Encyclopaedia Biblica/Hezekiah-Hizkiah

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



(in pjn [usually], fVpm [in 2 K. 1814-16, which comes from a separate record], also n pTIT [no. i in Hos. Ii Mic. 1 1] and -inpjrP [no. i in Is. 1 1 and constantly in 2 Ch. ] ; see also JEHIZKIAH ; the vocalization of the two latter forms is anomalous ; 626KIAC [BAL]). The name Hizkiya.hu is written Hazaki[i]au in Assyrian ; cp also the name pin on a seal [see JAs. , Feb. -Mar. 1883, p. 134 (no. 7)]. It means Yahwe has strengthened, or is strength ; cp EZEKIEL, and the plays upon the name in Ecclus. 48 17 22 [Heb. text].

1. His policy.[edit]

i. King of Judah (7720-691 ; cp CHRONOLOGY, 36). Of the reign of this king little is known with certainty. He certainly ascended the throne at a youthful age. M Curdy 1 makes him only fifteen at his accession ; he was, by general admission, certainly under twenty-five (the age given by the Redactor in 2 K. 182 [cp KINGS, 4]), we may even confidently say, under twenty. Elsewhere (see ISAIAH i. , 6) reason has been given for supposing that Hezekiah may have been early influenced by the preaching of Isaiah, and unlike his father have responded to the prophet s demand for faith. The kings of Judah, however, did not possess absolute power, and Hezekiah s action was in the main dictated by the political party which happened to be predominant among the nobles. His personal relation to Isaiah was therefore of comparatively slight significance, and it is but a conjecture that the (probable) dismissal of SHEBNA (q. v. ) and the alarm produced by the Assyrian invasion led to something in the nature of a reform which con sisted partly in the requirement of a higher standard of morality from the judges (Is. 1 17 23 815) and partly in the abolition of certain idolatrous objects at Jerusalem, such as the brazen serpent (2 K. 184). A much larger measure of iconoclasm is ascribed to Hezekiah in 2 K. 184-7, where the compiler of Kings (to whom the passage in its present form is due) assigns the re formation to one of the first years of Hezekiah s reign (cp v. 22 and 2 Ch. 293).

The language, however, which the compiler uses is so strongly suggestive of the influence of Deuteronomy (reign of Josiah) that we cannot venture to take it as strictly historical. There is no sound evidence that Isaiah attacked either the Masscl ahs or the Asherahs, much less the Bamoth or high places. 2 The destruction of these objects seems a detail transferred to Hezekiah s times from those of Josiah, to which it properly belongs.

The removal and destruction of the brazen serpent is not to be explained away. 1 That Hezekiah did away with this much misunderstood object (see NEHUSHTAN) is credible, and this may even be the whole historical kernel of the story of the reform of the cultus, which the Chronicler (after his fashion) has still further elaborated (2 Ch. 29-31).

1 Hist. Proph. Man. 2250. This implies dating Hezekiah s accession in 720 or 719. Similarly Wi. and C. Niebuhr (720) assume that Merodach-baladan s embassy (2 K. 20 12-19 = Is. 3i>) was sent on Hezekiah s accession, which took place (ex hyp.) not long after his own (cp Schr. COT 2 25). M Curdy s assumptions are different, and need testing. Most scholars, with We., prefer 715. The question is not settled. On the doubtful statement in the fourteenth year (2 K. 18 13 = Is. 36 1) see Di. Jes. 313 ; Duhm, Jes. 235 ; Kau. in Kamph. Chronologic, 94 ; Che. Intr. Is. 217 f. , and cp CHRONOLOGY, 36, and Dr. IsaiahW, \^f.

2 Is. 17 7 f. is an interpolation. See Stade, ZA TW 813, who is scarcely answered by Konig, ffauptprobleme, 70. Steuer nagel s answer to Sta., We., and Smend is not critical enough (Ent. des deut. Gesetzes, 100 [ 96!). Hezekiah s supposed edict for a reformation remains as improbable as before, and should not be mixed up with a discussion of the original Deuteronomy.

2. Campaigns.[edit]

(a) Philistine campaign. It is less doubtful to what period Hezekiah s successful campaign against the Philistines is to be referred (2 K. 188). According to Stade (GF/16 24 ) and Kittel (Hist. 2371), the account is to be taken in connection with Sennacherib s statement that he deprived Hezekiah of certain cities, as a punishment for his rebellion, and attached them to the territories of three Philistine kings (KB 2g4/. ). Hezekiah, it is suggested by these critics, may not have submitted tamely to this, and may even have enlarged his own territory at the expense of the Philistines after Sennacherib s departure. This is too arbitrary a view. The cities which Sennacherib wrested from Hezekiah are probably cities which Hezekiah had previously taken from the Philistines.

(b) Assyrian campaign. -The other events of Hezekiah s reign, so far as we know them, are treated else where (see ISAIAH i. , 5^ ; MERODACH-BALADAN ; SENNACHERIB ; EGYPT, 66 ; ISRAEL, 34). To supplement these notices, it is only necessary to point out here: (i) that a thorough criticism of 2 K. 1 813-1937 ( Is. 36 f. ) in connection with the Assyrian annals raises the character of Hezekiah considerably ; he was a true hero, who, unlike the cowardly Luli of Sidon, stuck to the post of duty, and only gave way when all hope had fled, and Jerusalem was like a booth in a vineyard or a lodge in a cucumber-field (Is. 18) ; and (2) that great caution must be used in reconstructing the history of Jewish religion on the basis of the imperfectly-known facts of the close of the Assyrian invasion.

Much that has been assigned to Isaiah s pen belongs to a later age, and presupposes a glorification of Isaiah which that great prophet and lover of truth would certainly have deprecated. The circumstances under which Jerusalem was liberated from the blockading Assyrian force were not such as to promote a spiritual religion such as Isaiah would have approved. It is by no means certain that Sennacherib retired in consequence of a pestilence in his army ; the evidence is as unsatisfactory as possible, and the story may have been developed out of the words of Isaiah in 17 14, At eventide behold terror! before morning he is no more ! This is the portion of those that spoil us ; and the lot of those who rob us.

If Sennacherib s army had been almost destroyed, is it likely that Hezekiah would have sent a special envoy with tribute to Nineveh (KB 1gf>f.}~? It is much more probable that the inability of Sennacherib to meet Taharka was due to the receipt of bad news from Babylon. In the failure of historical information, nothing was more natural, especially in the light of Isaianic prophecies (supposed to have been literally fulfilled), than to postulate a plague as the cause of his retreat. See SENNACHERIB.

To quote on the other side the story of the priest-king Sethos (Herod. 2 141) is extremely unsafe, considering Herodotus s ill- fortune in the matter of popular Egyptian stories, and the mythological connections of the detail of the field-mice gnawing the quivers of the invaders. 2

The only doubt is whether there may not have been a second invasion of Sennacherib, which may perhaps have been abruptly terminated by a pestilence.

On one point, however, it is safe to adhere still to the older critical view. The fact that Jerusalem escaped being taken when all the other fortified cities fell before the Assyrians, and, as Sennacherib states, 200,150 Judaeans were led into captivity, must have enhanced the prestige of the temple (cp ISRAEL, 34 ; DEUTERONOMY, 13). The religious reaction under Manasseh would rather promote than hinder this. The misinterpretation of Is. 28 16 1 may have begun very early.

1 See Stade, ZA TW 3 9 ( 83).

2 Hommel s statement \Gesch. des alien Morgenlandes, 142 [ 95l)> A plague (or, as Herodotus symbolically expresses him self, a swarm of field-mice ) fell upon the Assyrian host so that Sennacherib had to return (with no results to show) to Nineveh," and M Curdy s in Hist. Proph. Man. 2yg8jf., 428, seem to need modification. It has not been proved that mice were a symbol of plague-boils. In i S. f>f. the plague and the mice are two distinct punishments. On the mythological affinities of the field-mice of Sethos, see A. Lang, Custom and Myth, 111-114. See EMERODS, MOUSE.

