs, and Jehus, from officers of lower grade, was that their intrigues and violence were on a grander scale.

22. The throne.[edit]

It was the will of the people that gave Saul and David their authority. Still this does not warrant us in calling the monarchy, either in Judah or in Israel, elective. Its hereditary character was really bound up, so to speak, with the royal dignity.

Thus even a Jerubbaal could secure his authority sufficiently to bequeath it to his sons. That Saul never dreamed of any successor but his son Jonathan, may be the kernel of truth in iS. 2(>3ojfl When the men of Judah set up David against Ishbaal, the rest of Israel regarded it as a revolt against the legitimate heir a revolt to be suppressed by force of arms (cp e.g., 28. 2 io^C). Two sons of David, Absalom and Adonijah, successively posed as his successors (28. 15i_^ i K. 1 <-,jf.). Solomon, too, reached the throne simply by the will of his father, the people having no say in the plot to set him on the throne. Accordingly the election of Jeroboam by the northern tribes was virtually a fresh revolt against the legitimate dynasty, though it must be admitted that Ephraim and Benjamin had never thoroughly accepted the line of David as legitimate ; 'we have no part in David, no inheritance in the son of Jesse' such had been the rallying cry also on an earlier occasion (28. 20i^.); see BENJAMIN, 7. In the many later revolutions, of which North Israel was the scene, the people had no voice ; on the contrary, they retained throughout a passive, not to say an apathetic attitude.

Still, there lay in the popular will an important limitation of the power of the sovereign. One might imagine on reading the so-called law of the kingdom (i S. 810^) that the kings of Israel as a whole were the greatest despots, men whose power was at the service of every whim and fancy. This picture, however, con formably to the whole tendency of the narrator, who had little fondness for the monarchy, is overdrawn and painted in colours too dark. In reality the state of affairs was quite otherwise. If there is one impression that remains with us more than another it is that the power of the kings lay rather in their personality, and depended on their success in war and their personal weight.

23. Popular voice.[edit]

Powerful men like David, Solomon, or Jeroboam could allow themselves many liberties that men like Rehoboam could not venture on. Law or constitution defining the mutual rights of king and people there was none (the law of the kingdom, Dt. 17 14-20 is a later growth). Thus in the forms of government in the kingdom of Israel we meet with a singular blending of despotism with elements of democracy.

Saul could massacre the priests of Nob, David could appro priate the wife of Uriah, Solomon could drain the very blood of the nation, Ahab could bring about the judicial murder of Naboth, Jehu and Athaliah could make havoc amongst dangerous adherents of the reigning house; yet these kings had themselves to learn that their caprices were limited by the popular will.

The people did not, like other oriental nations, put up with the atrocities of their rulers as something inevit able. Jehu s massacre was long regarded with universal detestation. The imperiousness with which the public conscience could speak is seen in Nathan s famous reproof of David, and in the action of men like Elijah and Elisha, who spoke for the people as well as for Yahwe (see ISRAEL, 33^, and cp PROPHET).

Disregard for this on the part of Solomon, Ahab, and Athaliah cost them their throne. Nor must we fail to observe how it was that the Deuteronomic Code was rendered a universally binding law-book ; not by royal decree, but by a compact between king and people, did a law come into existence. In all else law and right, even for the king, was determined by custom and usage.

24. Local authority.[edit]

In such circumstances local authority must have been to a great extent left to itself. Outside of the royal city, over which was set a royal governor (i K. 2226), the village communities were probably independent of the government, so far as their own affairs were concerned. In the Northern Kingdom the revolutionary changes of dynasty hindered the sovereign from becoming dangerously predominant over the local authorities and the ancient nobility, as was somewhat the case in the smaller kingdom of Judah. See i K. 21.

This local independence is still acknowledged by the Deutero nomic code (Dt. 16 is), although it tries to restrict it (Dt. \~%ff. 19 17; cp LAW AND JUSTICE, "&/.). Even in affairs of state, though probably only in exceptional cases, the elders of the people i.e. the local magistrates had their voice (i K. 20 7 2 K. 23 i).

25. Persian period: governors.[edit]

In the Persian period the Jewish territory became a district (mtdtnah, nrip, Neh. 76 Ezra2i) of the trans-Euphratic province (Ezra 5:3 i Macc. 3:39 etc.), which was the province westward of the Euphrates. For a time it had a governor of its own (nns,A%tf [see GOVERNOR, i]; Nntrrc [seeTiRSHATHA]), who was placed under the ruler of his province (see ISRAEL, 50 ff., 64). This arrangement, however, seems to have been terminated comparatively soon.

Nehemiah, it is true, ranks himself with former governors (Neh. 5 15.^) ; but the narrative of his doings, taken as a whole, rather suggests that he was sent as a high commissioner with dictatorial powers. Thus we do not hear of a substitute or suc cessor being appointed when he leaves Jerusalem (cp We. //C(-) 164, (31 168). This is confirmed by the letter of Rehum to Artaxerxes in Ezra 4 8-23 (see v. t2/.).

For the rest, the central Persian authority seems to have left the Jews a considerable amount of freedom with respect to their internal affairs. That it should concern itself about such matters as the building of the temple or of the walls was a matter of course ; but apart from these instances we hear next to nothing airout any intervention of theirs. Of course, the pay ment of the tribute and the enrichment of the officials had to be seen after ; but on the whole there was much internal liberty, which, indeed, was involved in the freedom of worship granted to the Jews. In the time of Ezra we find law and police in the hands of the national authority (op Ezra 10 14).

26. Local organisation.[edit]

The history of ZURUBBABEL, (q.v. ) is obscure. He is represented as the secular head of the community with Joshua (see JESHUA, 5) as spiritual head by his side. Yet strangely enough we find in Ezra 2:2 = Neh 7:7 ( = 1 Esd. 5:8 irpoiryovfi.fvoi) a list of twelve heads as the chiefs of the community, at whose head stand Zerubbabel and Joshua, presumably as primi inter pares. We also hear of the elders of the Jews (Ezra5s 67 108, etc.), of certain rulers or deputies (so RV, Q JJD) in Neh. 2:6 48 [14], etc., and of princes of the people who dwelt at Jerusalem (Neh. 11 1). Are these names then perhaps synonymous? If not, what are the mutual relations of the officers whom they severally denote ? 1

We shall not go far wrong if we recognise in the twelve heads the chiefs of the leading families (cp Ezra 4 3), a proof of the tenacious life of the tribal organisation.- At the head of the clans were the raU hd-dboth (rvaNn e x-i. Ezra Is 263 Neh. 7?o, etc.) ; over all were the twelve men already mentioned. The number twelve was of course suggested by that of the tribes ; indeed the Priestly Writer speaks of twelve princes of the tribes (Num.7). It is not necessary, however, that this number should have been permanent. We may plausibly suppose that the princes (including the heads ) were the l>eginning of the later gerusia (below, 27). From Neh. 5 7 we may infer that the plutocratic principle had much to do with their appoint ment. Most important of all, the priests did not yet belong to the gerusia ; they are always sharply dis tinguished from the ruling magistrates, the heads of the people (cp e.g., Neh. 938-1027 [10 1-28]).

1 See ISRAEL, 64, and Benzinger s article Alteste in PKP) I 22ft./: . [Guthe (see Ezra and Neh., 1 SOT) regards Ezra J 2 = Neh. "7 (from o xan down to ,1J1 3> with the addition f D.VC Kn (see || i Esd. 5 8) as an addition of the chronicler. He thinks that the existence of the twelve heads presupposes the activity of Kzra and Nehemiah. The heads are not identical with the elders, who come before us at the close of the rebuilding of the temple, when Zenibhabel seems to have disappeared. Perhaps they were supplanted by the twelve heads. The : ruleis (c JJD) f Nehemiah are regarded by liuthe as officials ; the term maybe equivalent to the princes ( C ir)ofNeh.(12 3 2).l

2 Even during the Exile the elders or heads of clans directed the affairs of the settlements ; we find them seeking oracular advice of Ezekiel (Ezek. 8 I 14 i 20 i ff. \ cp Jer. 29 i)


27. Priestly Code.[edit]

This was soon changed, and not least in consequence of the measures of Ezra and Nehemiah, little as they themselves left for Eliashib or any other high priest to d * cp Neh 134jf : ) The tendency of the law brought by Ezra from Babylon was to exalt the spiritual over the secular power. In this law, which corresponded in the main with the so-called Priestly Code (on this point cp LAW LITERATURE ; ISRAEL, 59 ; CANON, 2%/. ; EZRA i., 8) ; the community was provided with a constitu tion. It is true, Ezra and his adherents had consider able difficulty in getting their theory of the law accepted. The theory was briefly this. The high priest was supreme head, alike in the spiritual and in the secular sphere. To him were transferred all the powers of the king, in so far as they were at all compatible with the Law. Not even such an unassuming place as Ezekiel assigned to a king remained. Far below the high priest in rank stood the princes, the chiefs of the twelve tribes i.e., in reality, the men who had had in their hands the administration of affairs. The numerous priestly families constituted a sort of spiritual nobility surrounding the high priest. What the law required was probably not after all very new. That the influ ence of the priests, even if they had not a seat in the gerusia, was really gieat, appears from /ech. \off.

How long it was before the theories of the Priestly Code were translated into practice we do not know. Our information regarding the internal development and the foreign relations of the community in the second half of the Persian period is unfortunately very meagre.

That the abolition of the provincial governorship (see above, 24) meant a great increase of power for the high priest, is rightly emphasized l>y Wellhausen ; Nehemiah s provision for the regular payment of the taxes to the priests furnished the needful material basis for their claim to power. The quarrel of the brothers Johanan and Joshua about the high-priesthood .uul the interference of the Persian governor Bagoses (Jos. Ant. xi. 7 i) presuppose an important position for the high priest.

28. Greek period.[edit]

By the beginning of the Grecian period, at latest, the law had become a reality. Neither the Ptolemies nor the Seleucids had a governor of their own in Jerusalem, and generally speaking these Hellenistic sovereigns left a large amount of freedom to the communes. Thus in the Jewish capital, as elsewhere, the national assembly seems to have enjoyed fairly extensive powers. Its organisation had probably undergone no essential change from what it had formerly been ; the gerusia continued as before an aristocratic senate. This of itself is sufficient proof that we have not here to do with a new institution, a creation of the Grecian period; for the new communities of Hellenistic times had, as a rule, democratic institutions. There is no good ground for doubting the connection between this senate and the genuine Semitic institution of a council of the elders which survived in the Persian period. It is merely a casual circumstance that the gerusia under this name does not happen to be mentioned until the reign of Antiochus the Great (223-187 B.C.). Whether or how far Grecian influences may have co-operated in the development of this gerusia out of the college of elders (so Schurer, GJV 2 i44/. ) we have no means of deciding, as we possess no sufficient information as to the manner in which the assembly of elders as a ruling body was organised towards the end of the Persian period. The ordinary traditional designation of elders, TrptfffiijTcpoi, is applied also without qualification during this period to the gentsia (cp i Mace. 126 with 14 20, etc.). Long before this, of course, the word had ceased to mean the heads of clitns ; by elders were intended simply the more distinguished men, the e"lite of the people. Along side of the secular nobility, the priesthood also seems from an early date to have obtained a place in this assembly (cp 2 Ch. 198).

During the Greek period it is the high priest who is at the head of the gerusia and thus of the entire com munity. The Ptolemies first, and afterwards the Seleucids, recognised him as ethnarch. On him lay the duty of seeing that the tribute for the community was paid to the court at Alexandria ; and in order to do this he had the right of levying a tax in Judaja (Jos. Ant. xii.4i^). We have an evidence of the importance of the position of high priest in the internecine strife with reference to the office which was the prelude to the Maccabean revolt (2 Mace. iff. Jos. Ant. xii. 5i^). On account of its importance Ptolemies and Seleucids alike claimed the right of appointment to it and removal from it.

29. The Hasmonaeans[edit]

The rise of the Hasmonaans meant, strictly, no constitutional change, only a change of persons. During the continuance of the war strictly so-called the commanders, the Maccabees, exercised, of course, a sort of dictatorship. In 2 Macc. , it is true, mention is made of the gerusia also, alongside of Judas (lio 444 11 27) ; but on internal grounds more reliance must be placed on the representation given in 1 Macc. , where besides Judas no governing body is mentioned save the people themselves (4 59 5i6 820 102546 11303342). On the other hand, in the period of peace after the victory at Beth-zacharias, Demetrius at once restored the old order of things Alcimus being high priest, with elders (i Mace. 633), and in like manner after the definitive peace had been negotiated it was again rehabilitated in its entirety, with the single exception that the office was now bestowed not on the legitimate heir but on Jonathan, who legally was dis qualified for it (i Mace. 1127). This, of course, meant for the priests of Jerusalem a great diminution of power and influence, especially since the old aristocratic party which had been friendly to the Greeks had now to retire into the background altogether ; and, in the gerusia also, had to make room for the partisans of the Hasmonseans. The institution of the. gerusia, as such, however, continued alongside of the Hasmonaean high- priests and princes (Jonathan I. : see i Mace. 1123 12 6 35 ; Simon I. : see i Mace. 1836 142028).

The Jews became entirely independent of Syria under John Hyrcanus ( 135-105). Hyrcanus himself, however, remained as before, the people s high priest. On the other hand, of course, he was not unconscious of his dignity as prince, and he put his name upon the coinage. His son and successor Aristobulus (105-104) actually took the royal title, continuing, however, to retain that of high priest on the coinage. Alexander Jannaeus (104-78) was the first to call himself king on the coinage. Here again, however, the assumption of the kingly title meant no constitutional change ; it was only the fitting expression of the fact that from the first the Hasmonasans had subordinated the spiritual side of their office their high priesthood to the exercise of their political authority as ethnarchs.

The gerusia, therefore, continued, at least in form, under the kings. At how early a date the name of synedrium which subsequently seems to have been the usual one arose, is unknown. Possibly the expression heber (tin) upon the Hasmonaean coins refers to this body. At this period it would of course be out of the question to look for any sharply defined jurisdiction as possessed by such a court. Under strong rulers like Hyrcanus and Jannasus its power can hardly have been great ; of Alexandra, on the other hand, who on account of her sex had to hand over the high-priesthood and the presidency of the council to her son Hyrcanus, Josephus remarks that she held the kingship in name, but the Pharisees had the power (Ant. xiii. 162). It is probable that it was through her that the Pharisees had gained admission to the gerusia alongside of the Sadducean nobles and the priests.