3. Hezekiah's song.[edit]

That Hezekiah composed a song in the style of the Psalms, is a priori most improbable. The song in Is. 38 is on general and on linguistic and phraseological grounds, of post-exilic origin (see ISAIAH ii. , 15). Nor can we venture to accept the statement in Prov. 25:1 that 'Hezekiah's men' collected the proverbs contained in Prov. 25-29 (cp PROVERBS). Hezekiah has hardly earned the title of the Pisistratus of Judah. On the reign of Hezekiah see especially Stade, GVI 1603-624 ; and cp ISRAEL, 33/. T. K. c.

2. T|pjn, RV HIZKIAH, the son of Neriah of the seed of David(i Ch. 3 23 e<ia [BA], -s [L]).

3. Ater- Hezekiah (Neh. 7 21 = Ezra 2 16 = i Esd. 615, Neh. lOi/); see ATER (i).

4. An ancestor of Zephaniah the prophet (Zeph. 1 i AV HIZKIAH, eectou [BNAQ]). Since the genealogy is traced back so far, it has been supposed that he must have been some renowned person, perhaps the king. It is probably accidental that no other prophet s genealogy is carried above the grand father. No reference is made in Kings to a brother of Manasseh named Amariah ; but the chronology is not opposed to the hypothesis which is regarded as probable by Kuenen (ii., 78, n. i, cp also Keil, Hi., Steiner). Ibn Ezra also accepts; but Abar- banel rejects it. See Gray, Exp., July 1900, pp. 76 ft


(]V?n ; A.ZAH\ [AL], ^zeiN [B]), an Aramaean king, father of Tab-rimmon, and grandfather of Benhadad I. (i K. 15 18). The name, however, is plainly corrupt.

Winckler (A T Unters. fiojff .) restores ^Kin, Hazael, in accord ance with AL. Others (e.g., Ew., Hist. 824, n. 5, The. and Klo.) prefer j flTn, Hezron, of which they take fin, Rezon, in 11 23 to be another form, basing this view upon i K. 11 23 (eo-puju. [B], -upfc], om. A); but ecrpco/u points rather either to p"l?n Hesron, or to p*T (cp REZON). Probably Wi. is right.

T. K. C.


(TTH boar, the pointing may be intentional, to avoid a connection with Tin [No., ZDMG 40 162 ( 86)]. Neub. compares Talm. Targ. NlNrt, TPrt, pomegranate, apple [Acad., Dec. 87, p. 4ii b ] ; cp RIMMON. The -vjn 33 are mentioned upon a Hebrew inscription dating shortly before the Christian era [Chwolson, Corp. /nscr. Heb. no. 6 ; cp Dr. TBSxxm.f.]. Cp perhaps Hiziri, Am. Tab. 159, and the Bab. n. pr. Hainziru [Muss-Arnolt]).

1. A~priest, to whom, according to the Chronicler, the seven teenth of the twenty-four lots fell in David s time, i Ch. 24 15 (jpfciv [B v. 14], te<Tp [A], xr/f. [L]).

2. Signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7), Neh. 1020 [18] (r,ip [BKA], oftp [L]). S. A. C.


(n>TI; i Ch. 11 37 and 2 S. 23 35 Kt.) or Hezrai (^VH I 2 S. 2835, Kr. ) or, more probably, Hezron (Klo. , Marq. ), one of David s thirty, a native of Carmel, in Judah.

<S has : in Ch. r)<rpe 6 \apiJ.a.Sai [B], >)<7poi 6 \- [N]> iffapai 6 leapjurjAi [A], ecrpei 6 xep/xeAAi [L] ; in 2 S. acrapai 6 <capju>)Aio [BA], [6aju.i 6] eo-crepi, Kap^iaAi [6 a<apet] [L].


(ptyri; AC60R60N [B], ecpcoM [A], ecpCON [L]), one of the points which mark the S. border of Judah in Josh. 15s, mentioned between Kadesh- barnea and Addar(?); in the || passage, Nu. 344, Kadesh-barnea is followed by HAZAR-ADDAR (Tunxn ; CTTAYAlN &P&A [BAFL]). There may have been two places, Hazar or Hezron, and Addar, close to one another. The site is uncertain ; Saadia in his transla tion takes it to be Raphia. See, however, HAZAR-ADDAR.

1 The laying of the foundation-stone is future (read 10"), and the promised benefits are only for those who have what Isaiah would recognise as faith. Cp Is. 86yC


(| nyn. enclosure, eCRCOM [ AL ] I cp IVn, court-yard, village, and see above).

i. b. Perez b. Judah (Gen. 4612, acrpu/j. [A], -v [D] ; Nu. 26zi, a<rpuv [BFL], avrpuv [A]; Ruth 4i8 /. , tepuv [B, and A in v. 19], efpw [L] ; i Ch. 2s, ap<rwi> [B*], eo-pwi/ [B a?b ""s-] ; 4i apcrwv [B], e<rpui> [L]; Mt. Is Lk. 833, effpw/j. AV ESROM ; Hezronite j nsn, Nu. 2621, aoywi tejt [BAFL]). This relationship is late and is a modification of the older scheme which appears in i Ch. 2 9. Here Hezron (eirepwv [B*], evpwv [B ab ]) is the father of the two clans Jerahmeel l and Chelubai ( = Caleb), and in this connection his name is probably as symbolical as those of Caleb s wives (see AZUBAH, i), since Hezronites seems to mean 1 the inhabitants of cnsn nomad encampments so WRS /. Phil. 991 (see HAZOR). Caleb and Jerahmeel in David s time inhabited the negeb of Judah (cp, e.g. , i S. 8029), and it was not until later times that they migrated northwards. Hence it is natural that upon their subsequent adoption into the tribe of Judah, they should be genealogically represented as the offspring of the tribal eponym by making their father a son of PEREZ [q.v,]. The genealogical fragment i Ch. 2 18-24 which connects Hezron with Gilead, etc. , may represent post- exilic relations, or perhaps simply implies that Gilead had a nomadic origin (vv. 18 21 24 f. ecrepuv [B], eapuifj. [A], -v [L and A in v. 25]) ; cp i Ch. 5 10. See also CALEB- EPHRATAH.

2. A son of Reuben (Gen. 46 9 a<rp<av [ADL], Nu. 266 a<rp<av [BFL], -ju. [A], Ex. 614 avpuv [BAF], - M [L], i Ch. 5 3 -v [L], apo-iav [B], ea-ptov [A]; Hezronite, 3isn> Nu. 26e, a<rpco>/[e]i [BAFL]).


(|PI ; A.AA.OI [B*], &A P OI [B ab ], & 09AI [A], &AA&I [L]), one of David s thirty : 2 S. 2830 = i Ch. 1132, HURAI (q.v.).


(Sj^n ; TirpiC [AEL in Gen.], TlfRHC [@ 87 in Dan.], nrpic eAAeKeA [Theod. in Dan.]; but eislAeKeA A with cy * * Symmachus written above it] ; fcsX.C?, n?,n ; Ass. Diklat(f), Bab. Diglat}, the river of Eden which goeth eastward to Assyria of Gen. 2 14, the great river of Dan. 10 4, is undoubtedly the TIGRIS. The name of this river, in the pre-Semitic writing of Babylonia, was MA&- TIG-GAR, a group of signs, which in this connection denoted an idea whose audible expression was Idigna or Idignu. As applied to the river, it was regarded by the Babylonian scribes as denoting the river they called Diglat. This form of the name is clearly pre served in the Greek of Pliny, NH 6127, diyXirw, Aramaic Deklat, Arabic Diglat and 8i.y\aO (Jos. Ant. i. 1 3 ).

The suggestion has been made that Diglat is formed from Idigna, by dropping the initial vowel (for which many parallels can be produced), and adding the Semitic feminine (F. Delitzsch, J arad. 171). The Hebrew and modern Arabic have not this t. The former substitutes for the the closely related k, a change which may also be indicated in the Assyrian, if that really was Diklat. The presence of the initial Hi, in the Hebrew, has been accounted for by the prefixing of the Hebrew article to a form beginning with I. This scarcely accounts for the h, without further explanation. The Samaritan, however, has 7pirt- The modern v Arabic follows the local form Digleh.

That the sign MAS had among its phonetic values Hi, Hi, i, is a legitimate suggestion, but has no support. It "denoted, among other ideas, the bank of a river, and as such was read Ahi. Thus Ahitiggar, or with a change of r to 1, for which many parallels could be found, Ahitiggal, Hidikal, is a natural progression.

The same group of signs, however, not only denoted the river Tigris, but, with the same pronunciation, was translated by the Babylonian scribes as nagit, a district, nadbaku, . a gully or wady, and finally was an ideogram for the verb zabu, to flow, which furnished the names of the two Zabs, tributaries of this river. Thus, if Tiggar was the early pronunciation of this group of signs it may have been a pre-Semitic name that perhaps clung to the upper reaches of the stream, where the Medo- Persian invaders first became acquainted with the river. At any rate, it seems more than coincidence that the Old Persian name should be Tigra, a feminine form. The existence of a similar Old Persian word tigri (the Zend tighri) for arrow 1 may perhaps help the change.

It must be borne in mind, however, that the other ancient writing of the name was HAL-HALA, the cuneiform signs of which are very suggestive" of Tour arrows following one another ; and yet, on the other hand, probably represent an old pictorial indication of running water. At the same time, the Babylonians translated these signs byg-ardru, to flow," when used otherwise than as the name of the river. Another old name for this river, or some part of it, was the Ammu. At bottom we may suppose the old writing MAs-(Ahi ?)-TIG-GAR to have been also phonetic and either directly, or by way of suggestion, the parent of Hiddekel, Diglat, and Tigris.

C. H. W. J.

1 The introduction of Ram (a mere fragment of Jerahmeel, Che.) is erroneous.


(TWn, if the letter n is correct, perhaps for ?&pn, El lives, 35; A X [e]lHA[BA], ^./ [Pesh.]; unless on account of < and Pesh. , 7&OPI may be con sidered to be for 7KT1N, cp Bathg. Beitr. 156, and 2NPI for 2SHN on an inscription from Safa [see AHAB]), the Bethelite 2 ( Vjtn-rra), who in the days of Ahab built (i.e. , fortified?) Jericho, and who laid the foundation thereof at the cost of (the life of) Abiram (DT3K3) his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof at the cost of (the life of) Segub (nuba) his youngest, according to the word of Yahwe which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun (i K. 1634). Several interesting questions arise out of this passage : ( i ) as to the name and period of the builder of Jericho ( 2) ; (2) as to the manner in which he lost his two sons ( 3) ; and (3) as to the relation of the passage to Josh. 626 (Joshua s curse on the builder of Jericho) ( i). Let us take the last of these first.

1. Relation of the story to Josh 6:26.[edit]

Comparing the two passages, we find that the phraseological evidence favours the view that the passage in Josh, is the later (see Kit. HIST 2:213, 11, 1). It is also probable that 1 K. 16:34 (which is not found in LXX[L]) was introduced from some other context ; the closing words would naturally be inserted later, to provide a point of contact with Josh. 626. In LXX[BAL] the fulfilment is narrated in Josh, (ofav [B*], aofav [B a "], 6 aav [AL]).

2. Who was Hiel?[edit]

Next, as to the person intended. The notice is very obscure ; what has a Bethelite to do with the building or refortification of Jericho ? According to Ewald (GVI 3:490) Hiel was a rich man of an enterprising turn of mind. 1 The building of a city, however, is an unusual enterprise for a private person, and such a distinguished man ought to have had a genealogy. Next, we notice that the second part of the Hebrew for 'the Bethelite' ( ^Nn) contains nearly the same letters as Hiel (^N n). This suggests that Hiel may have been a variant of Hael, and have been transformed into Beth-ha'eli, when the two readings had come to stand side by side. But who is Hiel ? Not a Bethelite, but some one important enough to do without a patronymic. It is a probable conjecture that Jehu (possibly from Wirr?) is disguised as Hiel, and that the notice of his rebuilding Jericho originally stood after 2 K. 10:33 - 3 JEHU [i] built or refortified Jericho because he had been deprived of so much territory by Hazael, and had to protect what was left. The change of Jehu (Jehoel ?) into Hiel and the transference of the notice to the story of Ahab arise out of the embarrassing fact that the story of Elijah repre sented that prophet as having been sent to Jericho (2 K. 2 4 ).

1 As asserted by Strabo xi. 14 8, and others (Curtius, 4 9).

2 Tg. gives DlOnn. Pesh. )]^.^Q^ kwO; Ar. ^511 o*J , all in agreement with the Rabbinical tradition (Rashi, etc.) which connects Vwrfra with rh ( a curse ), Jericho being the house of a curse.

3 This view is due to C. Niebuhr (Gesch. 1 332^), except that he cannot see that the sons mentioned have anything to do with Jehu ; nor is he quite full enough on the disguising name Hiel.

3. The sacrifice of Hiel's (Jehu's sons).[edit]

Lastly, as to the fate of Hiel's or Jehu's two sons. The writer of the notice makes Hiel (Jehu) responsible for their deaths, and the inserter of the gloss, 'according to the word of Yahwe which he spoke by Joshua', supposed the deaths to have been judgments upon Hiel (Jehu) for his impiety in breaking the taboo laid upon the site of Jericho by Joshua. Of this taboo, however, we have no early record, and the explanation is certainly not natural. The key to the passage is supplied by the comparative study of primitive customs. It is not the ordinary sacrifices of children that we have before us (so Kue. Ond.M 1 233 = Hex. 240), but a special kind of sacrifice to the local supernatural powers such as has been practised in many countries.

This can hardly fail to have suggested itself to many readers of Tylor s Primitive Culture (1 104^!), and has for many years been held by the present writer. From Tylor s instances it is enough to quote the Japanese belief (jyth cent.) that a wall laid on the body of a willing human victim would be secure from accident ; accordingly when a great wall was to be built, some wretched slave would offer himself as foundation, lying down in the trench to be crushed by the heavy stones lowered upon him. Similarly at Algiers when the walls were built of blocks of concrete in the sixteenth century, a Christian captive named Geronimo was placed in one of the blocks and the rampart built over and about him. 1 At Shanghai, when the bridge leading to St. John s College was being built, an official present threw into the stream first his shoes, then his garments, and finally himself, and as his life went out, the workmen were enabled to go on with their building. In India, to this day, engineers and architects have to reassure the natives at the commencement of any great undertaking, to prevent them from anticipating a sacrifice of human victims (Sewell). It is still more important to notice that the American explorer, J. H. Haynes, in ex cavating the zikkurrat of the temple of Bel at Nippur (the oldest yet found) discovered many skulls built in with the bricks. 2

It is probable that in primitive times these foundation- sacrifices were customary in Palestine as well as in Babylonia, and that they even lingered on in northern Israel. Even if we believe that Hiel (Jehu) sacrificed his two sons in the usual way (i.e., not adopting the precise practice referred to by Tylor), we must at any rate suppose that he sprinkled the foundation-stones and the side-posts of the gates (cp Ex. 12? 22 f.) with his children s blood, just as Arabian husbandmen, when they build, are still wont to sprinkle the blood of a peace-offering upon the stones. 3

That he selected his firstborn and his youngest sons as the sacrificial victims, is in accordance with the principle implied in 2 K. 827 Mic. 67. 4 The only biblical critic who has explained the passage by folklore is Winckler (Gesch. 1163, n. 3); but the present article is independent of his. work. [Cp Ki. Kon. 136.]

T. K. C.

1 Cornhill Magazine, Feb. 1887 (quoted by Trumbull).

2 Peters, JBL 16 n [ 96]; Trumbull, The Threshold Cove nant, 48 ( 96). On p. 46 the author vaguely remarks that there is a suggestion of the idea of the foundation sacrifice in the curse pronounced by Joshua. (See also Frazer, Journ. Phil.


3 Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 136.