30. Romans.[edit]

Pompey brought the Hasmonaean rule to an end in 63 B. c. In other respects he found no change necessary in the forms of the internal administration of the country. He appointed Hyrcanus II. to the high-priesthood, and at the same time invested him with the government of the nation (Jos. Ant. xx. lOs: TTJV TTpoffraffiav TOV Z&vovs). The proconsul Gabinius (57-55) on the other hand, withdrew this political dignity from the high priest, dividing the Jewish territory into five jurisdictions - Jerusalem, Jericho, Gazara, Amathus, Sepphoris. By the expressions used by Josephus (crvvodot, o-vvtdpia) we are doubtless to understand independent districts each under the synedrium of the chief city (Jos. BJ\. 85). By this measure the political importance of the Jerusalem authorities was virtually destroyed.

This condition of things, however, was of brief duration. Caesar (in 47 B.C.) again made the high priest ethnarch ; nominally and constitutionally the gerusia shared the government with him. The juris diction of the gerusia appears to have included even Galilee ; at least we read that Herod was summoned before the synedrium on account of misdeeds committed there (Jos. Ant. xiv. 93-5)- In point of fact, however, as is shown by the course of this very prosecution against Herod, the synedrium had come to be a helpless tool in the hand of the ruler, who at this time was Antipater. Herod accordingly began his own reign by purging the synedrium of his own opponents, forty-five of its members being executed at his command (Jos. Ant. xiv. 94, compared with xv. 12). Though doubtless replenished with nominees of his own, the council henceforward played no part of importance during his reign (cp e.g. , Ant. xv. 62). The high priests also, whom he appointed and deposed at pleasure, were entirely his creatures.

The territory of Herod was divided at his death. Archelaus received Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, with the title of ethnarch ; but after a short term of years he was deposed (6 A.D. ) and his ethnarchy made a Roman province under a procurator (tTrirpoiros ; in NT ijyefubv, Mt. 27 2 etc. ) of equestrian rank. The procurator of Judaea was subordinate in rank to the governor of Syria, and the latter could in special cases of need interfere with him (see Mommsen, Rom. Gesch.^yx), n. ). In all other respects the procurator of Judaea had military command and jurisdiction ; in other words, was independent in his province.

31. Internal affairs : synedrium.[edit]

In other matters the Romans allowed the Jews a considerable degree of internal freedom and self-government. Josephus is not very wide of the truth when he describes the new constitution as aristocratic, as distinguished from the monarchical despotical rule of a Herod (Ant. xx. 10 1). The synedrium enjoyed greater power than ever before. The Roman procurator was the court of review ; the synedrium was the governing body, and, more particularly, no longer had to share its powers as formerly with its president, the high priest.

After the high-priestly office ceased to be held for life, and hereditary high priests had come to be appointed and deposed in rapid succession, first by Herod and then by the Romans, their political power diminished greatly, and they no longer held a paramount position even within the priestly college, although formerly the high priest could still be regarded as holding the govern ment of the nation (Ant. 20 10). Next in rank to the reigning high priest stood those who had previously held the office. In the NT and in Josephus these high priests figure as properly speaking the leaders of the high council (cp e.g., Mt. 2659 2?4i and parallels).

As a second class within the same body we find the scribes or professional lawyers (Mt. 20 18 21 15 2?4i and parallels ; see SCRIBES, 2).

The other members, belonging to neither of these two groups, are called simply elders (npeafivrcpoi. : see passages already cited); or the word councillor (/touAeuTrJs) is occasionally employed (Mk. 1643; but cp JOSKF-H OF AKIMATH.BA, 4). To this body as a whole, besides synedrium, we find the names presbyterium (Lk. 22 66 Acts 22 5), gerus,a (Acts 621), and bouli (Jos./7/ii. 156 xi. 102) applied. In the Mishna the supreme court is called beth din hag-gddol, or by the Hebraised Greek name of J ^l-TD (sanhedrin). See ISRAEL, 81.

The number of members of the supreme court of Jerusalem is in the Mishna (Sank. 16) given at 71 a tradition that is not inherently improbable. As for the mode of replenishing its numbers popular election is excluded alike by the history of its origin, and by its aristocratic character.

Whether the original custom which gave the right of member ship to particular families was retained also during the Grecian period is unknown ; for the Roman it is at least very question able. During this last period we find the political authorities (e.g., Alexandra, Herod, the Romans) introducing into the supreme court persons acceptable to themselves at their pleasure. The Mishna knows only of co-optation (Sank. 44).

The jurisdiction of the synedrium, so far as its moral influence was concerned, extended over all Jewish communities everywhere ; its decrees were regarded as binding by all orthodox Jews even beyond the con- fines of Judaea (cp Acts92). Regarded as a high court of the state, however, its jurisdiction and authority, after the division of the land on the death of Herod, were confined to Judaea proper, the province ruled by the procurator. In point of fact its range was very wide. It was at once the supreme administrative council and the supreme court of justice. As adminis trative council, its functions included in particular that of levying taxes. The Roman practice was to cause the taxes to be levied by the senates of the towns. In accordance with this, the synedrium of Jerusalem also (see Jos. Z?/ii. 17 J ) was responsible for the taxes of the whole of Judaea. The actual collection, on the other hand, was farmed out to private speculators. As a court of justice the synedrium had civil as well as criminal jurisdiction, in which it was governed by the Jewish law (cp Acts 4 sff- 621^); it had its own police, and could make arrests of its own accord (Mt. 2647 f., etc.). Its full freedom was restricted in one point only : it was not allowed to carry out capital sentences ; these required the confirmation of the procurator and had also to be carried out by him, as is clearly shown by the whole narrative of the trial and death of Jesus (note in particular, the express declaration in Jn. 1831). The stoning of Stephen must therefore be held to have been illegal. Roman citizens were of course exempt from Jewish jurisdiction (Acts 25io_^). In like manner the procurator had the right to intervene at any moment or to transfer a process to his own judgment seat ; but these were exceptions from the stated order of things.

The division of Judasa into toparchies eleven, according to Josephus (BJ m. 85), ten, according to Pliny (HN o^o} most probably dates from the Roman period. Unfortunately we are told nothing as to the origin or object of this division. We may venture to guess that in all likelihood it had something to do with the system of taxation. No conjecture even can be hazarded as to whether these administrative divisions were justiciary circuits also.

The great synedrium in Jerusalem was also the municipal council. In close analogy with this, the various communities throughout the country had also their local synedria (crvveSpiov, Mt. 10 17 Mk. 13g Mt. 622; /Sot/XiJ, Jos. B/ ii. 14 1, etc.; Trpefffitirepoi, Lk. 7s). This also, as shown above, was an ancient in stitution among the Jews. As in earlier times so also now these local courts exercised judicial functions. According to what Josephus tells us (Ant. iv. 814 BJ ii. 20s) the membership of one of these provincial courts required to be not less than seven ; in larger centres they seem to have had twenty-three members. As for jurisdiction even grave criminal cases came before them (Mt. 52i/). In relation to them the great synedrium was not a court of appeal ; but recourse was had to it when the judges of the local courts could not agree (Jos. Ant. iv. 814 ; Sank. 11 2).

32. Literature.[edit]

On the general subject see the recent works dealing with biblical history (We., Ki., Klo., St.) and archaeology (Benz., Now.). On the tribal constitution see WRS Kin. 85, and Nold. s review ZDMG, 1886, pp. 148-187; Riehm, art. Stamm in HWBW-}. On the monarchical period Oehler, art. Konigthum in PREC* 8 102-110 ; Diestel, art. Konigthum in Riehm s ffllSB( 2 ) ; the commentaries of Benzinger and Kittel on Kings. On post-exilic government; Schiirer, 6[/K( 2 ) 251-174 and art. Synedrium in Riehm s IflVBC 2 -) Strack, art. Synedrium in PREW 15 101-103 ! Ed. Meyer, Entstehungdes Judenthittns, 96. The older literature will be found fully indicated in Michaelis, Mas. RechtV) (1775), Saalschutz, Mas. Recht ( 53); also in the works on Hebrew Archaeology by De Wette, Ew., Keil. I. B.

GOVERNOR[edit]

This word is used widely in the EV to denote any title of rank or superiority. Neither EV nor (S is always consistent, and the words referred to below are sometimes differently rendered. On the methods of organization among the Hebrews cp the preceding article ( isff-}> and see ARMY, 2, 4 ; DAVID, ii ; ISRAEL, 64.

1. Pehkdk, nns (cp Ass. pihti, to tax or govern, bll pah&ti, governor or satrap). It is not quite clear what kind of officer we are to understand by Solomon s governors of the land (pNH Dins, * K. 10 15 2Ch.9i4 [craTpanTjsJ), or by Ben-hadad .s governors, as distinguished from kings (iK. 2024 [<rar.]). In the latter case the title is manifestly expressive of military rank. In like manner it is used by RABSHAKEH [q.v.] in 2 K. 1824 Is. 869 (TOTropvTjs) in the sense of general. In Jeremiah (61232857 [^ye/noii/ J), Ezekiel (23623), Daniel (82 [ron-.]) and Esther (a 12 8 q !> 3 [AV deputies ]), however, a civil administra tive officer of high rank is intended. Palestine, while under Persian dominion, was under the jurisdiction of such officers, called -|,-J3 -\^y j, governors beyond the river [Euphrates] (Ezra836 Neh.27g Neh.37 [eTrap^o? iripa.v rov Trora.ft.ov]); see GOVERNMENT, 25. The title governor of Judah was borne by Zerubbabel (Hagg. 1 i 14 2221) and, also by Nehemiah (Neh. 5 \^f. 18 [allusion to the bread of the governor ; cp Mai. 1 8, ^ov/ue ros] 12 26/.).

2. Tirsdtha, Ezra 263 EVmg., etc. See TIRSHATHA.

3. Sagdn, po, Dan. 3 2, etc. See DEPUTY, i. 4. Nagid VJJ, 5. nail, X BO, and 6. sar, 1b; see PRINCE. 7. Pakid, TpS, see OVERSEER. 8. Aliuph, *]?; see DUKE, i.

9. Sallit, B TC (from B^C , Heb., Aram., Ass., to rule, have power', cp Ar. sulfrin) the word used by in Gen. 42 6 (iipxwv [ADEFL]) to denbte joseph's position as tie Pharaoh's steward of the palace and grand vizier. In Dan. 2 1 5 3 ('captain', dpxwv) it denotes military rank (see ARIOCH, 2), and it is used more or less vaguely in Dan. 5 29, etc. (Daniel, third ruler EV), Kccles. 7 19 ( ten rulers [RV, AV mighty men ] in a city, <B efovcn.a^W).

10. Hokck ppin, EV governor, Judg. 5 9 (TO. Si.a.TfTayfifva. [AL]), used poetically in a somewhat vague sense ; cp php, governor, in Judg. 5 14, e^epevvtavTf; [BAL]), usually rendered 1 law-giver (Gen. 49 10 Dt. 33 21 Is. 10 i 33 22).

11. Mosel, WO, Jer 30 21 (apx<ov) ; usually ruler, in a general sense. Cp RULER. 12. Haddabtrayya, NHa^n, Dan. 824, AVmg. ; see COUNSELLOR, 3. Six Greek words come under consideration.

13. en-apx ? ( C P J > above), 2 Mace. 427 RV (AV ruler ); see SOSTRATUS. 14. riyovfifvos, Mt. 26 (quoting Mi. 5 i [2], 7E7D, ap\tai>). See ii, above. 15. yyefjitav, the title given in MT to the Roman procurators (Pilate, Mt. 27 2, etc. ; Felix, Acts 23 24, etc.; Festus, Acts 26 30); see ISRAEL, 90. 16. idvapxn :, i Mace. 1447, etc. ; see DAMASCUS, 13, ETHNARCH. 17. For apX<.rpiK\i.vo<; (Jn. 2syC AV) see MEALS, n. 18. tv&vvtav, Jas. 34, RV steersman. 19. OIKOCO^IOS, Gal. 4 2, RV STEWARD.

GOZAN[edit]

(JTia ; in Ki. r-oozAN [BA] ; in Ch. X coz&p [B], rooZA [A]; roiZ&N [L ; Ki. ; Ch.]), one of the districts to which Israelites were deported by the king of Assyria (2 K. 176 [pcoz&p B] 18 n i Ch. 526), also men tioned (with Haran, Rezeph, and the B ne-Eden of Tel- assar) in a letter of Sennacherib to Hezekiah, according to 2 K. 19 12 ( = Is. 37 12). It is no doubt the Assyrian Guzanu, the ravfaviris of Ptolemy (v. 18s/. ), mentioned in 2 R. 53 430: between Tushan and Nasibina (Nisibis). This province was ruled by a governor who sometimes had the honour to give his name to the year as limu (eponym). It rebelled in 809 B.C. , and again in 759, but was finally subdued in 758. Its chief stream was the HABOR [q.v. ], now the Habur, on the banks of which the exiles were settled. (See Del. Par. 184, and cp Schr. KB 2275, 326; KGF 167, n. , 310, 352 / ; also HABOR, HALAH, HARA. )

[In 2 K. 176 and 18 u <5 L , and in 176 BA read Troroftotj T., rivers of Gozan. The former is universally represented as <5 s reading. This may be so, but is not proved by the evidence. Trora/xols may very well be a scribe s conjecture. There is hardly occasion to inquire, with Winckler (A T Unters. 108) and W. M. Miiller (Hastings, DB 2285 / ), which rivers may be meant. T. K. c.J C. P. T.

1 Mentioned along with ;jo, sce DEPUTY.

GRABA[edit]

RV Aggaba i Esd. 5 29= Ezra 2 45, HAG A BAH.

GRAFTING[edit]

(eNK6NTpizeiN [Ti. WH]), Rom. 11 17. See OLIVE.

GRAPE[edit]

Blossom, early berry, sour and ripe fruit, all find mention in the OT.

1. rPS, pfrah (ai^os), blossom, Is. 18 st ; cp Gen. 40 10.

2. .1X3, niftah (jSAao-ros [Gen.], ai Dos [Is.]), properly the blossom, but perhaps also the cluster of tiny berries which becomes visible as soon as the blossom is over(Gen. 40 10 Is. 185). In Job 15 33 the 1D3 or sour grape is parallel to the nJH of the olive.