4 Cp WRS, Rel. Sem.W, 464.

5 Strabo says (629), xtnavTiicpv AaoSiieei as lepa rrdAts, OTTOU TOL titp/j.a vSaTa cai TO II \ovTtaviov, dfxc/>w TrapaSofoAo-yiai/ Ttca i\ovTa.. He calls the chasms xaptavia, 579 ; cp Vitr. viii. 3 10.


depArroAic. iep<\ rmAicEWH; Str. 629]), a city in Phrygia, mentioned incidentally in Col. 4 13 along with the neighbouring Laodicea. It occupied a shelf, 1 100 ft. above the sea, springing from the mountains bounding the Lykos valley on the NE. The modern village Pambuk Kalesi ( cotton castle, from the lime of the springs) lies close to the site. The hot calcareous springs, and the chasms filled with carbonic acid gas, were and are still remarkable features. 5 The water of the springs falls over the cliffs, 100 ft. or more in height, above which the city stood, and the snowy white stalactites present the appearance of a frozen cascade. The Plutonium, a hole from which mephitic vapour issued, was filled up by the Christians between 19 A.D. (Strabo s visit) and 380 A.D. : this appears in legend as the subjugation of Echidna (Snake = Satan) by the Apostles Philip and John.

As contrasted with the Seleucid foundation of Laodicea, 6 m.. to the S. , Hierapolis was the focus of Phrygian national feeling and religious ideas. As Ramsay points out, it exemplifies a phenomenon common in Asia Minor. The sacred cities of the early period generally grew up in a locality where the divine power was most strikingly manifested in natural phenomena. A sacred village (If pa. Kufj-tj) arose near the sanctuary (cp Ephesus), and this developed into a city of the native character, with the name Hieropolis.

Wherever native feeling is strong, the form of this name is Hieropolis, City of the Sanctuary ; but where Hellenic feeling and education spreads, the Greek form Hierapolis, Sacred City, is introduced. The difference in form corresponds to a difference in spirit. According to the former the sanctuary, according to the latter the city, is the leading idea.

The great goddess of Hierapolis was the Mother Leto (Str. 469 f. ; see PHRYGIA). Hence the warnings issued in Col. 3s 16 Eph. 417-19 5 s/. The churches in the Lykos valley were not founded by Paul personally (see COLOSSE, 2). That of Hierapolis may have been the creation of Epaphras (Col. 4i2/. ). Justinian made it the metropolis of a group of bishoprics.

See Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 84 ; Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I. chap. 3. w. J. W.


depenA [BA]), i Esd. 92i = Ezra 10 2 i, JEHIEL, i. 10.


1. (ip<-n.i>e [BA]), i Esd. 9 27 = Ezra 1026, JEREMOTH, 10.

2. (icpffuaO [BA]), i Esd. 9 30= Ezra 10 29, JEREMOTH, 12.


(iczpiHAoc [A], iczopiKAoc [B]), i Esd. 9 27 = Ezra 1026, JEHIEL, i. n.


depMA [B], - C [A]), i Esd. 9 2 6 = Ezra 1025, RAMIAH.


(lepcoNyMOC [VA]), one of the commandants (ffTparyyoi) of a district in Palestine in the time of Judas the Maccabee (2 Mace. 122).


(|V|n), coupled with Selah, Ps. 9i S [17], (ooAH [BXART]). A derivation from riin 'to moan', 'muse' (cp AV m 2- meditation ), is as unsatisfactory as the EV rendering ( solemn sound ) of the same word in Ps. 923 [4], for which Wellh. - Furness ( Psalms, SBOT) substitutes with resounding chords. Cheyne (Ps.W) emends the text in both passages.

In Ps. 923 [4], with <S, he reads -1133 nb JJJ Vlp3> 'to the sweetly-sounding notes of the lyre'. In Ps. 9 15 [17] (for >Vjn H^D) he reads C3? I vjil, 'the meditation of their heart', and regards it as a marginal correction of the partly corrupt C37 J ^ri of MT in Ps. 10 17, which intruded into the text of another column of the archetype (cp a similar suggestion in HARHAIAH).! Cp SHIGGAION, SELAH.

1 So far as the reading coh JVJn in Ps. 10 17 is concerned, Gr. and Hal. have a claim to priority. TJ2? j Dr) (Hi., We., Du.) does injustice to the parallelism.

2 The other words occasionally rendered in EV high place (CnD, Si?) are not used in the specific sense of bamiih.

3 Other etymologies, such as that nD3 s an Indo-European loan-word (/Sto/mds ; J. D. Michaelis), or that it originally meant not height but enclosure (Thenius, Boucher), need not be discussed. On the origin of the word see below, 7.

4 Sing, i S. 9/. i K. 34(Gibeon), 2 K. 23 15 (Bethel), Is. 16 12 Jer. 48 35 Ezek. 20 29.


as a translation of Heb. bdmdh (HO3, pi. niO2). 2 In the literal sense 'heights', only in the plural and only poetical (2 S. 1:19-25; cp Ezek. 862, where however the text is questioned).

1 Poetical use.[edit]

The literal sense is found chiefly in certain phrases : to ride or stalk over the heights of the earth (Dt. 32 13 Is. 5S 14 Am. 4 13 Mic. 1 3, cp Hab. 3 19), or stand upon them (2 S. 22 34 = Ps. 1833 [34]); heights of the sea (mountainous waves, Job 9s); cloud heights (Is. 14 14) ; cp Assyrian baiati sa sade, moun tain heights (Del. HWB 177 /<). 3

In prose (sing, and pi.) 4 bdmdh is always a place of worship.

2. As a place of worship.[edit]

In this use LXX which frequently transliterates (cp, e.g., 1 S. 9 12) renders in Pent. crrijAat.l in the Prophets generally fiiafjioi, in the Hist. Books VI//T), vi/ojAd ; Aq. and 2. As a place prob. Sym. v^u^ara, v^jjAd ; Vg. consistently e-rcclsa; Pesh. alawatha, high places, sometimes perakke, 'idol shrines'.

The connection of the notion place of worship with the primitive meaning high place is well illustrated by i S. 9 10-25 ; the town (Ramah) lay on the side of the hill, with its spring of water at the foot of the hill below it, and the place of sacrifice (the high place ) above it on the summit. 2 That mountain and hill tops were the common places of sacrifice we have abundant evidence in the OT.

See Hos. 4 13 9i/(cp 28. 24 16^), Jer. 17 2 2 20 36 Ezek. 6 13 20 27-29 i K. 14 23 2 K. 16 4 17 io etc. 3

In the older prophets high place (naa) is synonymous with holyplace, sanctuary (cnpn); see Am. 7 9 Is. 16i2, also Lev. 2630 /. Such places were very numerous; we know of many from the historical books, and may with all confidence assume that every city, town, and village had its own (cp 2 K. 17 9 238). Some of these sanctuaries, like those at Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba, had a wider fame, and were frequented at festival seasons by worshippers from near and far.

3. The sacred things.[edit]

As a place of sacrifice, 4 the bamah had its altar (Hos. 8 ii 10i8 12n [12] etc.); further, according to a Canaanite custom adopted by the Israelites, a stone stele (massebah] and a wooden post or pole(asherah) ; see Hos. 84 lOi Dt. 12 2 / Ezek. 63-613 Lev. 26 3 o/. ; cp Philo Byblius, frag. 1 7 (FHG 8564 B). 5 Often there was also a sacred tree, as at Gibeah where Saul sat in council (see SAUL) under the tamarisk tree in the bamah. (i S. 226) ; 6 see also Hos. 4 13 Dt. 122 Jer. 220 Ezek. 6 13 etc. 7 At Ramah there was a hall (ns&h, cp X^x^) in which the sacrificial feast was held (i S. 922), and doubtless such an adjunct was common ; the greater sanctuaries may have had, like that in Jerusalem, several such rooms. In some places there was also an idol or idols (Hos. 4 17 84-6 10 S 112 132 14 3 [ 4 ]8[ 9 ] Mic. 1 7 Is. 28 1820 Ezek. 63-6913 Lev. 263o/. ), 8 such as the bull images of Yahwe at Bethel and Dan (i K. 1226-30) and the serpent idol at Jerusalem (2 K. 184) ; 9 where this was the case there would necessarily be a sacellum or small shrine to protect the idol, which was often made wholly or in part of precious metals (Judg. 17s- n 3 DTI^N, cp i S. 31 9) ; there was such a structure at Shiloh, in which the ark of Yahwe was kept, with a servant of the priest as sedituus (i S. 83), and probably at Nob (iS. 21).

It is possible that the more primitive agalmata, the stone steles, obelisks, or cones, were sometimes sheltered by a cella with open front, as we occasionally see it upon Phoenician coins ; but of this there is no direct evidence. 10 Small tents or tabernacles may have been used for a similar purpose ; David provided such a shelter for the ark (28.617 i K. 228-30; cp Ex. 33 iff.}, and 2 S. 7 2-7 shows that at a comparatively late time there were those who thought that a tent was a more suitable dwelling for Yahwe than a house. Ezek. 16 16 speaks of bamoth ((5 el SwXa) made of clothing stuffs, a patch work of divers colours, by which tents or canopies are perhaps to be understood (Targ. , etc. ) ; see also Hos. 96 aK. 23;. 1

The later Jewish distinction of public and private bamoth, and descriptions of them (Mish. Meg. 1 10 ; Mish. Zebachim, 14io; Tos. Zebach. 13n^), are of no authority for the times with which we are concerned.

1 With this translation cp the inscription on the stele of Mesha king of Moab, tWDD 1 ? H.XT nC3H Ul ttl-

2 Such has been in all ages the usual situation of towns in Palestine ; Benz. HA 373 ; cp WRS Rel. Sent. 157 47O/., ( 2 ) 172 4897:

3 On holy mountains among the Semites, and in particular among the Hebrews, see Baudissin Studien ZXY senzitisclan Religionsgeschichte 2 2 3 1 8 and at/. 'Hohendienst' in PREP) 6 1 8 1 x On the subject of sacred mountains in general, Andrian, Hohencultus asiatischcr und europdischer Volker, 91 ; Beer, Heilige Hohen derGriechen itnd Ranter, 91. See also NATURE WORSHIP, 4.

4 Note the verbs n3T and TCj?n, slaughter and burn fat, as the .standing description of the high-place worship, i K. 3 2^ _ 2 43 [44] 2 K. 12 3 [4] 14 4 15 4 35 16 4 23 s etc.


6 Read nS33 <&BL ; MT nl213 , A " Powxa.


8 In some of these passages domestic idols may be meant ; so probably in Is. II. cc.

!l See IDOL, 4 ; and on the ephod of Gideon and Micah, and at Nob, see EPHOD, 2, 4.

1" See Per.-Chip. History of Art in PJucnicia, 1 2767: and fig. 199 ; cp Philo Bybl. fg. 1 7, FHG 8564 B.

4. The cultus.[edit]

All the worship of old Israel was worship at the high places ; to them the tithes were brought (Gen. 2820-22 Am. 44) ; at them all sacrifices, stated and occasional, by the individual, the family or clan, or the larger sacral community, were offered (i S. \\ff.\ and in general Dt. 125-8111317, whose prohibitions are testimony to the former practice) ; 2 there transactions requiring a solemn sanction were ratified before God (Ex. 21 6 228 [7] 28 [27] etc. ), and there councils were held (i S. 226 <&). To the high places the troops of dervish-like nZbflm resorted to work up the prophetic ecstasy by music and whirling dances (i S. 10s io). 3 At the great high place at Gibeon Solomon offered his hecatombs and practised incubation (i K. 2>1,ff.}. Of the worship at the high places of Israel in the eighth-century Hosea paints for us a vivid picture ; the joyous gatherings on festival days new moons, sabbaths, annual feasts when the people appeared in gala dress (2 13 [15] 15 [17]) ; the sacrifices and libations (94), and offerings of corn and wine and oil, of flax and wool, of figs and raisin-cakes, in gratitude for the fruits of the year (2 5 [7] 8 [io]/ 12 [14] 3i); in times of scarcity the cuttings in the flesh to move the obdurate god (7 14 (S5, cp i K. 1828} ; 4 the licentious intercourse of men and women, in which the priests and the conse crated women (menp, religious prostitutes ; see CLEAN, i, col. 837, IDOLATRY, 6, SACRIFICE) set the example a rite hallowed by sacrifice (4 13 jf. , cp n ; and see what, is narrated by a late writer of Eli s sons, 18.222); the divination (rhabdomancy ? 4 12). In similar terms Jeremiah and Ezekiel describe the worship of their time.

5. Seventh century writers.[edit]

In writers of the seventh and the sixth centuries the word bamoth (always plural, even when a single holy place is meant) 5 is used with the predominating connotation 'sanctuaries of a heathenish or idolatrous cult' ; thus Jer. 7:31 19:5 32:35 (Melek) cp 17s (@ om-) Ezek. 63-613 Lev. 2630/. 6 The deuteronomic author and the subsequent editor of Kings apply the name to the sanctuaries of Judah outside of Jerusalem, which they unhistorically represent, not as holy places older than the temple of Solomon, but as originating in the apostasy of Rehoboam s time (i K. 1422-24 2 K. 23s, cp 8/. ), and as having been, after their destruction by Hezekiah, rebuilt by Manasseh (2 K. 21 3) ; also to the shrines of other gods in Jerusalem (2 K. 238) or its vicinity (i K. 117 2 K. 23i3, on the Mt. of Olives) ; and particularly to the holy places of the northern kingdom (on which more fully below, 4). In the same way moan jn3i high-place priests, is an opprobrious title for the priests of the cities of Judah (in distinction from the priesthood of Jerusalem ; 2 K. 289, cp 8 = Levites Dt. 186), who are also called D TDS, pagan priests (2 K. 23s; see CHEMARIM), and for the priests of Israel, whose illegiti- macy is emphasized (i K. 1232 18233 2 K. 2820), as well as for the priests of the heathen colonists of Samaria (ib. 1732)- In this period the stigma of heathenism thus everywhere attaches to the word.

1 Note also the names Oholah and Oholibah, Ezek. 23 4^, and Oholibamah, Gen. 862. Tents were used not only as portable sanctuaries in camps (e.g., by the Carthaginians, Diod. Sic. 2065), but also, in certain cults, even in temples (e.g., of Beltis at Harran, En-Nedlm in Chwolsohn, Sabier, 2 33), and in some mysteries (Maury, Religions de lit Grtce, 8494) ; cp also the yabs <Jevyocopoun.ei>o9, Philo Bybl. FHG 8567 A.

- See further SACRIFICE, and TITHE.


4 See CUTTINGS IN THE FLESH, i. 8 Exceptions 2 K. 23 15 Ezek. 20 29.

6 It is noteworthy that the word does not occur in Dt.

6. The bamoth temples.[edit]

In several places (none earlier than the end of the 7th cent.) we read of a niD3 rva (sing., 1 plur. nica na), - i.e. a temple of an idolatrous cult : thus, 2 K. 17:29-32, the old temples of the Samaritans, in which the alien colonists set up their images and worshipped Yahwe after their fashion ; i K. 1231, the temples which Jeroboam I. built in rivalry to the temple of Yahwe at Jerusalem; further, i K. 1832 2 K. 23 19.

In other cases JTC3 alone (always plur.) seems to be used in the same sense ; note the verbs n33, build (i K. 14 23 2 K. 17 9 213 Jer. 731 19s 3235), and JTU, pull down, demolish (2 K. 23s 15, cp Ezek. 16 39), 2 though by themselves these verbs do not necessarily imply an edifice, being used, e.g., of an altar.