3. 11DD, sfmadar (nwnpi^ovcriv, -<7<u, KUTrpio^bs, but oivavQi) [Sym.]), the fragrant vine-blossom, the appearance of which was a sign of spring, Cant. 2 13 15 7 13. The impossible reading niDlC* in Is. 16 8 (late ; see ISAIAH ii., 9 [4]), should be emended nap (see Che. SBOT, Isaiah, 121 ig&f.) ; read withered are the vine-blossoms of Heshbon (important for the flavour of the wine [see WINE]); similarly Dt. 32 32 Hab. Si/. 1 D is a late Aramaising word. In the Syriac lexicon of Bar Bahlul oivavdy is always rendered by NT1CD. C P I s - 17 nj Pesh. Tg., gives D for nx: (Is. 18 5), but the text of Tg. seems in disorder. Derenbourg (ZA TIV5 joiyC 6 98 f.) takes both nS3 and D to be the earliest unripe berries on the vine. Whilst, however, this sense seems to be required by Is. 18 5, the passages in Cant, do not recommend it for D. On the whole question, cp Duval, REf 14 277_/C Derenbourg s exposition of Is. 18 5 seems rather forced ; but the facts adduced by him leave no doubt as to the proper sense of o- See further WINE.

4. 1D3, baser (o^af), the unripe grape which sets the teeth on edge, Is. 185 Job 15 33 Jer. 31 29 f. Ezek. 18 2. f Verjuice pressed out from wild grapes is a strong acid.

5. 33V, enab (<rra$vAjj), Gen 40 n Is. 5 2 etc., the usual term for grape, found also in Aram., Arab., and Ass. Hence perhaps a/un-eAos (Lag. Mitth.l^y*). <TTCUJ>. in Mt. 7 16 Lk. 644 Rev. 14 18.

6. C DJO, bffislm (a.Kav0a.i, cp Mt. 7 16 ; labrusca), the wretched grapes produced by the wild vine, Is. 5 2 4.

7. 7bB>N, eskol (;3oTpvs), the cluster of ripe grapes, often ; e.g., Gen. -JO 10 Cant. 7 7 [s]f. and Hab. 3 17 (crit. emend.: see n. i below). In NT Corpus in Rev. 14 i8f.

8. D 3Sin, harsannliii (EV kernels ) mentioned with 3T, zdg (EV husk ) Nu. 64!. (5 aTro o-TejacJmAAtui/ e<os yiyaprov i.e., whether pressed grapes or grape-stone(s). Tg., Talm. agree with EV ; but it is very possible that this traditional view is of purely arbitrary origin. Rabbinic opinion was not agreed as to whether in meant the exterior and D 3T (plur.) the interior of grape-berries or vice versd, (Naz. 6 2 34/5). The supposed con nection of ji, grape skin, with jij or 337, to be clear (Ges. 7 Aes.), is not very plausible ; perhaps we should read D J l (Gen. 40 10 Joel 1 7). jinn may perhaps be connected with v~\r\> to be sharp (to the taste), and mean sour grape. The phrase used in Nu. 6 3 ( from the grape-vine, not from the grapes ) favours this view of the passage. Render therefore in Nu. I.e., he may eat nothing that is produced by the grape-vine, whether young (sour) grapes or tendrils (the edible tops of the tendrils are meant, even if we read .37 ; see Dillm.). jsin then is a synonym of 103- This result receives some support from a probable emendation of the text of Is. 18 4 (which, as it stands, is not very satisfactory)

Thus has Yahwe said to me : I will be still and look out like the vine-dresser,
For the appearance of the fresh growths and for the coming up of the young grapes.
For before the young grapes, when the blossom is over, and the small berries begin to ripen into sour grapes,
He will cut off the tendrils with knives, and the spreading branches he will clear away.

The chief changes are D133 for 31303, and Q |Sln, {Sin for TXp DH> Tsp- See further Che. SBOT 196/1 T. K. C.

1 In Dt. <S has 17 (cAr^arcs aiiTuiv e/c yo/xoppas ; read QIICD mc>Ci their vine-blossom is from Gomorrah. So Symm. in Is. K\rjna.TOL. In Hab. read ^I^N HC V N 1 ? 1112011 and (though) the vine-blossom produces no grape-cluster. Twice, says Ges. /^jr.01-13), this plur. noun (nlDlE ) has a sing, verb. The sing, verb should have awakened a suspicion of the faultiness of the text. [This article supplements the note in SBOT, which was condensed from want of space, and meets Marti s criticism in his commentary.]

GRASS[edit]

(i) "V>*n, hdslr (^/t^H, signifying greenness ; cp Ar. hadira to be green ; ^opros [(SoTafr; twice]) : i K. 185 2 K.1926 Job8i2 (EV herb ) Prov.2~25 (EV hay ) Is. 156 (AV hay ) and frequently; also Nu. 11s where it is translated LEEKS [y.v.].

2. Ncn, de$e (cp \/Ntn, to sprout luxuriantly ; cp Che. on Ps. 232) Jer. 14 5 (cp fi) Prov. 27 25 Job 38 27 Is. 66 14 RV tender grass. In Jer. .00 n NEH n^jy, heifer at grass (RVmg. ; C p Vg.) is rightly rendered by RV heifer that treadeth out [the corn].

3- Km, dethe (Dan. 4 15 [12] 23 [2o]t), Aramaic for no. 2.

4. and 5. pv,y&rdk, and 3e J?> esebh. See HERBS, i and 2.

6. XPTOS Mt. 6 30 Mk. 6 39 etc.

GRASSHOPPER[edit]

AV, sometimes RV (HaiX, 213 and 2Jn ; Lev. 1122 Nah. 817) ; see LOCUST, 2, nos. i, 4, 8. It is impossible to identify the species of insect referred to. The English word grasshopper is loosely applied to members of the true Orthopteran families, Acridiidse and Locustidae, and as a rule to the smaller and non-migratory species.

In the famous description of old age in Eccl. 12 occurs the enigmatical expression : and the grasshopper shall be a burden (v. 5 3Jnri Sanp;!), or rather, as in RVmg., shall drag [drags] itself along.

GRATE[edit]

(123P), Ex. 27 4 etc. See NETWORK.

GRAVE[edit]

See TOMB ; HADES.

GRAY (HAIRS)[edit]

(n3B>), Gen.42 3 8 44 29 . See COLOURS, 9 (a).

GREAT OWL[edit]

is AV's unhappy rendering of:

1. Dm, raham (Lev. 11 ist) or HDHl, rahdmiih (Dt. 14 17!). See GIER-EAGLE, i.

2. llSp, Jfippoz (e^ti/o? : Is. 34 ist), RV probably correctly ARROWSNAKE (serpens iaculus). See SERPENT, i (8).

GREAT SEA[edit]

Nu. 346/. , cp GEOGRAPHY, 4. and see MEDITERRANEAN.

GREAVES[edit]

(nnVD, as if sing, in stat. constr. ; but almost certainly @ s KNHMlAec i-f- . rihyp, is right ; note V?3"1, his feet ), mentioned in the account of GOLIATH [q.v.~], i S. l76t. These greaves probably consisted of plates of bronze (nt?m) which covered the lower portion of the legs. The annexed figures of Assyrian combatants may illustrate the kind of defensive armour that was used, protecting the lower portion of the leg both in the front and at the back. There is no evidence that greaves were used among the ancient Egyptians. See SHOES. o. c. W.

[picture of Warrior with captured Idol. Attendant of Sennacherib. (After Layard.) goes here]

GRECIANS[edit]

a word occurring four times in EV and thrice in AV of Macc.

i. On Joel 3 [4] 6, where the mg. and RV render literally sons of the Grecians (D ilV . l 33 ; r. vi. T. eAArj><wi/[BNAQ])see JAVAN, HELLENISM, i f. In i Mace. 62, 2 Mace. 4 15, RV reads Greeks ; in i Mace. 8 9, they of Greece.

2. In Acts 929 Grecians means Greek-speaking Jews (Grecian Jews) [RV], HELLENISTS [RV 111 *. -], ray [Ti. WH]) as it is paraphrased in Pesh. as dis tinguished from non-Jewish Greeks ("EXXr/ves [Ti. WH], Rom. 1 14) on the one hand, and Palestinian Jews ( Eppaiuv [Ti. WH], Phil. 85) on the other. In Acts 6 1 the Hellenists spoken of are Christian. The distinc tion, however, has not always been understood or observed by copyists and translators.

In Acts 11 20 the better reading is Greeks [RV text], "EAArji/as [Ti. WH, Blass, following N C AD*] i.e., non-Jews. In Jn. 12 20 Acts 174, Greeks are proselytes to Judaism (cp HELLENISM, 2, PROSELYTE).

GREEK, GREEKS[edit]

GREEK, GREEKS (eAXHN Rom. 1 16, eAAHNec 1

Jn. 1220). See HELLENISM, 2, and cp GRECIANS (above). For Greek Language (eAATji/tcrrt [Ti. WH]) Jn. 1920, see HELLENISM, 3.

GREEN[edit]

For (i) p"V, yardk (2 Ki. 1926 etc.) see COLOURS, ii ; for(2) n^,/a//(Gen.3037etc.);(3) ]:y~t,ra andn (Dt. 122 etc ), and (4) 3CTI, ratob (Job 8 16 etc.) see COLOURS, 17. Greenish C?"y^., y rakrak) Lev. 18491437 ; see COLOURS, 8 ii. Greenness (ax, ebh) Job 8 12 ; see COLOURS, 17. For Green [hangings] (DSi3, karpas) Esth. 1 6, see COTTON.

GREETINGS[edit]

UCTTACMOI), Mt. 23 7 . See SALUTATIONS.

GREYHOUND[edit]

(D^D "fHT, well girt [or, well-knit ] in the loins, RV ra K-), 2 one of the four things mentioned in Prov. 30 31 EV as of stately motion, the lion, the he-goat, and the king (going to battle?) being the other three. Whether the poet meant the grey hound (Kim., Gr. , Ven. , Luth. , Ew. , Bo., De. ), is l another matter.

The revisers of AV felt uncertain, and placed war-horse (so Bochart, Wildeboer?) in the margin, with what they conceived to be the literal meaning of the Hebrew phrase (see above) ; the eagle (Ibn Ezra) and even the S. African zebra have also been thought of (Ludolf, Simonis).

The rendering cock is advocated elsewhere ; but the rendering in EV would be not less suitable if only it could be justified (see COCK). On this hypothesis something good would for once be said of a dog (see DOG, i). The large Persian greyhound is used in the desert for hunting the GAZELLE (q.v. ) ; as of noble kind, it is allowed to lie down in the nornad booth (Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 327 337). Tristram states that this dog is known in modern Palestine (NHB 80).

1 On <J3 s rendering of Pellstim, in Is. 9 12, see PHILISTINES. 2 For the Greek readings, see COCK, col. 855, n. 4.

GRINDING[edit]

(runp), Eccles. 12 4 . See MILL.

GRISLED[edit]

(TJ|), Gen. 31 10. See COLOURS, 12.

GROVE, GROVES[edit]

For ( i ) rWK, dserdh, Dn^X, aserim, see ASHERAH, i, and for (2) /l^N, /&/, Gen. 2133 AV, i S. 226 AVm?. ( C p 31 13), see TAMARISK.

GUARD[edit]

On the employment of men for the purposes of protection and of keeping watch, see ARMY (esp. 4, 10), CARITES, CHERETHITES, DAVID, ii a, GOVERNMENT, 21, FORTRESS.

1. tabbahnn, D % n|n (e.g., 2 K. 25 8); see EXECUTIONER (i) and cp CATTLE, col. 714, n. i.

2. riisim, D sn, i S. 22 17, RV, etc. ; see ARMY, 4, col. 314. CHARIOT, 10. ___^_

3. mismdr, TDB*D, Neb. 4 22 f. [i6/.] EV (ib. 49 [3], 73 EV watch ") ; the word primarily denotes the place where a watch or guard is posted (cp Gen. 403, rnCB*p Is. 21 8 etc., in Neh. 7 3 TDB Di irpo<J>uAaK7j ; rnCB D, fpo^vAaf ).

4. misma at/i, nyDB^D, 28.2823 H iCh.llzs; see COUNCIL i.,2. Possibly to be emended to TTDE D (cp above).

5. (T7rKovAaTu>p, Mk. 627 RV ; see EXECUTIONER (3).

6. Kowerrcoii a, Mt. i~l (>$/., RV.

7. On the captain of the guard, (rrp<xTOJreSapx>), Acts 28 16 AV, cp CAPTAIN, 17, and see PRAETOR.

GUDGODAH[edit]

(n*li"j3 ; cp Ar. jttdjud a cricket ; r<\ArAA [BA], r-AAir&A [L]. r^Af*. [ p ]) a Placename in a fragment of an itinerary preserved in D (Dt. 107) ; cp HOR-HAGIDGAD, and see WANDERINGS, 8.

GUESTS[edit]

(D N-lp), i Ki. I 4 i. See MEALS, 4 . STRANGER, 3 and SACRIFICE. For Guest-Chamber (KO.TO.- Av/aa) Mk. 14 14 Lk. 22 n, see HOUSE, 2.

GUILT OFFERING[edit]

(DK>N), Lev. 56 etc. RV, AV trespass offering ; see SACRIFICE.

GUM TRAGACANTH[edit]

(JIND?), Gen. 37 25 RV m s , EV spicery. See SPICE, 3; STORAX, 2.

GUNI[edit]

CVAi.e.. Gunite ; r co Y N[e]l [BADFL]).

1. A Naphtalite clan individualised (Gen. 4624) Nu. 264* (yauvei [B], <ayvvi [F]), i Ch. 7 13 (ytavfi [B], yovvi [L]). The gentilic jljn occurs in Nu. 2648 EV, The Gunites (yavvei IB]), and is read by most critics in i Ch. 1134 (<E> A o ycovvi ; B for jmn Dt/ H 33 has (tevvaia* 6 crofioAoyei i Oui etv, N yeas 6 <TOfj.oyevvovv<.v, <S L vioi a<7OjU. TOU evi/i) instead of EV s GIZONITE. See JASHEN.

2. A Gadite family individualised in i Ch. 615 (yovv[(]i [BAL]).

GUR, THE GOING UP TO[edit]

RV The Ascent of ("Vl3~n?lMp; for similar combinations see ADUMMIM, AKRABBIM, and Ziz), a place near IBLEAM [g.v.] where Ahaziah seems to have received his death-blow ; 2 K. 927 (GN [npoc] TOO ANABAINBIN r*- [ BA 1- N

Josephus mentions no name ; he has merely in a certain ascent (ev nvi 7r/>o<rj3a<ret, Ant. ix. 63). The name appears as Cer, yi7p, in OSft) 129 30 ; 247 96. Flinders Petrie (Syria and Egypt, 160) identifies Gur with the land of Gar in the Amarna Tablets ; see art. below, and cp HORITES.

GUR-BAAL[edit]

( ?y2r"Vl3), a place inhabited by Arabians (2 Ch. 26 7 ).

The Targum reads Gerar instead of Gur ; cp s Gerar for Gedor, i Ch. 439 [BAL], and note that in both passages of Ch. the MEUNIM [q.v.] also are spoken of. <S, however, has (in 2 Ch. I.e.) iir\ nijs ireVpas [BAL], which supports Kittel s suggestion of Sj73"HB (Vg. cod. Amiat. Turbaat).

The rock or mountain of Baal might be the Jebel Neby Hdrun (see HOR, MOUNT, i), the summit of which was doubtless always crowned by a sanctuary.

The neighbourhood of this sacred mountain would be inhabited by Arabians before the later city of Petra arose. See Kittel s note (SBOT) and Buhl, Edomiter. 37, 41 (n. 4), and cp ARABIA, 3.

Wi. (CK/146 n. i) reads Q jiyDrrSyi 1133 and identifies Gur with the Gar ( = Edom) in the Amarna Tablets (237 23) ; but see HORITE. Contrast the view of Flinders Petrie : cp preceding article. T. K. C.

GYMNASIUM[edit]

(i Mace. Ii 4 2 Mace. 4 12^). See HELLENISM, 5, PALESTRA.

HAAHASHTARI[edit]

(nPIETI^n, the art. being prefixed ; ACHRAN [B], Ac6np& [A], Aec0OYP6i [L])- A Judahite family which traced its origin to Ashhur (i Ch. 46) ; perhaps we should read wnE Nn, the Ash- hurite. The error has arisen from a mistaken assimila tion of the already corrupted name to D JineriKi Est. 8 10.

T. K. C.

HABAIAH[edit]

(iron [Ba.], but n>2H [Ginsb.] Yahwe hides or protects ; cp ELIAHBA, JEHUBBAH), a post- exilic priestly family which was unable to prove its pedigree, Ezra 26i (A<\Bei& [B], oB&IA [A], coAoyi^ [L]) = Neh. 7 63, RV HOBAIAH (fVrin [Ba.], but fVari or n?n [Ginsb.] ; eBeiA [BA], ABteJiA [KL]) = i Esd! 538, OBDIA (oBBeiA [B], oBAiA [A], coAoyiA [L])- See GENEALOGIES i. , 3 (2).


HABAKKUK[edit]

(jMjSOn, 66, AMB&KOYM [BXAQ], AMBAKOyK Da. (Theod. ) Bel [A] Complut. , 4 Esd. l4of ABACUC ; Frd. Del. compares Ass. hambakuku, the name of a garden plant, Ass. HWB 281, Prol. 84 ; cp Hommel, Aufsdtse, 27 f. [ 92]), the eighth of the minor prophets, about whom, in the absence of authentic tradi tions, legend has much to say.

1. Legends.[edit]

In Bel and the Dragon Habakkuk is commanded to carry a meal to Daniel in the lions den, for which purpose an angel seizes him by the hair and carries him to Babylon, and back ; and the same story is told, but more picturesquely, in the different Lives of the Prophets, which have reached us in a great variety of languages and forms. Here he is represented as a Simeonite, born at Beth-zechariah, and dying two years before the end of the Babylonian exile. 1 In the heading of the Codex Chisianus (see DANIEL, 16) Habakkuk is a son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi. No historical value attaches to any of these notices : their sole link of connection with the biblical book is the mention of the Chaldeans (Hab.le) by which the prophet s place in history is approximately indicated.

2. First section : chap. 1-2[edit]

The book is divided by the new heading of 3:1 into two independent sections which demand separate treatment. The first two chapters are headed : 'The oracle (xbart) which the prophet Habakkuk saw'. The very first word, which had already been ridiculed for its ambiguity by Jeremiah (28:33-40) and strictly prohibited, is proof that the heading is due to a late editor (see ISAIAH ii., 9). It need not surprise us therefore to find many traces of editorial intervention within the book itself.

I. Chaps. 1-2, as we now have them, may be analysed somewhat as follows :

  • 1:2-4 sounds like a Psalm, or rather a Lamentation : the prophet complains to Yahwe that he is left to cry in vain for help against the oppression and tyranny of the wicked, from which law and justice are suffering.
  • 1:5-11. Yahwe speaks without any introductory formula (such as And Yahwe said ). He is about to raise up the war like Chaldeans, who will achieve complete success.
  • 1:12-17. Again "without an introductory formula, the prophet addresses Yahwe once more. He cannot understand how the God of Israel, himself holy and just, can look on while the sinner destroys the man who is better than himself, how the wicked is allowed to take men and peoples like fish with hook and net, and then to pay divine honours to these instruments of his wealth and greatness.
  • 2:1: 'I stand upon my watch tower', etc. The prophet awaits the answer of Yahwe to his complaint.
  • 2:2-4 : Then Yahwe answered me', etc. The prophet is bidden write and set up where all may read them the joyous tidings that help is coming in due time, and that the just who waits patiently shall live by his faith.
  • 2:5+. Over the violent one who had made the nations his prey, these nations shall utter a taunting song, which is comprised in five sections from v. 66 onward, each beginning with i!n or 'woe' (-uv. 6^-89-11 12-14 I 5 I 7 18-20 in the last section the in is at the beginning of v. 19).

1 Cp two recensions of the Vit<z prophctaruin, with numerous notes, by E. Nestle, Marginalien u. Materialien, 2 1, esp. 36 f. 57: also Delitzsch, De Habacuci prophetce -vita atque cetatew, 42, and Hamaker, Comm. in libellum de vita et morte prophetarum, 33.

3. Chap. 1:2-2:4.[edit]

A. The taunting song just referred to stands apart as a separate section within the first two chapters of the book, although it is in connection with the preceding prophecy. We have therefore now to discuss 1:2-2:4.

The question we have to consider is, to whom does this prophecy (1:2-2:4) relate? or, rather, to whom is salvation promised, to whom destruction threatened? Until quite recently it was universally held that the latter were the Chaldeans and the former the people subject to them, especially Israel.

The ground for this belief was that in 1 i^ff. 1$ff- the crafty and violent wrongdoer is altogether described as an imperial or world-power, and the sufferers as an aggregate of nations ; and since the only such power named is the Chaldean (1 6), it was assumed that the prophecy was directed against this.

It is now, however, coming to be recognised that the matter is by no means so simple. Scholars cannot shut their eyes to the fact that in 1 6 the nation of the Chaldeans appears, not as the object of a divine judg ment, but as its instrument.

It is Yahwe who will raise the Chaldeans up (D i?5 W) > tne promise of victory is for them, the threatening is for others. Later, the relation of Yahwe to the hostile power is reversed ; but in the text as we now have it this change does not come out clearly, and there is confusion in consequence. 1

The present position of the question may here be briefly stated. The element of truth in the theories of earlier scholars has of late been rediscovered by several independent workers, notably Giesebrecht 2 and Well- hausen. 3 The present writer also, with equal independ ence of predecessors, pointed out (St. Kr., 1893, p. 383^) that 14 and 1 12 should be brought together, to which he added the entirely new theory that Is-n is not an independent earlier prophecy but an integral part of the same prophecy removed from its original place, and that this prophecy is a threatening addressed not to Chaldea but to Assyria. It has, in fact, been overlooked that the prophecy, if it contains a threatening against a world-power, must be speaking not of one world-power only, but of two i.e. , not only of the oppressor but also of the destroyer of that oppressor.

Why not, indeed ? He who alone doeth great wonders both can and does avail himself of secondary causes. The prophets are well aware of this, and Habakkuk himself, in his threatenings, gives clear expression to this truth (2 s). If, then, the prophecy were directed against the Chaldeans, we should have expected to find Cyrus as in II. Isaiah, the Medes as in Is. 13 17, or Elam and the Medes as in Is. 21 2 (cp also Jer. 51 27 f.), mentioned by name as the instruments of Yahwe's justice, 1 or at the very least the announcement made that a warlike people should appear, even if no name were given. Instead of this, the power which is to cause the fall of the oppressor is not even referred to in the divine response given in 22-4 ; indeed, it is extremely doubtful whether the fall itself is spoken of in the obscure words of 2 +a.~

1 The first to observe this was von Gumpach (Der Proph. ffab. 60) to whom de Goeje (review in Arzeuive Jaarboeken, etc., 61, p. 304 ff.) in the main assents. A full and dis criminating account of their theories will be found in Kuenen s Ond.fi) 2 362 ; a more condensed statement is given in the second edition of this indispensable work, where the author s own re vised opinion will be read with profit (German translation by M tiller, 2 371^).

2 See his Beitrdge zur Jesaiakritik, 197 [ 90], where strong arguments are brought to show (against Kuenen) that 1 12 ought to come immediately after 1 4. According to this scholar, the appropriate place for 1 5-11 (which is a piece complete in itself) is before 1 i. It is the Chaldeans, he thinks, who are here for the first time announced : they are described with imagery derived from the Scythians. The rest of the prophecy was written under the Chaldean yoke, probably during the exilic period.

3 See his Kl. Pro/>h. 162 ff. (92) ; ( 3 ), 165^! ( 98). Both with regard to the people addressed, and as to the origin of 1 5-11, he agrees with Giesebrecht ; but he apparently makes all the prophecy pre-exilic. This it must be because 1 2-4 presupposes the existence of the kingdom of Judah.

4. 1:5-11 against Assyria.[edit]

Now for our hoped-for solution. We have detached 1:5-11 from its surroundings, and must study it in and for itself. It describes how Yahwe, who speaks in the first person, calls up a warrior people that he may give it an unheard-of victory; by the 'for' (^) in the be ginning of v. 6 this word of Yahwe is linked to another that must have preceded it. A divine word of such deep import will exactly correspond to the prophet's anxiety in 2:1. The divine response waited for begins indeed in 2:2, but after v. 4 we find an unaccountable hiatus. Now, is it not obvious that the passage we have alreadly isolated fills the hiatus, that it calls by its name the mighty warrior nation which is the destined conqueror of the oppressor ? It will be objected : we cannot suppose that the Chaldeans are to abolish them selves ? Of course not ; but we have seen that the theory which identifies them with that oppressor rests only on 1:6. If now the Chaldean power in 1:6 is re ferred to, not as the oppressor but as the oppressor s conqueror, then the oppressor himself is the power which was vanquished by the Chaldeans, in other words Assyria : that is, the prophecy is directed not (as used to be thought) against the Chaldeans but against the Assyrians.


The view just indicated is supported by other weighty considerations.

1. The exceedingly vivid picture of the oppressor in Ii4/. 2s does not suit the Chaldeans, whilst it fits the Assyrians, the Romans of the East, perfectly.

Not all at once, but by numerous separate efforts spread over three centuries, not merely by force of arms, but (as the angling metaphor suggests) by policy and craft, were so many petty principalities and more than one important kingdom swept into the hands of these robbers (cp Is. lOs-n 137^). The Chaldean, on the other hand, far from being the unresting, persistent, grasping amasser of wealth, was simply the smiling heir. His conquest of Babylon threw the empire of the Euphrates and Tigris, like ripe fruit, into his hands, and his victory at Carchemish over the pharaoh Necho did the same with Western Asia : within a very few years within twenty, if we reckon from the accession of Nabopolassar in Babylon all had been accomplished. This does not correspond well with Habakkuk s figure.

2. Even if it were granted, however, that ultimately perhaps the Chaldean ascendency did come to partake of the character described, Judah at all events had no time allowed her to experience it.

The conquest of Nineveh brought relief rather than oppression to the whole of Western Asia ; and even after the battle of Car chemish about 605 B.C. Judah would have had little to suffer at the hands of the Chaldeans had not Jehoiakim s senseless renun ciation of his vassalage in 602 provoked their wrath. Between that date and 597 at latest the prophecy might conceivably have been directed against the Chaldeans ; not later, because we find in it no trace of the hard fate of Jerusalem and Jehoiakim. This short interval is hardly long enough, however, to account for such a picture as we have in 1 14 ff., and, moreover, within these years a prophecy of the fall of the Chaldean power would certainly have been most premature.

3. The strong personification of the enemy in the image of the fisher, as in 1 15 and elsewhere, is worthy of attention.

It is very appropriate in the case of the Assyrians, who are always designated by the singular A^sur; and a splendid in stance of a similar kind had already been supplied by Is. 10 *, ff. (see especially v. 14). It does not fit in with the plural Kasdim nearly so well, and we notice that in 1 6 we at once meet with the apposition, the people, etc., a phrase which controls the entire description down to v. 10.

1 M. Lauterburg (JTheol. Z. aus d. Schiveiz, 1896, p. ^^ff) draws this inference. He reads in 1 6 Persians for Chal deans, and, accordingly, dates the whole book from the exile, including ch. 3, which could, he thinks, in this way be as cribed to the same hand.

2 Wellhausen justly remarks : However anxious he was about it, Habakkuk s revelation is surprisingly meagre. To bring at least some divine judgment out of it, the Septuagint [<SKAQ] nas taken leave to translate in 2 4011* eiijoicei 17 i/wx 1 ? M " iv avrta. How near the acute critic is to a solution of the riddle ! But for his low opinion of the prophet he might have reached it.

Such is the only solution that meets the conditions of the problem. The argument is necessarily simple ; no long historical discussion is required. The change of date involved is at most twenty-eight years, perhaps considerably less. 1 The counter -hypothesis offered by Rothstein, however carefully elaborated, labours under insuperable difficulties. 2

We may therefore proceed to show how the theory adopted illuminates the whole prophecy.

That the law in 1 4 is that of Deuteronomy needs no show ing. The righteousness claimed here and in 1 13 is the will for good produced by this law, the promulgation of which was accompanied by such high hopes. The weight of the long- continued Assyrian suzerainty, however, has crushed all effort (1 2-4). The righteous people feels itself worthy of freedom, and cannot comprehend how it is that Yahwe can passively watch the violence done (1 12-17). After uttering this complaint the prophet is commanded to write legibly upon a tablet that deliverance is coming but must be waited for with patience (2 1-4). Yahwe is about to send the Chaldeans, a warlike people which will subvert everything (1 6-10). Then the might of the Assyrian will be at an end and disappear without leaving a trace (1 n 2 5). Thus far the exposition (given by Yahwe him self) of the inscription in 2 3_/C 3

This view of l2-2s has been variously received by scholars.