In the passages just cited the word bamah has lost the physical meaning high place altogether ; the bdmoth spoken of were in the cities of Israel and Judah (2 K. 1?9 23 15), in one of the gates of Jerusalem (2 K. 238), in its streets or open places (Ezek. 16 24 f. 3139, where HOT [i| 3J] is equivalent to noa. if indeed the text should not be so emended) ; 3 the bdmoth of the Melek cult were in the valley of Hinnom (Jer. 731 etc. ); see MOLECH. We often read of bdmoth on hills (e.g. , Ezek. 63 i K. ll/), and under green trees (e.g. , i K. 1423) ; observe also that the sacrifices are always said to be offered ma33 (in or at the bdmoth}, never ^y (on), and contrast Is. 16 12. It has been thought that the bdmoth in valleys, cities, etc. , were artificial mounds, taking the place of the natural high places, the summits of hills and mountains, such as are found among various peoples. 4 This is in itself possible enough ; but evidence of it is lacking in the OT ; even in Ezek. 16 24 f. 31 39 it is doubtful whether this is the prophet s meaning.

1 Never ,103 iV3 , cp nD3 rT3, Mesha /. 27 (Is. 15 2), n. pr. loc.

2 Oftener the more general words TSBTI, natfJ. DB 3(Niph.), 13N. In 2 K. 23 15 the text is in disorder ; rny did not origin ally refer to the nD3-

3 [33, w. 24 31 3gt EV, eminent place, the mound upon which stands the altar (Bertholet, etc.), or a cupola or vaulted chamber (RVmg.) for heathen worship (Davidson). AVmg- s rendering after Vg. and B AQ ", etc., is needless.]

4 [See Gesenius, Preface to Gramberg, Religions-ideen des AT \ pp. xix-xxi.]

5 See also HEXATEUCH, 14^!

7. History : pre-deuteronomic.[edit]

The history of the high places is the history of the old religion of Israel. Here we have only to do with the attitude to them assumed by the religious leaders and reformers. 5 Most of the high places were doubtless old Canaanite holy places which the Israelites, as they gradually got possession of the land, made their own (see Dt. 122^ 2 K. 17 n etc. ) ; the legends in Genesis which tell of the founding of the altars of the more famous sanctuaries by the forefathers , Jacob-Israel and Abraham, often in connection with a theophany or other manifestation of Yahwe s presence at the spot, are at once a recognition that these holy places were older than the Israelite invasion of Palestine and a legitimation of them as altars of Yahwe ; the name bamah itself was probably borrowed from the Canaanites. There can be little doubt that the cultus at the high places was in the main learned by the Israelites from the older occupants together with the agriculture with which it was so closely interwoven (cp ISRAEL, 26 f. ). Not only were the rites the same as those with which the Canaanites worshipped their baals, but it is probable that at the beginning the worship was actually addressed to the baals, the givers of the fruits of the soil (cp BAAL, 5-6)-

Later, when Canaan had become completely the land of Israel, and thus Yahwe, Israel s God, whose old seats were in the distant south, became the God of the land, the cultus was addressed to him; 1 but as its character was not changed, the consequence was that Yahw6 was worshipped as a baal. It is thus easy to understand how, to a prophet like Hosea, the religion of his countrymen should seem to be unmixed Canaanite heathenism (2s [7] cp 8 [10] 12 [14] /. 16 [18] / 13 i etc. ), and how, from the same point of view, the religious reformers of the seventh century should demand the abolition of the high places as the first step to restoring the true religion of Yahwe.

From the standpoint of Dt. and the deuteronomistic historians, the high places were legitimate places of sacrifice until the building of the temple at Jerusalem ( i K. 3 2) ; after that they were forbidden. 2 The history, however, shows that they continued to be not only the actual, but also the acknowledged sanctuaries of Judah as well as Israel down to the seventh century. The building of the temple in Jerusalem had neither the purpose nor the effect of supplanting them. The author of KINGS (who reckons it a heinous fault) records of all the kings of Judah from Solomon to Hezekiah that they did not do away with the high places. The oldest collec tions of laws, in Ex. 3424-26, assume the existence of these local sanctuaries ; Ex. 20 24-26 formally legitimates their altars. The prophets of the ninth century contend (against the foreign religion introduced by Ahab) for the worship of Yahwe alone in Israel ; to Elijah the destruc tion of the altars of Yahwe (high places) is a token of complete apostasy (i K. 19 10-14) ; he himself repairs the fallen altars on the sacred mountain Carmel (1830). Amos and Hosea assail the cultus at the high places as corrupt and heathenish, like the whole religion of their contemporaries ; but it is the character of the worship and the worshippers, not the place, that they condemn ; the worship in Jerusalem pleases the prophets no better (Is. 1 10 ff. ; cp28?/ , which is at least applied to Judah). Hezekiah is said to have removed the high places (2 K. 18422213); 3 but it is hardly probable (see HEZEKIAH, i) that the king s reforms went beyond an attempt to suppress the idolatry against which Isaiah so incessantly inveighed ; 4 the mention of the high places is from the hand of the deuteronomic author, who thus conforms the account of Hezekiah s good work to that of Josiah (2 K. 23) and to the deuteronomic law. Certainly the high places were in their full glory in the reigns of Hezekiah s successors Manasseh and Amon.

8. Deuteronomy and Josiah's reforms.[edit]

One of the chief aims of Deuteronomy is to restrict the worship of Yahwe to the temple in Jerusalem. All other sacrifice - which are significantly described as the places where Canaanites worshipped their gods - are to be razed ; no similar cult is to be offered to Yahwe (122-8 and many other places). 5 Within the limits of his little kingdom Josiah (621) carried out the prescriptions of the new law-book.

We are told that he also destroyed the high places at Bethel and in the other cities of Samaria (2 K. 23 15 igyC). In the weakness of the moribund Assyrian empire such an action is conceivable (cp 2 K. 23 \2t)f. ); but the author of 2 K. 23 15-20 is hardly a competent witness.

That the people of the Judasan cities and villages saw unmoved the altars at which their forefathers had worshipped Yahwe for centuries torn down, the venerated symbols of the deity destroyed, the holy places profaned, the priests forcibly removed to Jerusalem their whole religion plucked up by the roots is not to be imagined ; their temper may be guessed from the reception which one preacher of the new model met in his native town of Anathoth (Jer. 11). When, in 608, Josiah fell in battle against Pharaoh Necho, a swift and sweeping reaction set in. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah, as well as the author of Kings, give abundant evidence that the old cults flourished in full vigour down to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 (cp ISRAEL, 36^).

1 Stade s view, that the high places were ancestral tombs, and that the cult which was supplanted by that of the national god Yahwe was that of a tribal hero(f7K/. 1449^), is perhaps true of some of them ; there is no reason to believe that this was the universal development.

2 For the Jewish attempts to reconcile this theory and the practice of the times of the Judges, Samuel, and David, with the existence of the tabernacle of P, see Mish. Zeba.ch.lm, \\i,_ff., Tos. Zi bachlm, 13 ; further, the numerous passages from the Talmuds and Jewish commentators collected by Ugolino in his Thesaurus, 105597?:

8 According to Chron., in conflict with its sources, other good kings had done the same before (2 Ch.14 3 [2], Asa, cp 15 17; 176, Jehoshaphru).

4 See the notice in 2 K. 18 $b, and cp NEHUSHTAN and IDOLATRV, 9.


9. The Exile and the Restoration.[edit]

It is commonly believed that the Exile accomplished what the covenant and the reforms of Josiah had failed permanently to achieve.

The population of Judah, it is assumed, was carried away to Babylonia ; and when after fifty years a new generation returned to Palestine, they had no motive for restoring the old local cults whose continuity had thus been so long interrupted. Moreover, those who came back were men of a new mind; the propensity to polytheism, idolatry, and a superstitious and sensuous worship had been eradicated ; the one great end of the returning exiles was to re-establish the pure religion of Yahwe on the basis of the deuteronomic law.