Accepted without qualification by Cornill (.Y/.( 3 )( 4 ) [ 96]), and rejected by Davidson {Nah. Hub. and Zepk. [ 96]) and Nowack [KZ. Propk. ['g~]), it was again accepted by GASm. (Twelve Proph. 2 ['98]) and again rejected by Driver (Hastings, Ub' 2, [99]). The objections are stated in detail by Davidson; for the other side reference may be made to GASm.

One point put forward by Davidson in his Appendix ( X 37/) demands special notice. He lays stress on the fact that according to the recently discovered inscrip tions those who accomplished the final destruction of Nineveh were the Medes alone, the Babylonians having no part in it. He concludes that this course of events can hardly be said to give any additional plausibility to the interpretation of Habakkuk advocated by Prof. Budde. It is difficult, however, on the other hand, to see how this course of events could militate against the interpretation in question.

If the Chaldeans took no personal part in the final destruction of Nineveh, they at least were in alliance with the Medes who did, and they contributed all they could to the overthrow of the Assyrian Empire. Even if this had not been the case, it is still conceivable that the prophet might by anticipation have erroneously assigned this part to them. If in point of fact, however as Wmckler had conjectured and the inscriptions now confirm the Chaldeans held back from the final destruction of Nineveh and left the task to their allies simply because they shrank from the wrath of the gods of Nineveh, the fact remains that they were morally the authors of the overthrow as well as the others, and the prediction of the prophet according to the interpretation in question was completely realised.

1 The death of Asur-bani-pal in 626 B.C., and the commence ment of Nabopolassar s reign over Babylon in 625, constitute for our hypothesis the superior limit ; the inferior is to be sought in the battle of Megiddo in 609 and the fall of Nineveh in 608.

2 See his article on Hab. 1 and 2, St. A>., 1894, p. $iff. Like the present writer he transposes 1 6-10 so as to stand after 2 50 ; but he infers from 1 2-4 (v. 5 an editorial insertion) that the entire prophecy was originally directed against the godless in Judah, particularly King Jehoiakim. who was to be punished by the Chaldeans. This prophecy (1 2-4 12*1 13 2 1-50 1 6-1014 [read nb i^l] 150), originally delivered about 605 B.C., was, he thinks, revised during the Exile, so as to make it an oracle against Babylon. Against this view compare the present writer s article, Expos. May, 95, 372^

3 For the necessary emendations of the text see Budde, Expos. May, 95, p. 376, where an answer will be found to the objection of Davidson. Nah. Hab. Zeph. 55, that it is improbable that the same thing should be said of two different nations (? . 1 1 of the Chaldeans, v. 16 of the Assyrians). It would seem that 1 ii also must be taken as referring to the Assyrians, and in the article already cited the present writer has even ventured to substitute -nsS N for the impossible ctWI before nilD fjSrt IN najn : then shall disappear like the wind, and pass away, Asshur who has made his strength his God. v. 1 1 simply refers back to v. 16 and explains it. [Ruben, more boldly, mTN I-l TlW? nan Q b Nl "Uyn nnV, Am I to sacrifice to the wind that passes? Am I to make the angle my god? ]

Those who reject this interpretation are themselves divided into two camps. Nowack follows Giesebrecht and Wellhausen in simply removing l:5-11, as being an older prophecy, from its present position and making v. 12 follow immediately on v. 4. Davidson and Driver, on the other hand, in spite of all the difficulties which they themselves acknowledge, prefer to retain the section in its present order, and thus essentially follow the view of H. Oort ( Th. T, 91, pp. 357^) : 1 2-4 speaks only of the internal corruption of Judah, vv. 5-11 threaten this corruption with punishment through the instrumentality of the Chaldeans.

On this assumption the prophet loses his way, and his threatening comes to be directed against the Chaldeans. This sudden change of front is attributed to the personal peculiarity of the prophet. Only, Driver is inclined to assign 1 2-11 (not, as Giesebrecht, Wellhausen, Nowack, 1 5-11) to a date consider ably earlier than that of the following sections.

5. Chap. 2:6-20.[edit]

B. The new section begins with 2:6, not with 2:5.

Certainly 2:6 establishes a close connection with 2:5 by the words 'Verily they all of them' (i.e., all peoples, with which v. 5 closes) will take up a parable and a taunting proverb against them and will say (read nDN l). This introduction, like similar ones elsewhere, as for example in Is. 14 3^, presupposes that the enemy has already fallen. Only then is there any occasion to take up a mashal against the enemy. What we read in the following passage (2 6<5-2o), however, does not fit into the situation. The evil that befalls the enemy there lies wholly in the future, and is throughout expressed in the future tense (cp w. 7 f. ii I3i6_/). Rothstein accordingly has rightly deleted the introductory clause, v. 6a down to inDN l, as an editorial addition. In reality it is only the prophet himself (not the nations) who again takes up speech, after Yahwe has spoken, cataloguing the oppressor s sins with ever-recurring woes, and threatening him with punishment from God.

These things being so, we have in the first instance to suppose that the enemy in 2 6^-20 is the same as the enemy in the opening section of the book in other words, the Assyrian. The strong personification cannot mislead us here ; it corresponds exactly with what we have already read about the Assyrian in 1 13^ 2 5. On the other hand, the added introduction, v. 6a, leads us to anticipate editorial additions also in the body of the section.

As such may be pointed out (i) 2 12-14. Verse 12 is taken from Mic. 3 10, v. 13 is brought in as a Divine word (point, with BNAQ, nsri) f rO m Jer. 51 58 and z . 14 from Is. 11 9. In substance the entire passage is in harmony with the thought and feeling of the post-exilic community, but has little to do with Habakkuk s time. (2) irv. 18-20. For it is wasting time to charge a heathen king with his idolatry when Judah s one desire is to be rid of his tyranny. The passage recalls the manner of II Isaiah. Further, V. 18 stands before its proper woe in v. 19. These verses must be transposed ; probably v. 18 is a later amplification, wrongly brought in from the margin. Verse 20 may have had its origin in Mic. 1 2 and Zeph. 1 7. It closes the passage not unfittingly, but perhaps was intended at the same time to prepare for the theophany in chap. 3.

The remaining three woes have all a beauty of their own and are strikingly characteristic. The first (2 6^-8) declaims against the plundering of the nations ; the second (vv. 9-11) against the buildings for display or defence carried out at the cost of violence and forced labour ; the third (vv. 15-17) against the ravishment of lands and peoples (v. 15 to be taken figuratively), in particular by the stripping of the forests and hunting- grounds of Western Asia. That all this admirably fits the case of Assyria is certain. 1

The text, it is true, is very corrupt (see Wellhausen s sugges tions). Perhaps it was the mutilation of the text that gave opportunity for the drastic revision we now have before us. 2

1 For proofs see St. A r., 1893, p. y)\f.

2 The view of Stade (ZATW 4154-159 [ 84]), who explains 2 9-20 as an interpolation speaking of a petty Palestinian tyrant, cannot be discussed here ; see Kue. EM. 2 371 _ff. Against Rothstein, who explains the whole section, in its original form, of Jehoiakim, see St. A>. as above, and Expos. May 95, p. 372^


6. Result as regards chap 1-2.[edit]

To sum up : in chaps. 1 and 2 the Assyrians, whose vassals the kings of Judah have continuously been since the time of Ahaz, are threatened with the overthrow of their empire by the Chaldeans. These Chaldeans, not to be confounded with the Babylonians, are a new and rising people whose seat is on the seaboard to the S. of Babylonia : once already in the seventh century they were a menace to the Assyrian empire for a time (2 K. 20) ; the danger was again in sight from the time when the Chaldean Nabopolassar secured for himself the throne of Babylon (625).* In l6-io the prophet de scribes them as a people beginning to be known by hearsay, and the surmise of earlier scholars is no doubt correct, that the Scythian irruption (from about 630 onwards), of which the prophet himself had personal experience, supplied him, in part at least, with colouring for his picture. The time is more precisely determined by 1 4 as subsequent to Josiah s reformation in 621, but also (with equal certainty) prior to the death of that king in 609, so that, halving the difference, we may take 615 or (by preference) a slightly earlier time to be the date of composition. At that time the people of Judah was conscious of righteousness : indeed, even later, men saw in the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile the punishment, not of their own sins, but of those of king Manasseh (2 K. 24s Jer. 154), or f their fathers (Jer. 81.29 Ezek. 182). As the solitary expression of this mental attitude to be found among all the prophetic writings that have come down to us, the book of Habakkuk possesses peculiar value, and takes a high place among our sources for the history of the period.

The oracle, then, expected from the Chaldeans freedom and prosperity for Judah. The actual result was quite different : they were the instruments of Judah s overthrow. Of course, the responsibility for this must primarily be attributed to the bad policy of the kings of Judah and to the fanaticism of the patriotic party. Apart from these causes the prophecy of Habakkuk had every likelihood of being fulfilled. Jeremiah too could venture to promise the continuance of the kingdom if only it could decide to yield to the Chaldeans.

7. Successors and predecessors.[edit]

We can easily understand that in the exilic or the post-exilic period a prophecy which had been so sadly falsified could not escape alteration. By displacement of the passage in which good fortune was promised to the Chaldeans (now l:6-10), and by other editorial changes, including perhaps removal of the name of Asshur, the prophecy was so transformed as to be capable of being interpreted of the fall of the Chaldeans. These alterations hardly belong to the exilic period, which produced its own oracles against Babylon and the Chaldeans. They are rather to be assigned to the great period of editorial activity the fifth, perhaps, or the fourth century.

From a literary point of view, the original work of Habakkuk in its main features is plainly dependent on the great prophet of the preceding century, Isaiah. The picture of the Assyrian tyrants in 1 13-17 recalls Is. 10s^, the announcement of the Chaldeans in l6-io suggests that of the Assyrians in Is. brtff., and the three woes of 26^-17 the seven woes of Is. 68-23 10 1-4. At the same time it is true that, as Rothstein has been at special pains to show, Habakkuk has also in details a very close affinity with his contemporary Jeremiah. One must not be in a hurry to infer that he copies Jeremiah : almost everywhere the facts of the case are explained by identity of period and circumstances. When all has been said, Habakkuk is entitled to be regarded as a well-marked prophetical and poetical personality : the remains of his work which have reached us are among the finest examples of prophetic literature, and have served as models to later writers, particularly to the authors of Is. 13 21 i-io. Unfortunately the text is not in good preservation, and cannot always be quite satisfactorily restored.

1 For the proofs see St. Kr., 1893, as above.

8. Chap. 3 a psalm.[edit]

II. The concluding section of the book has words at its opening and at its close which mark it out as a psalmus extra canonem 1 and give it the full apparatus of a poem fitted to be used in public worship. The only singularity is the division of the descriptive words into a superscription and a subscription : read 'A prayer of the prophet Habakkuk' after 'Shigyonoth' (?) and 'By the chief musician, with stringed instruments' respectively. Clearly, what is here the subscription must originally have come before v. i.

Adopting Wellhausen s suggestion, jura: for nirJB , we may restore the superscription thus nSsn niJM33 nwch K aan pipsnS ('to the chief musician, on stringed instruments : a prayer of the prophet Habakkuk'). 2 [See, however, SHIGGAION.]

In any case the words prove, as Kuenen rightly perceived, and as Cheyne (OPs. 156/1) has well shown, that the piece, before it had its proper position assigned to it, belonged to one of the collections of psalms that were in use in the worship of the temple. Perhaps the only reason for its exclusion from the Psalms as we now possess them was that the editors of the prophetic canon had already appropriated it. They did so because it bore Habakkuk s name, just as in (, Pss. 146 147 148, which in the original text bear no author s name, are attributed to Haggai and Zechariah. (See PSALMS. )

9. Authorship of psalm.[edit]

To Stade belongs the credit of having first shown (ZA T\V k 157 /. ) that the authorship of Habakkuk is on internal grounds impossible ; but it is to Wellhausen that we owe the complete elucidation of this obscure composition (Kl. Proph. 1 66, ( ) 170/1 ). As he well remarks : 'It is the community that is the speaker. Awe-struck, it remembers that first great deed of Yahwe to which it owed as it were its existence, and yet it prays, Renew thy work in the midst of the years. The long-since founded theocracy has fallen into ruin, and a new foundation is desired. The child has become gray- haired, and " in the midst of his years " a new birth is sought for the sake of a happy final result, even though it will not take place without bitter pangs'. 3 In the description of the theophany which follows extending from 3 3 to almost the end of the poem the colours are derived exclusively from the deliverance from Egypt, as can be seen with sufficient clearness from vv. 37 %ff. (cp, however, MIZRAIM). With this description of the deliverance wrought for the fathers that of the new deliverance now prayed for and expected becomes for the poet so blended that in remembering the one he seems to behold the approach of the other. Wellhausen leaves open the possibility that this may not always have been the case, and that the proper close of the poem has been lost, since vv . 17-19 cannot be the genuine one. This is possible, but by no means certain. Verse 17, which certainly seems strange, may give some fresh touches to the picture of the fate of the hostile people ; but vv. i8/l present not only a very appropriate contrast to this, but also a thoroughly typical psalm -epilogue (see Ps. 13s[6]/ 2&n/. 528[io]/ 59i6[i7]/. Toiofg]/.), and no sure inference can be drawn from the borrowing of v. iga from Ps. 1832 [ss]/

1 It alone shares with the Psalms the following peculiarities : the use of the word Selah (vv. 3 g 13; in the Psalms seventy-one times) ; the expression rtSJD 1 ? ( to or by the chief musician v. 19 : in the Psalms fifty-five times) ; the immediately following expression n U J33 ( with or on stringed instruments ; so to be read, see below), used in v. 19 and in Pss. 4 6 54 67 76 ; the word ^Sn, prayer, used to designate a poetical piece (v. i : Pss. 17 86 90 102 142 : cp also Ps. 72 20, according to which all Psalms admit of being called prayers ) ; the use of the *? auctoris in v. i (as also after nVs^l in Pss. 17 86 90 102) ; the word Ji j? (in plu.), if it be genuine (Ps. 7 ; see SHIGGAION).

2 It would be eccentric to argue from MT s vnj jja that Habakkuk was a Levite and temple chorister : yet, probably enough, the inscription of Bel and the Dragon (cp above) pre supposes this inference.

3 Wellhausen hns put the case above so brilliantly that Oort s defence of the traditional view falls to the ground. To set aside the liturgical not-s in 3 1 and igi as editorial additions, and account for the obscurity and want of order in chap. 3 from the idiosyncrasy of Habakkuk, as in chaps. 1 and 2, is certainly inadequate.

Elsewhere also (as could easily be shown) the poem frequently recalls the psalms, and particularly the latest psalms. If we want a quite infallible indication of post- exilic date, we have it in the special application of the phrase Yahwe s anointed (v. 13) i.e. , in the transfer ence of the kingly title to the kingless but consecrated people (We. rightly refers here to Ps. 288 [BKART 12^] 849 [10] 8938[ 39 ] 51 [52] 105 15, also to Dan. 727). The very late divine name Eloah (v. 3) is also a decisive proof of the late date of the Psalm of Habakkuk (see PSALMs). 1

The poetical value of the composition is not slight ; but it suffers greatly from corruptions of the text (especially in vv. 9-11 i3/), in correcting which Well hausen has rendered excellent service. [See also HORN, MIZRAIM, ON [ii. ], VILLAGE, 6, and cp Ruben, JQR ^^45 I Jf- ( 99)1 who rejects vv. 2, 17-19 as later additions, and arranges the genuine psalm in three stanzas of nine lines each, with corresponsio, according to the theory of D. H. Miiller.]

10. Literature.[edit]

The fullest catalogues of the earlier works on Habakkuk will be found in the otherwise unimportant commentaries of A. A. Wolff ( 22) and L. Reinke ( 70), where no fewer than 135 treatises are mentioned. Among modern works, besides those referred to in the course of this article, Franz Delitzsch s Commentary ( 43) should not be overlooked (cp also OT History of Re demption, 126 [ 81] ; fsaiah(*), ET 1 22 [ 90]); see also A. B. Davidson, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambr. Bible), 96 ; W. Nowack, Die Kleinen Propheten in HK, 96 ; GASm. The Book of the Twelve Prophets 2 (Expos. Bible), 98. On Hab. 3 see also Nestle, ZA TW 20 167 /. (1900).

K. B.

HABAZINIAH[edit]

RV Habazziniah ( ITmn ; X& B<V c[e]lN [BXAQ]), a Rechabite, or rather the home of a Rechabite (Jer. 803). The name seems to be a corrup tion of Wsap, KABZEEL [q.v. ]. p and n were con founded ; 3 intruded from miN . Kabzeel was a place in S. Judah. (See, however, NAMES, 39.)

T. K. C.

HABBACUC[edit]

(AMB&KOYM[BQTheod.]*f. 87 [6]), Bel and Dragon, 33, 35, 39, RV HABAKKUK [g.v.].

HABERGEON[edit]

({On?), Ex. 28 3 2 39 23 AV; RV COAT OF MAIL. See BREASTPLATE i.

HABOR[edit]

("lUn, A.Boop [BAL]), a river in the land of GOZAN, near which were settlements of the Israelites deported by Sargon in the time of Hoshea, 2 K. 176 = 18 ii (&Bia>p [B]), and also, according to the critically emended text 2 of 1 Ch. 526 (xABoop [BA]), of the trans- Jordanic Israelites deported in the reign of Tiglath- pileser III. It was the Habur of the Assyrians (a name which it still retains), the Chaboras of classic writers (a/3o/>/>as [Strab. ], a/3oi>/ras [Isidore of Charax], a^wpa [Zosimus], x a P w P a * [Ptol. ]). It is a tributary of the EUPHRATES [g.v. ], which it enters about 36 N. lat.

For references to the Habur in the Assyrian annals see KB 1 39(Tiglath-pileser I. hunts elephants on its bank), and 197101 (Asur-nasir-abal mentions the Habur and its mouths in describ ing his conquests). Several important places lay near it. Cp. Del. Par. i^ff. See CHEBAR.

1 In Hab. 1 ii read Irf^N 1 ? (suffix forms of mNdo not occur).

2 Read In Halah and by Habor the river of Gozan and in Harhar a city of Media. See HARA.

HACHALIAH[edit]

RV Hacaliah (H^On, probably a corruption of np?n, Hilkiah ; scarcely for PPpHSn, wait for Yahwe, 23, 34, 79; &x<\AlA [KAL]). the father of NEHEMIAH (Neh. 1 1, xeAKei*. [B], -xioy [L] ; 10 i [2], AxeAiA [BX]). T. K. c.

HACHILAH, HILL OF[edit]

(riTpnn nr?3, exeAA [BAL] | ; in 1 S. 26 1 xeAM&9 [B], AyiAA [A]). a hill in the wilderness of Judah, associated with the wander- ings of David twice (1 S. 2819 26 if.). On the former passage, see HORESH. It relates how the men of ZIPH \_q.v. , 2] told Saul that David had found hiding-places 1 in HorSshah, in the hill of Hachilah, which is on the S. of the Jeshimon. In the latter passage, however, the same persons describe the same hill as being in front of the Jeshimon i. e. , where the desert begins. The second definition alone is correct.

In i S. 2819 on the south of the Jeshimon is an error intro duced from v. 24 (where the wilderness of Maon is referred to ; see HORESH). Further references to the name are presupposed by in i S. 23 14/1 19 26 1. In 23 14, where MT merely gives -||-|3 in the mountain, MSS of give a combination of readings, including et? opos rb avx/u-wSes and ev TT\ yfi rfj auxjiiuiSei ; avxfi: corresponds to flT SB- Possibly for avx/u.u>Ses we should read a^avpov, and so forth. So also in Mic. 48 for euxju.. read o/navpds ( = 7SX). Bentley's suggestion of ei> afiavpto roma for 4v a.vxf.i\p<a Toiriji in 2 P et - 1 9 seems indispensable. On tv rfj Kaivfi (v. 14) see HORESH.

Conder ventures to find a trace of the name Hachilah in the Zahret el Kola, a ridge which runs down from the plateau of Zif towards the desert of En-gedi. The name is, however, by no means certain. In i S. 23 28 ; we meet with the name nipSnon (EV Hammahlekoth). ; @ B s xeX/ua0 in 26 i favours a reading roWron, which would be miswritten for nipVnsri, the name found in 23 28. A hill with rocky clefts seems to be intended.

The Onomasticon (OSW 2663; 120 15) confounds Hachilah with KEILAH. Glaser, not very plausibly, reads Hachilah for Havilah in i S. 167 [see TELEM i.]. T. K. C.

HACHMONI[edit]

Jehiel, tutor of David s sons, is called the son of Hachmoni in EV of 1 Ch. 27 32 ( ]bpn-j3, o TOY &X&M6I [B], . . . -MAN i [A], . . . AMAX&NI [L])-

Jehiel is either an imaginary personage, whose description isborrowed from the Jashobeam of i Ch. 11 n (see HACHMONITE, THE), or, as Marquart (/ und. 16) supposes, Jehiel is a substitute for Ishbaal, which is explained as 7J?2!5^ = WriV. Certainly David's sons had a lion-hearted tutor, on the second hypothesis, for Ishbaal and Jashobeam are identical. T. K. C.

HACHMONITE, THE[edit]

In i Ch. 11 n JASHOBEAM (q.v., i) is called ^iD^n"^ (<\xAMAN[e]l [BA], -/v\ANNI IN], 0eKeMIN& [L]), RV the son of a Hachmonite (AV quite incorrectly, an Hachmonite ). It has been pointed out (see TAHCHEMONITE) that the true description of Jashobeam, or rather, Ishbaal, is most probably a man of Beth-cerem.

This should also be substituted for the son of a Hachmonite in i Ch. 11 ii, and the son of Hachmoni in i Ch. 27 32.

T. K. C.

HADAD[edit]

(Yiri, 57 ; &A&A [BADEL] ; a Canaan- itish and, some think, Aramaean name of the storm- god, who was known also as Ramman, Bir, and Dadda ; cp Winckler, A T Forsch. 69, Schr. KGF, 371-395, 538; KA T 200-206, 454; Tiele, BAG 525; Hilprecht, Assyriaca, 76-78 ; Baethgen, Beitr. 67. The first-mentioned of the four gods of the N. Syrian kingdom of Ya di is Hadad [Zenjlrli inscr. ]. These references also illustrate the name BEN-HADAD).

i. b. Bedad, fourth king of Edom ; Gen. 8635/1 (v. 36 aSa/j. [E]), i Ch. 1 4 6/: See BELA ii., i.

2. Eighth (?) king of Edom, i Ch. 1.50 (a. wos j8apa<5 [BL ; om. vl. j3. A], v. 51 adda [B]) ; miswritten HADAR [g. v. ], Gen. 8639. See BELA ii., i. The name of his city was PA U [q.v. ] or Pa i. Probably, however, there is a considerable error in the text.

Pa'u is almost certainly corrupted from Pe'or, and this very probably from Be'or, an alternative reading to Achbor in i Ch. 1 49. Son of Achbor, or Son of Be or, however, does not belong to BAAL-HANAN [q.v., i], who is really this Hadad s father. Thus the name of Hadad s city is not really given ; there was a lacuna in the text.

He married a N. Arabian a Misrite or Musrite, named MEHETABEL [q.v. , i], who is also mis-described in the received text. Most probably he lost his life in the massacre referred to in i K. 11 15 f. The cause of the massacre is unrecorded ; probably it was a retaliation. Cp DAVID, 8 (c), EDOM, 6.

3. (In i K. 11 17 TIN; aSep [BAL]. ) According to the MT, which presents many difficulties, Hadad was a royal prince of Edom who escaped with some Edomites, servants of his father, when Joab massacred every male in Edom, by an obscurely indicated route to Misraim or Egypt (i K. 1114-22; but Misraim should rather be Misrim ; see below). There he was welcomed, and received the sister of the queen Tahpenes as his wife. By her he had a son GENUBATH [q.v.~\. On the death of David he returned home, and became an adversary to Solomon (cp v. 25). According to the parallel narrative of the marriage of Jeroboam in L. s text of (i K. 1236 Lag.; 1224^ Swete), which is evi dently copied from a narrative of the marriage of Hadad, the name of the Egyptian princess referred to in i K. 11 19 was Ano (Klo. reads rvnnx, Ahnoth).

This reading (Ano), though accepted by Klo., Wi., Benz., Ki. as genuine, is merely a corruption of ninN, sister (of) ; TAHPENES [y.v.] is also certainly corrupt. Indeed, textual criticism is much needed in this narrative. It was not to Misraim (Egypt) but to Misrim (the N. Arabian Musri) that Hadad and his Mizrite followers fled, and he went there because MEHETABEL [q.v., i], his mother, was a Misrite. This N. Arabian land appears, both at this time and later, to have had a keen interest in the affairs of Palestine (see MIZRAIM, 2 [b]). In what the mischief which Hadad did to Israel on his return consisted, we are not informed (see EDOM, 6).

See Winckler, A T Untersuch. 1-6 ; Benzinger, in KHC ; Ki. in HK ; Che. JQR 11 551-556 ( 99). Winckler s attempted analysis of the Hadad narrative, though it has given a healthy stimulus to critics, was not preceded by a sufficiently thorough examination of the text. T. K. C.

HADAD[edit]

(Tin [Gi. Ba. ]), eighth son of Ishmael, Gen. 25 15 RV (so Sam. ; x SSa -" [A], x<xASa [D], xoBSaS [EL] ; Jos. Ant. i. 124 x6Sa|Aos [conj. xo^aSos]), i Ch. 130 (yovSav [B], XoSSaS [A], aSaS [L]). Gen. AV and i Ch. AVmg. and some printed Heb. editions, HADAR.

HADADEZER[edit]

(1$ Yin, Hadad is help, 28, 43 ; 2 S. 83^ 28. 10 16 ff. and i K. 11 23, where A has oSaSefep [sic; cp v. 14 in BL]), or, as some codd. and iCh. 183^". 19 i6jf. (best codd.), and as EV also 2 S. 10, and Pesh. and BAL everywhere, Hadarezer (ijtj; -nn ; aSpaafap [BL every where except aSpa^ap [B*] in 2 S. 10 16 and so B in i K. 11 14 ; A in 28. 810]; aSpafap [A in i Ch. 1 9 and KA in i Ch. 18/1] with varr. in N, aSpouJapei [in i Ch. 183] and in N* aSpa^a. [i Ch. 185], eSpaa^ap [i Ch. 19 16] ; the Hebrew is also written with Makkef every where in some MSS. An old Aramaic seal bears the letters -iiy-pin ; and a cuneiform inscription has Dad- idri ; cp Euting, Ber. der Berl. Akad., 85, p. 679; Baeth. Beitr. 67).

The name of the king of Aram-zobah, who was de feated by David. See ARAM, 6, DAMASCUS, 6/, ZOBAH.

HADAD-RIMMON[edit]

(flST Yin ; POCONOC [ENACT]; CUSii S; Adadremmon), according to the usual interpretation of Zech. 12 n, a place, in the plain of Megiddo where a great lamentation had taken place ; it is further held that the occasion of the mourning was the death of JOSIAH (q.v. , i) on the battlefield near Megiddo.

1. Current view.[edit]

This view dates from Jerome, who states (Comm. in Zach. ) that Adadremmon is a village near Jezreel now called Maximianopolis. The latter place was an im portant station between Csesarea and Jezreel, and von Raumer has, with probability, identified it with Legeon or Legio, the ancient MEGIDDO (q. v. ).

What authority (if any) Jerome had for his assertion, we know not ; at any rate, we cannot connect Maximianopolis-Adad- remmon with the modern village Rummaneh (so Van de Velde, Baudissin), for to this theory there is a geographical objection (see Buhl, 209), and any place with a pomegranate tree might be called Rimmon (whence Rummaneh). Apart from this, however, the traditional theory labours under these difficulties that the state mourning for Josiah cannot have been elsewhere than in Jerusalem (2 K. 23 29/1), and that Megiddo is nJC, not p-ur>

The Targ. mentions the Josiah-theory only in the second place, and combines with it another, according to which Hadad- rimmon, son of Tab-rimmon, was the slayer of Ahab, king of Israel, so that the phrase of the prophetic writer of Zech. 12 ii really means the mourning for Ahab ben Omri.