This representation of the effect of the catastrophe of 586 rests upon conceptions of the character of both the Exile and the restoration which are demonstrably erroneous (cp ISRAEL, 41 ff.}. Jeremiah and Ezekiel are our witnesses that the deportation of 597 wrought no amendment either in those who were carried away or in those who were left behind ; from Jer. 44 we see that the events of the disastrous year 586, so far from making the people throw away their idols, led directly to a revival of foreign cults. The Jews who were left in the land and they were the greater part of the old popula tion of Judah certainly continued to worship Yahwe after the manner of their fathers ; and that they paid small respect to the deuteronomic laws is shown by the attitude which, at a later time, the representatives of the goldh take towards this am hd-ares. Evidence of the survival or revival in the Persian period of the cults which were put under the ban of Deuteronomy is perhaps to be found in Is. 57 ^ff. 661-7 66 ijf. 27 9, cpalso the glosses in 178. * So far was the dogma that sacrifice could be offered to Yahwe only in one place from being universally acknowledged after the Exile, that in the second century B.C. a temple after the model of that in Jerusalem [so far as the internal arrangements were concerned] was erected by the Egyptian Jews at Leontopolis, with a priesthood of unimpeachable legitimacy. 2 In the petition which Onias addresses to Ptolemy and Cleopatra for permission to build this temple (Jos. Ant. xiii. 3 i, 65^). one of the reasons urged is that the Egyptian Jews like those in Ccelesyria and Phoenicia have many temples (tepd; cp also Jos. Ant. xiii. 23) not of the proper type, and on this account are at variance with one another, as the Egyptians also are on account of the multitude of their temples and differences in their cultus ; he asks, therefore, to be allowed to build a temple after the pattern of that in Jerusalem, that the Jews in Egypt may be united by having one common place of worship. This testimony is none the less remarkable if the letter of Onias was composed by Josephus himself, or by a preceding historian. In view of all these things, we may well hesitate to believe that the old high places of Judah disappeared for ever with the Exile. The process was probably gradual, and is hidden from us in the obscurity which hangs over the centuries of the Persian and Greek period.

1 [See Che. Intr. Is. 316 n. 3. Smend s interpretation of Is. 27g (heathen altars tolerated, out of necessity, by the Jews in the land sacred to Yahwe) is hardly probable ED.] In Is. 57 etc., Duhm and Che. find utterances of Jewish orthodox zeal against the Samaritans and those Jews who sympathised with them. It is questionable whether the application of these passages should be restricted to the Samaritans.

2 Menachoth, 109*; cp Is. 19 18^ See Schur. GJV1<m- 456 ; Willrich, Juden und Griechen, u.s.w., 126 ff. ; Biichler, Tobiaden und Oniaden, 239 ff. Even in the Mishna the validity of the sacrifices offered in the temple of Onias is somewhat grudgingly acknowledged (Menachoth, 13 10).

10. Literature.[edit]

Spencer, De legibus ritualibus, 223, i ff.\ Blasius Ugolinus in his Thesaurus, 10559^ {De Excelsis ; cases of apparent violation of the deuteronomic law, of the single altar, with Jewish comment on the same) ; Baudissin, Hohendienst, PREP) 6181-193 (literature, 193); Scholz, Gotzendienst und Zauberwesen, 120 ff.; We. Prol.W 17 ff.\ Stade, GVI \t,t,t,ff. ; Piepenbring, Histoire des lieux de culte et du sacerdoce en Israel, Rev. if Hist, des Rel. 24 1-60, 133-186 ( 91); Hoonacker, Le iieu du culte dans la legislation rituelle des Hebreux (^94) ; Nowack, HA 2 -]ff. ; v. Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstdtte ( 98). See also, on the Critical questions, the literature under the articles on the books of the Hexateuch. Q. F. M.


nijn), Lev. 21:10 etc. See PRIEST.


(J^n), i Ch. 6 S 8 [ 43 ]- See HOLON, i.


(-irPjp^n, i1j^>n [so in nos. 4-7], Yahw<b is my portion ; cp HELKAI ; \eAK[e]i<\C [BAL]). Cp CHELCIAS, Sus. 22963 ; Bar. 1 1 7.

i. The chief priest under Josiah, mentioned in con nection with the repairs of the temple and with the event which made the king a definite adherent of purified Yahwism (2 K. 22 4 ff. ). That Hilkiah forged the book which he stated (v. 8) that he had found is an impossible theory (WRS OTJCW 363). What led Hilkiah to say that he had found the book of direction (EV the book of the law ) is not recorded. He may merely have meant Here is the best and fullest law-book, about which thou hast been asking. Twaa need not mean I have found for the first time. It is possible that the seeming connection of the find ing of the law-book with the arrangement about the temple-money may be simply due to the combination of two separate reports. At any rate, Shaphan, not Hilkiah, must have begun the conversation on the law-book. In the house of Yahw6 probably means in the temple library." See JosiAH, i.

2. Father of ELIAKIM^ i [q.v.] (2 K. 18 18 : \a.k. [A; om. L in this verse], 26, 37, [n Crml , Is. 22 20 36 322).

3. Father of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 1 1).

4. In the Levitical genealogy of ETHAN [y.v., 3] (i Ch. 645(3]; X eA X tov [A], x eA <" a [L], om. B).

5. b. Hosah, a Merarite Levite (i Ch. 26 n; x 6 ^X 6las [AJ> om. B). See GENEALOGIES i., 7 (ii. d).

6. Father of GEMARIAH, 2 (Jer. 29 [<B 36] 3).

7. A priest, temp. Ezra; Neh. 8^(e\Kfia [B], x<^ie[>]ta [ X A]), 12 7 (Nc.amg. sup^ om . BN*A)2i(om. BN*A, eAicia [Kc.amg;. inf.]) ; in i Esd. 9 43, EZECIAS, RV EZEKIAS (efexias [BA]).

T. K. C.




(??n, a well-known Jewish name in Rabbinical times), father of ABDON (ii. , i) the judge, a native of PIRATHON (q.v. i), Judg. 12/3 15 (eAAHA [B], eAAHX [B* v!d - in v. 15], ceAAHM [A, c precedes], eAAHM [L])-

<5 A , and L if correct, point to some form like Q^,-|, i Ch. 735 (cp HELEM).


(i^n, on etym. cp ZDMG, 46n 4 ). Ex. 29-to etc. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.


(r6N, nW), Gen. 49 21 etc. See HART.


(D3H |), or Valley of the son (also, children) of Hinnom (Dili! ["^J P [NPI), also called simply The Valley (Jer. 223 8X40 [so too Ass. Mos. 10 10], cp 2 Ch. 26g Neh. 21315 813 the valley gate ), one of the valleys round about Jerusalem.

1. Name.[edit]

(a) Vss. <j>dpa.y [viov]evvoi[RXA.QL](con-)vallisennom[Vg.]. The shorter designation D3H j! is found only in Josh. 15 sb

18 i6/ Neh. 11 30 (om. BNA), in Josh. I.e. w.^fi i6a, the longer and usual form is used. (B BAL reads $. [uiou] fvvofi, but <f>. [viov] ovofj. [B in 158] a-ovva/j. [B in 18 16]. (6) -p is transliter ated in 2 Ch. 2S3(yeu/Sei/00|U. [B], yrj/Seei/i Oju. [A], <f>apayyi |3ei/ei/i>o/u. [L], vallis Benennont [Vg.]), 2 Ch. 336 ( y1 |3mup [A], yr) fievevvoii. [L] and ye (Save epi O/u. [B]). B s rendering points to Dlin 33 >. Valley of the sans of Hinnom, which is found once in the MT, 2 K.23 10 (Ketib). The Ke r a and Vss. (c/>. vlov evvo.fi. [13L], <j>. vt. ti TO/io/j. [A]) read -p. Cp also Josh. 18 i6a v. jiliorum ennom (Vg.). (c) For <f>dpay, I-OTTIJ occurs in Josh. 18 i6a (BAL), and also eco/a (LI, and the transliterated you it. 166 (yat.evva[fi] [BL] y. ovvop [A]). In Jer. 196 N J is repre sented by TTO\vdvSpiov.