Baudissin (Stud, zur Sent. Rel. -gesch. 1 ^ 320) gives a new form to the Josiah-theory, explaining the disputed phrase, as the mourning for the battle of Hadad-rimmon. This is surely unnatural ; nor can it be proved that there ever was such a place as Hadad-rimmon.

Hitzig and Movers see a reference to the mourning for the mythic ADONIS(^.Z .) mortally wounded by a boar(Macrob. 1 21) ; women weeping for Tammuz are referred to in Ezek. 814; the only one (TIV), Zech. 12 10 may also, it is held, 1 refer to Adonis. The obvious objection is that RIMMON (q.v., i.) is certainly the Assyrian Storm-god Ramman. Even if the pome granate tree was sacred to Tammuz, it is hazardous to suppose that Tammuz was called Kimmon.

2. New theory.[edit]

There is need of a new theory which shall unite the elements of truth in earlier theories, and justify itself from some new source. The 'mourning for the only one' and the 'mourning of Hadad-rimmon' are parallel ; the reference is to the mourning for TAMMUZ (q.v. ). The original reading, however, was not Hadad-rimmon. <S BA Q r read simply Rimmon (pot)- What then is the mythological name nearest to Rimmon that can stand in such a connection? The answer is, Either Migdon, or some name out of which Migdon is corrupted.

Jensen has conjectured that inayeSiav in the apocalyptic ap/ua- yeSiav (see ARMAGEDDON) may be identical with myaSuiv in vea iiJu.yaStai , the name of a god of the underworld, corresponding to epecrxii aA, the Babylonian Persephone ;2 an d it has elsewhere been shown (see GOG) that Gog and Magog in Ezek. 38 39 are both corruptions of Migdon. Still, the Greek myaSiav and the Hebrew Migdon do not seem to be identical. Yecre/niyaScoi is probably Eshmun-Adon (Eshmun and Adonis were identified in Cyprus) ; if so, fiiyaSuv comes from (ivva&uv. But JTUD) Migdon, given by MT in Zech. 12 u, is most probably a corrup tion of jntNllDln] z -^-> Tammuz-Adon. This is suggested by the only possible emendation of the corrupt word flJ7p33 i n Zech. 12 n, and of the equally corrupt word "pro m I s - 6617 (see TAMMUZ), viz. ni23D. The women who wept for the TIT, or for Tammuz-Lord, are naturally referred to in a prophecy so much influenced by Ezekiel. On the other hand, whereas Ezekiel takes Tammuz as a symbol of the power opposed to God (cp Belial, if this comes from Belili, the name of the sister of Tammuz, and goddess of the underworld, see BELIAL), the author of Zech. l 2i-136 merely refers to the mourning for Tammuz as an image of the mourning of the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem for some great offence committed by them in the past. Render, In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of the women who weep for Tammuz-adon.

Hadadrimmon may be neglected ; apparently it owes its origin to a scribe s error. By a common acci dent p-no became jnn ; then a too clever scribe con verted jno into poi, and glossed Rimmon by Hadad (Hadad and Ramman or Rimmon were in fact identified). Thus the plausible reading Hadad-Rimmon grew up, and the door was opened to Jerome s misapprehension. Possibly Armagedon in Rev. 16i6 (AV) is due to the conflation of two readings, Magedon and Adar- remman (aSappffifiav, for Hadadrimmon). For a parallel to the combination of JIDT and JIIJD, two rival readings in Zech. 12 n, see MICRON. T. K. C.

HADAR[edit]

(Tin ; <\pA.e yioc B&P&9 [A], <\. yi. [E], APA.A yiOC B&P&A [K], &PA9 Yl- B. [L]), a king of Edom (Gen. 36397). See HADAD, i. (2).

HADAR[edit]

(Tin [some printed edd.], TTTI [Ba. Gi.]), Gen. 25 15 AV ; i Ch. I 3 o AV "*, RV HADAD [ii.].

HADAREZER[edit]

(")W Tin), 28. 10i6. See HADADEZER.

HADASHAH[edit]

(nBn i.e., new [town] ; 6.A&C&N [B], -CA [A], -CAI [L]), a town in the lowland of Judah, named between Zenan and Migdal-gad (Josh. 15 37!).

According to the Mishna (Erubin, 5 6) it was the smallest place in Judah. Sayce (Pat. Pal. 165, 236) finds this name in the lists of Rameses II. and III. ; but see W. M. Mailer s remark (As. u. Eitr. 166 top). It is to be distinguished from ADASA (?.? .). T. K. C.

1 So Movers, Lenormant, Lagarde.

2 SeeHalevy, LeRapt de PersephonS par Pluton, Rev. Sent.,

  • 93> PP- yi 2 ff-\ cp Jastrow, Rel. Bab. and Ass. 584.

HADASSAH[edit]

(HD^ri. 69, myrtle ; cp MYRTIA. MyppiNH ; but see MYRTLE), the Jewish name of ESTHER [q.v. , 7] in Esth. 2? (om. <5 BNAI -).

HADATTAH[edit]

(iirnn), Josh. 1625. See HAZOR-HADATTAH.

HADES[edit]

(A.AHC)- i- The word occurs ten times in RV of NT (AV hell ) for the nether world (but unto Hades in Mt. 11 23 is metaphorical) ; in i Cor. 15 55 [not Ti. WH], Rev. 6s, and 20i3yC this nether world is personified, like Sheol in Hos. 13 14. In Mt. 16 18 it is represented as a city with gates like Sheol in Ps. 9 13 [14] (see GATE).

2. Hades is (J3 s common rendering of sh ol, VlNt? (see SHEOL). But also employed to render other expressions : (a) Is. 14 19 (-| U j3n), 38 18 (nn mv) J see PIT ; (b) Is. 28 15 Prov. 14 12 1625 (niD), Job 33 22 (n3); see DEAD, THE, 2 ; (c) P.s. 94 17 11617 (noil); see SILENCE; (d) Job 38 17 (nic 1 ?^); see SHADOW OF DEATH. On the Hebrew equivalent, see SHEOL, and (on the whole subject) ESCHATOLOGY (see index under Sheol ).

HADID[edit]

(inn ; AA[e]lA [AL] ; cp the corrupt CALAMOLALUS of i Esd. 622). Our notices of Hadid are all post-exilic. Its people, along with those of Ono and Lod (Lydda), are included in the list (see EZRA ii. , 9, 8f) of children of the province, Ezra 233 (ap(>)6 [B]) = Neh. 737 (adia [B{<]), and according to Neh. 11 34 /. (a5u5 [Nc.am e .mf. L ] . B N*A om. passage), these were among the places in Judaea that were in habited by Benjamites.

The list of Benjamite towns, however, in Josh. ,18 mentions none of them, though, according to the Mishna ( Ardk/iin, 96), Hadid and Ono were fortified as early as the time of Joshua, and i Ch. 8 12 asserts that Ono and Lod, with the towns thereof, were built by Shemed a descendant of Benjamin.

Hadid, or, in its Greek form, ADIDA in the Shephelah, (a5[e]i5a [XA]), but also over against the plain (iv dSiSois [A], aSeivois [X*], adeid. [X c - a ], a5i/aou [V], Kara irpbfTWTrov TOV irediov) was at any rate fortified and made strong with gates and bars by Simon the Macca- bee (i Mace. 1 2 38 1813 ; cp GASm. HG 202).

As ASSiSa or A.SiSa it is also referred to by Josephus, from whom (BJ iv. 9 i) we learn that it commanded the road from the coast to Jerusalem.

Jerome ( Onom. 93 1 ) describes Aditha as near Dios- polis (Lydda) in an easterly direction. This enables us with considerable probability to identify it with the modern el-Hadlthe, about half an hour eastward from Lydda, and since Thotmes III. in his Karnak list refers to Hadid among other southern cities as Huditj (no. 76), it is probable that the modern form correctly represents the ancient name. Cp WMM As. u. Eur. 159, 165. T. K. C.

HADLAI[edit]

(yin), an Ephraimite, father of Amasa, 2 Ch. 28 12 (VQAA [B], A AAi [A], <\AAl [L]).

HADORAM[edit]

(DTin, the beloved of the High One ? Baeth. Beitr. 67, n^ 6. Possibly for DTHN. Hilprecht [ 98] mentions a Jewish name Addu-ramu [see ADONI- RAM]. Cp Sayce, RPW 470 [ go]. 1 For another view see Hommel, Exp. T. 10329 [Ap. 99] ; aSwpan [L]).

1. A son of Joktan (Gen. 1027 ; oSoppa [AE], -y. [L] ; i Ch. 1 21 ; om. B, KeSovpav [A]). The name is obscure. D. H. Miiller (Burg. u. ScUftttr, 1 360^) and Glaser (Skizze, 2 426 f. 435) compare Dauram near San ii (which is identified with UZAL [^.z .]) in Yemen. The name seems to appear in Sabaean as nmn (.CIS iv. 1 1).

2. Son of Toi (see Tou) ; i Ch. 18 10 (tSoupaa/a [B], -pa/i [K], Sovpa.fi [A]). The same form should be restored (with Ew., We., Bu., HPSm.) for JOKA.M in 28.810, where has ifi- Sovpav [ BAL] [Josephus has dStapafios] = Q^IV (on which form cp IDDO ii.). Sayce s remark on the name Joram (Early Hist. He/>. 423) will hardly be accepted.

3. 2 Ch. 10 18, see ADONIRAM.

HADRACH[edit]

CnTtn, ceApAX [ BN - -K. AQ] = Shadrach), a region of Syria, mentioned by an archaism in Zech. 9 1 (late ; see ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF, 6).

A word has Yahwe sent into Hadrach, and upon Damascus does it light ; for Yahwe's are the people of Aram, as well as all the tribes of Israel. 2

In Rabbinic times, the name was explained on the same principles as ABUECH as sharp -tender, a compound name of the Messiah. The view did not satisfy every one, however, and R. Jose, whose mother was from Damascus, identified Hadrach with a locality near that city, bearing the same name. 1 This evidence stood alone till the name Hatarika was found in the Assyrian inscriptions sometimes beside Damascus, sometimes beside Zoba, Zemar, and Arka. In the list of eponyms, three expeditions to the land or city of Hadrach are recorded in 772, 765, and 755 (COT 2igoJ^. ; cp Del. Par. 279) and in Tiglath - pileser III. s account of his war with Az(s?)riyahu Jaudai (see UZZIAH) the city of Hatarika is mentioned as tributary to Assyria ( KB 2 27 ).

Lately the name Hadrach has been detected in a corrupt word in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5 21 ; see KADESH, 2). Hadrach seems to have formed part of the Hittite country, and furnished men to Sisera s army. Certainly too -pin should be restored in Ezek. 47 15 for the impossible T]Tin. See HETHLON.

T. K. C.

1 Baethg. (fieitr. 76) compares Samas-ramm;"in, Asur-rammfm, Ilu-ramman.

2 Insert rrW after l^ (Is. 9 7 [8]), and, with Ball, read G^N DJ? (Am. 1 5). See JQR lO^S i ( 98).

HAGAB[edit]

(2Jn, 68, grasshopper ; cp HAGABA, HAGABAH ; AfAB [BAL]), a family of NETHINIM (q.v. ), in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii. 9) ; Ezra 2 4 6= Neh. 748 (|-AB& [N], om. MT B EV) = i Esd. 5 3 of (AGABA AV, ACCABA RV ; AKKABA [B], fAB* [A]). The same name is borne by a NT prophet (AGABUS : Acts 11 28 21 10).

HAGABAH[edit]

(n2jn, 68; grasshopper, Ezra [Aram.]) or Hagaba (N2Jn, Neh. ), a family of NETHINIM (q.v. ) in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii. 9); Ezra2 4S (AfABA [BAL] ) = Neh. 748 (AfABA [BNL], ArT&B&[A]) = I Esd. 52 9 (GRABA, RVAGGABA, [B- b "B-A], AfABA [L]).

HAGAR[edit]

and Hagrites or Hagarenes ("l^n, 2 D^n, DW)-|?ri; AF-AP [BADEQL], O l AfARHNm [BTL]).

1. Hagar in Hexateuch.[edit]

Hagar is introduced to us in Gen. 16 1 [J] as an Egyptian slave of Sarah, a description which is repeated by P in v. 3. All the three narrators (J, E, and P) agree that she bore Ishmael to Abraham, and it is plain that the story of her flight or expulsion symbolically expresses the separation of the Ishmaelites from the Israelites. 3

We have two parallel versions (Gen. 161^24-711-14 [J] 218-21 [E]) of this story and of the oracle respecting Ishmael given at a well in the desert (see BEER-LAHAI-ROI) ; these have been harmonised by means of an interpolated passage (16:8-10) in which Hagar is commanded to return to her mistress. The interpolator, however, does not express the intention of the original tradition ; probably J made Hagar give birth to Ishmael at Beer-lahai-roi (We. CH^iif. ). That Hagar appears as a slave-woman is a necessary consequence of the theory on which the Hebrew myth is based, the notion being that Ishmael was of inferior origin. (On the geographical details of these narratives, cp ISHMAEL, i, MIZRAIM, 2 []. )

1 Siphre, ed. Friedmann, 65 (Neub. Gcogr. 297). The lexicographer, David ben Abiaham, also places Hadrach at Damascus. Olsh. (Lehrgeb. 411) emends into Tr! Hauran."

2 Hagar not only in Ethiopian but also in some Arabic dialects denoted settlement, village, town ; the name of the tribe, whose eponym is Hagar, may be derived from that word, though we know the tribe but as nomadic ; a settlement named Hagar (as several in Arabia are named) was perhaps the centre of the sons of Hagar.

3 On Gal. 4 24-26 see below, 3.

2. Hagrites.[edit]

Like Ishmael and his twelve sons, Hagar is no doubt the personification of a tribe or district. In several passages of the OT we read of a nomadic people called the Hagrites. In Saul's days the tribe of Reuben waged a successful war against them, seized their tents and took possession of their territory throughout all the land to the E. of Gilead (i Ch. 5 10 RV Hagrites, AV Hagarites; roi>s ir [BA]). This campaign is perhaps identical with that described in vv. 18-22 (T. 19 ot ayapcuoi [A], v. 20 ayepatoi [B], ayop. [A]) of the same chapter, which refer to victories gained by the tribes beyond Jordan over the Hagrites and other foes (Jetur, Naphish, and Nodab). The numbers, it is true, are here enormously exaggerated, and the whole story is moulded in accordance with the religious conceptions of the later Jews ; but observe that the principal booty consists of camels ; the people in question must therefore be nomads. In i Ch. 27 31 (6 yadapi [L], 6 yapeirrjs [B], 6 ayapirrj^ [A]), a Hagrite ( RV ; AV Hagerite ) figures as chief overseer of David s flocks; but Hagri ( a Hagrite ) in i Ch. 1138 is an incorrect reading (see HAGRI). Ps. 836 [7] (ot ayyapTivoL [B*KAR], ot ayapijvoL [B b T]) (Maccabean) mentions the Hagrites (EV Hagarenes) among the enemies of Israel.

Moreover Eratosthenes (cited by Strabo, 767) classes the Aypatoi with the Nabataeans and the Chaulotaeans, placing them to the E. of Petra. Dionysius (Perieg. 956), who refers to the Aype es in connection with the NabatEeans and the Chaulasians, seems to have derived his information from Eratosthenes. Ptol. (5 18), presumably following some ancient authority, couples the Aypaipi with the Baravaioi, i.e. , the inhabitants of Bashan, a district which, at least during certain periods, was occupied by Israelites. These statements are all in harmony.

The Hagrites, we must suppose, were a pastoral people who wandered hither and thither in the Syrian desert to the E. of the Israelites. What is the precise ethnographical relationship denoted by the portrayal of Hagar as the mother of Ishmael remains altogether obscure, like so many other genealogical affinities between the mythical ancestors of tribes. l

The Agrcei of Pliny, 628 ( 154), have no connection with the Hagrites, but dwelt, on the contrary, in Yemen ; the occurrence of the name in another passage (ib. 161) depends on a hazardous conjecture.

In later times the term Hagarenes was applied by Christians to Muslims, and from the name of Hagar the Syrians even formed the verb ahgar or ethhaggar, to become a Muslim, as well as the noun Mahgrtiya, a Muslim, whence are derived the late Greek words juayapi rr)?, fj.aya.pKTfj.6s, fiayapi^eiv , but all this is based simply on the OT, the name of the bondwoman being attached, by way of insult, to her supposed descendants.

T. N.

3. Gal. 4:24+.[edit]

A word must be added regarding the use made of the story of Hagar by Paul (Gal. 424-26). The apostle neither affirms nor denies the historical character of the narrative ; his sole interest is in its esoteric meaning. To this he attaches the greatest weight, as it enables him, in accordance with Rabbinical methods, to prove the temporariness of the Jewish religion. Hagar and Ishmael, Sarah and Isaac are therefore allegoric (d\\T)yopou/j.fva) ; the Sinaitic covenant corresponds to Hagar, the Christian to Sarah (contrast Philo s explanation : Drummond, Philo Judceus, 2243^). As Hagar was a bondwoman, so too is the present Jerusalem ; as Sarah was free, so also is Jerusalem which is above. Let the Galatian Christians, who belong to this Jerusalem, refuse tc be forced under the Sinaitic covenant, lest they fall under the doom of Hagar and her son.

The sense of the passage has been obscured by the gloss, pointed out by Bentley and others, 2 TO Be Ayap Siva opos e<rriv fv rfj Apa/Sujt (WH ; Now this Hagar is Mt. Sinai in Arabia ); the following words <ru(no<.\el 6c are really the continuation of TJTIS f<TTiv Ayap {v. 24) ; probably, however, we should read, not <rvcTTOi^ec Se, but <rvi/<rroixoC<ra (D*FG : pr. 17 FG ; gui con.- junctus est, Vg., Victn.). What does the gloss mean? Some (cp the comment of Chrys.) assume that hajar, a stone, was a name given to Mt. Sinai by the Arabs whom Paul had met. The order of the words TO 6e Ayap Sira. opos (instead of opos Siva, as in v. 24), however, favours the view that Ayap is a later addition to the gloss, and there is strong MS authority (NCFG) for the omission of Ayap. The recognition of this makes the gloss more intelligible. (RV adopts the reading TO yap, but yap is evidently an alteration to improve the sense.)

T. N. I/. ; T. K. C. 3.

1 The only reference to the Hagrites ( sons of Hagar ) in the Apocrypha is in Baruch 3 23, where they are mentioned together with T*man, and described as those who seek after wisdom.

2 For references, see Bakhuyzen, Over cie toepassing van de conjccturaal-kritiek, 273 ( 80).

HAGGAI[edit]

1 The name and the man.[edit]

or [in i Ksd.] AGGEUS, AGG^US ( ifl ; AfTAlOC [BXAQTL] ; l perhaps 'born on the feast day', s. 72; unless -ai is substituted for -yah [cp MATTENAI - ZACCAI]. In this case Haggai = either Hag-iah, 'feast of Yahwe' [Olsh. 277 ], or, by contraction, Hagariah, 'Yahwe hath girded' [We. in Bleek s Einl.(^ 434]. Hilprecht has found the Jewish name Hagga on a tablet of fifth century B.C. from Nippur, PEFQ Jan. 98, p. 55). A contemporary of Zechariah, with whom he was as sociated in his prophetic ministry ( Ezra 5 1 i Esd. 6 1 7s). His book contains four short prophecies delivered between the first day of the sixth month and the twenty- fourth day of the ninth month that is, between Sep tember and December of the second year of Darius the king i.e. , of Darius Hystaspis (521-485 B.C. ). From the language of the prophet in chap. 2 3 we may perhaps infer with Ewald that Haggai was one of those who had seen the temple in its former glory, and that his prophetic work began in extreme old age. This sup position agrees well with the shortness of the period covered by his book, and with the fact that Zechariah, who began to prophesy in the same autumn, afterwards appears as the leading prophet in Jerusalem (Zech. 7 1-4). Whether he was ever in Babylonia or whether he had been continuously in Jerusalem (cp her [Jerusalem s] prophets, Lam. 29), we are not told, nor can we venture to trust the later traditions respecting him (in the Vit<z Prophelarum ascribed to Epiphanius, and copied by Dorotheus and by Hesychius of Jerusalem). 2 His name occurs in the titles of certain psalms in LXX (Pss. 112 [R] 145-148 149 [R]) and other versions ; but no inference can be drawn from this. These titles vary in the MSS, and Eusebius did not find them in the Hexaplar (s 3 They have no critical value.

1 In Hag. 1 i B* has ayyeos, a reading adopted by N in everv passage.

2 See the double recension in Nestle, Marg. (Haggai, pp. 26^). Epiphanius says that Haggai came up from Babylon while still young, prophesied of the return of the people, saw [in part] the building of the temple, and on his death received an honoured burial near the priests. The fuller recension adds, icai aurbs li//aAAe e/cet Trpuiros aAAr)A.ovia - o ep/xjji eiieTat aiyeVw- ftef TCJ> iavTi 0f<a afj-Tjv (sic). It closes with the words, Stb \eyofjiev aAArjAouia, o itmv UJU.I/QS "Ayyai ou al Za^api ou.

3 On this subject cp Kohler, TVeissag. Haggai s, 32 ; Wright, Zech. ami his prophecies, Introd. xix. yC ; B. Jacob, ZA TW 16 290 [ 96] ; and see note on Ps. 145 i in Field s Hexapla.

4 Read D snri for Q sn (v. 9). While ye each run every man to his own house" (RV) is clearly not correct. We. now reads IH 33 B"N D"iT ; but while ye delight every man in his house is an infelicitous substitute for the received text. Robertson Smith, like every other critic until of late, thought the refer ence was to the providing of costly houses for rich men among the returned exiles. The majority of the people, however, can not have been returned exiles, and in any case the received text will not bear the strain put upon it. It was not merely their houses but their fields which called forth the zeal of the Jews (w. 6q) ; house has a wide sense (as in Gen. 152 Job 8 15).

5 The section is altogether narrative ; v. n, which professes to give a short prophecy of Haggai, being evidently a gloss from the margin (Bohme, ZA TW, 1887, p. 216). The second part of the verse is taken from 2 4 (where moreover the very same words are followed by another gloss, which is not given by ). The first part would certainly have been expressed differently by Haggai. One phrase in it ( Yahwe s messenger ) gave rise to the notion, mentioned by Jerome and Cyril of Alexandria, that Haggai was really an angel, and had only in apnearance the human form. The same fancy was entertained with regard to Malachi and John the Baptist.


2. The four prophecies.[edit]

(a) In his first prophecy (1:1-11) Haggai rebukes the people for leaving the temple unbuilt while they themselves dwell in panelled houses. The prevalent famine and distress are because of Yahwe's house that lies waste, while the Jews are zealous (enough) for their own houses. 4 Let them build the house, and Yahwe will take pleasure in it and glorify himself (i.e., accept the honour paid to him). The rebuke took effect, and the people began to work at the temple under the leadership of Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (1 12-15).*

(b) In a second prophecy (2:1-9), delivered in the following month, Haggai forbids the people to be disheartened by the apparent meanness of the new temple. The silver and gold are the Lord s. Soon he will shake all nations, and the choicest things (point nnprt) of all nations will come (i.e., will be brought) to adorn his house. Its glory will be greater than that of the former temple, and in this place Yahwe will give peace. Here adds, KO.\ flprji^v ^iv\-fi<; els TrepiTroujo-ii/ navri r<p KTifovTt. TOV ayacrrijcTat TOV va.bv TOVTOV, which Wellhausen cleverly reproduces in Hebrew so as to give the sense, 'and rest of soul, to repair all the foundation, to raise this temple'. Probably the passage really belongs to Haggai, and was omitted by a later scribe in deference to the narrative of the Chronicler (so Now.).

(c) A third prophecy (2:10-19) contains a promise, enforced by a figure drawn from the traditional theory of holiness, that God will remove famine and bless the land from the day of the foundation of the temple onwards. 2 17 is inserted in an incorrect form from Am. 4 9 (We.).

(d) Finally, in 2:20-23 (unnecessarily doubted by Bohme) a special prophecy is addressed to Zerubbabel, who is not indeed expressly called a son of David, but receives a promise which is hardly intelligible unless he were one. I will shake the heavens and the earth, is the terrifying exordium; I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen. But fear not, O Zerubbabel, for in that day, I will make thee as a signet (thus reversing the doom of Zerubbabel s grandfather, Jeconiah, in Jer. 22 24), for I have chosen thee. To what high dignity Zerubbabel is called, we are not expressly told ; but, comparing Zech. 6iz/:, we cannot doubt that he is to become the Messianic king. See ZERUBBABEL.

3. Difficulties.[edit]

(a) What induced Haggai (and Zechariah) to come forward in the second year of Darius with the exhortation to rebuild the temple and the promise of kingship to Zerubbabel? Why had they waited sixteen years before stirring up the people to restore the sanctuary ? And why did they address their promises to Zerubbabel rather than to his predecessor? The answer is that a startling historical event had opened their eyes to the will and purpose of Yahwe. Just after the accession of Darius to the throne of Persia, revolts broke out in different parts of Eastern Asia. In Babylon, two pretenders successively assumed the favourite name of Nebuchad rezzar, and even where there was no rebellion the hope of the recovery of independence must have revived. x Can we doubt that such hopes were awakened in Judah ? Must not Yahwe s prophets have heard in these events the rumbling of the chariot- wheels of the Most High ? Of a surety, the Messianic era was at hand, and the temple must be quickly prepared to receive the Great King.

(b) Another question forces itself upon the mind. What is the cause of the indifference of the Jews to the desolate condition of their sanctuary ? The restoration of the temple and its worship was the necessary ex pression of the faith that the service of Yahwe was the true national vocation of Israel. How was it that, so soon after 527 B.C., the people of Jerusalem so com pletely forgot their ideal calling as the nation of the true God ? Our surprise would be diminished if Haggai made any allusion to a party of stricter ad herents of the Law and more zealous worshippers of Yahwe. Allusions of this kind, however, which are not wanting in the post-exilic Palestinian portions of Is. 40-66, are not to be found in this book. Some scholars think that the only natural explanation is that no considerable body of exiles had as yet returned, and that those who had arrived (in the train of Shesh- bazzar?) belonged to the more secular-minded portion of the Babylonian community. The people whom Haggai addresses in 23 as having, some of them, seen the first temple, are in fact (it is thought) almost entirely Jews who had never been to Babylon.

(c) A third question may arise how is it that Haggai makes no direct reference to moral duties ? In this respect he falls below Zechariah. The reason may possibly be that the notes of his prophecies are in complete. We need not therefore believe that the only command of Yahwe the neglect of which he regrets is the erection of a house for Yahwe s dwelling-place. It remains true, however, that both Haggai and Zechariah give precedence to a duty which to us must appear a secondary one. Both stood on the threshold of a new age, and though they performed the task of the moment successfully they had not the varied gifts which the creation of a new people demanded. See ZECHARIAH, 2.

1 See Ed. Meyer, Entst. teff.\ Che. Jew. Rel. Life, 14.

4. Haggai's style.[edit]

The style of Haggai is truly described by Kirk-patrick (Sm. DB^ 1 1265) as tame and prosaic. Evidently the notes of his discourses have not been touched up by a more literary writer; his repetitions have not been pruned. Telling passages, however, are not altogether wanting (see 169 2i6), and the frequent interrogations give life to the addresses.

5. Literature.[edit]

Among older books, the learned commentary of Marckius may be specially mentioned, nor must we omit Rosenmiiller's still useful Scholia. Kohler's comm. ( 60) is elaborate and valuable. Reinke's work ( 68) gives the views of a scholarly Roman Catholic. It is hardly needful to mention Pusey, Wellh., GASm., Dods, and the books of introduction. Duhm s Theol. des Propheten ( 75), however, should be added to the student s list for a historical view of the place of Haggai as a prophet, and Rosters Het herstel van Israel {pp. 19-24) for a suggestive treatment of the question, Were there returned exiles among the people addressed by Haggai and Zechariah ? w. R. S. -T. K. C.

HAGGEDOLIM[edit]

(D^IJD), Neh. 11 14 RV. See ZABDIEL, 2.

HAGGERI[edit]

Cnjn), iCh. H 3 8t AV, RV HAGRI (g.v.}.

HAGGI[edit]

( in, born on the feast day, 72), b. GAD \_q.v., i. 13] (Gen. 46i6, AryeiC [ADL] = Nu. 26 15, Arrte]- [BAFL]); gentilic, Haggite, Nu. 26 15 ( ann : & r rfe