2. Origin.[edit]

Bottcher, Graf, and Ges.-Buhl derive ojn from Ar. 'hanna', 'to sigh', 'whimper' ; but the word is much more probably an unmeaning fragment of a name. The true name was hardly that of a person (so Stanley, Sin. and Pal. 172), for in Jer. 732 196 the name is altered to valley of slaughter ; originally therefore it had some agreeable sense. Considering the use made of the valley we may further assume that the true name had a religious reference, and may with some probability emend D:rrp into ]Dj?r|3, pleasant son (Che. ), and suppose that a syncretistic worship of TAMMUZ and Melech (see MOLECH) was practised in the valley. This helps us to understand the horror felt by Ezekiel (if the view of GOG and MAGOG is correct) at the worship of Tammuz-Lord.

3. References.[edit]

The first occurence of ge hinnom (?) is probably in Is. 22s (cp v. i), where no less a writer than Isaiah has been thought to mention it. The occurence, it is true, is gained by emending the text ; but a parallel emendation is called for in Zech. 14s (see VISION, VALLEY OF). The most notable reference, however, is in 2 K. 23 10, where we read that Josiah defiled the Topheth which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom (see above, 16), that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech ; so that, if Ben Naaman was the name of the divinity originally worshipped in the valley, the awful Molech (or rather Melech) had acquired a precedence over Ben Naaman. Probably too, as Geiger suggested, 1 the phrase the graves of the common people (v. 6) should rather be the graves of ben-hinnom 2 (ben ndaman ?}. The text, thus cor rected, shows that the burying-place of ben-hinnom was at any rate near the gorge of KIDRON (y.v.). It was in this valley, according to the Chronicler, that Ahaz and Manasseh sacrificed their sons (2 Ch. 28s 336). Jeremiah (7 31) speaks of the high places of the Topheth, which is in the valley of ben-Himmon (?) ; in the || passage (32 35) he calls them the high places of Baal. The abominations there practised were the cause of the change of name announced by the prophet (Jer. 732 196). See further ESCHATOLOGY, 10 ff. 6 3 (3) 7 (" /) 8l (3. i"-) : TOPHET.

1 Jild. Zt. 2 259 ; there are traces of the reading in Tg.

2 For the inappropriate nyn 33 the Chronicler (2 Ch. 344) substitutes DH 1 ? D rnlrr.

3 Eus. OS 300 12, identifies the <j>apa.y cvvofj. with the Valley of Jehoshaphat ; cp Jer., OS 128 10.

4. Identification.[edit]

Opinions differ as to the site of this valley. The question is complicated, and it is not easy to decide it with confidence. Whatever view is taken of the position of the valley of Hinnom, all writers concur in its extending to the junction of the three valleys of Jerusalem below Siloam i.e. , there must be one spot below Siloam which all agree in making a portion of the valley of Hinnom (Warren). The point on which geographers are divided is whether the valley is the Wady er-Rababi (the west and south valley), the Tyropceon (the centre valley), or the Kidron (east valley). The first view is supported by Robinson, Stanley, Barclay, Baed.-Socin, and Buhl ; the second by Robertson Smith (Enc. Brit.W, Jerusalem ; cp RS&, 372), Sayce (PEFQ, 83, p. 213), and Birch (PEFQ, 78, p. I79/) ; the third by Sir C. Warren 3 (Recovery of Jerus., 307; Hasting s .52387). Cp JERUSALEM, 10-11

Let us collect some of the data. i. According to P the Valley entered into the boundary of Judah and Benjamin (see Josh. 158 18 16), and so much at least is clear, that the border-line runs through NEPHTOAH, the Mount (inn), the Valley of Hinnom, En-Rogel, and En-shemesh.

In describing the border of Judah from E. to W. (Josh. 15s) the Mount is spoken of as before OjB Sy) the valley of Hinnom westward and at the end of the plain of KKPHAIM (q.v.) north ward. Similarly in 18 16, which proceeds in the reverse direction, the Mount is still before the valley but is mentioned first. It would seem that either (a) JB-^V does not (exceptionally, see CHERITH, col. 740, n. 3) mean the east, or (/>) the words defining the position of the Mount are an inaccurate gloss.

2. In Jer. 19 2 the ge ben-Hinnom is said to be by the entry of the gate HARSITH (Harsuth ?). Wherever this gate was, its name does not mean east. If it is the same as the Dung-gate (niDin may even be a corruption of rnstrn, see Neh. 3 13), it was at the end of the Tyropoeon valley.

3. We have also to note what is said of the position of the Valley Gate (rebuilt by Uzziah : 2 Ch. 269 yuviav [B ab mg ], TTU\TJV y<avia.s rrjs (f>ap. [B*A], IT. ayyai [L]). It faced the Dragon Well (Neh. 2 13 ; perhaps EN-ROGEL [g.v.], see also DRAGON, 4 []), and was distant a thousand cubits from the Dung-gate (Neh. 813 ; Tri>\T)v TTJS <f>ap. [BA], IT. yai [L]), beyond which came the Fountain Gate, and the King s Pool.

Of discussions on the site of the Valley of Hinnom we may mention Sir C. W. Wilson s in Smith s DBV) ( 93) and Sir C. Warren s in Hastings DB ( 99). At present the majority of scholars adhere to the view expressed by the former, that the true Valley of Hinnom is the Wady er-Rababi; but cp JERUSALEM, col. 2423. T. K. C. S. A. C.


(ntona, OHRIA [BNA], KTHNH [Aq. , Theod.] ; see BEHEMOTH, i), Job40si, RV m s- Ten verses (w. 15-24) or distichs are devoted in Job 40 to a description of an animal which is most probably the hippopotamus (H. amphibius,}, though there are elements in the description which appear to some to require a mythological explanation (see BEHEMOTH, 3). Sa'adya, it is true, the only old interpreter who ventures on an identification, renders Behemoth by the Arabic word for rhinoceros, and Schultens, unmoved by the arguments of Bochart, identifies it with the elephant. Most commentators, how ever, since Gesenius, have taken the side of Bochart, who has, as they believe, clearly shown (i) that the animal is described as amphibious, (2) that the juxta position of Behemoth and leviathan here accords with the close association of the hippopotamus with the crocodile in ancient writers (e.g. , Herod. 269-71, Diod. 135, Plin. //7V825 288) as chief among the tenants of the Nile, and (3) that the description, apart from one or two difficult clauses, exactly suits the hippopotamus. Some commentators (e.g. , Del. ) would also find the Behemoth or hippopotamus in Is. 306 ; but this is not a probable view (see BEHEMOTH, i).

We now turn to the details of the description. Verses 15^ and 20,

He eateth grass like the ox "...
Surely the mountains bring him forth food ;
Where all the beasts of the field do play,

refer to the fact that the hippopotamus is graminivorous, and inoffensive towards other animals. In w. 16-18 we have a powerful picture of his muscular strength, on the ground of which he is to be regarded as among the most wonderful of God's creatures (71. iga). 1 Verse ig/> is difficult, but (unless we emend the text [see BEHEMOTH, vol. i. col. 521, middle]) must allude to the animal's tusks, with which he shears his vegetable food :

(God) who made him so that he should apply his sword (so DL).

Verses 21 f. describe his favourite haunts, and r . 23 refers to the most wonderful fact of all that the animal is equally at home on land or water ; it is puzzling, however, to find the Jordan mentioned. 2 Verse 24 is generally taken interrogatively ; but Di., referring to the fact that the Nubians of the present day openly attack the hippopotamus with harpoons, understands an actual description.

They take him though he be on the watch (literally in his own sight ),
And pierce through his nose with snares (probably ropes with harpoons attached).

This is a more natural rendering of the Hebrew, though it is doubtful if it suits the context so well. Bu. renders an emended text,

Who will seize him by the teeth,
And pierce his nose with a snare? 1

The chief question that arises in connection with this animal (Hippopotamus amphibius} is whether it ever lived in Palestine, or whether its fame had spread to the poet from Egypt. At the present time the river-swine (as the ancient Egyptians called them) do not extend north of Dongola, between the second and the third cataracts, and even there they are rare ; but both the frescoes and writings of the Egyptians and the fossil remains found in the Delta of the Nile show that in former times it inhabited Lower Egypt and was har pooned by the inhabitants. During the Pleistocene and Pliocene epochs an animal specifically indistinguishable from the hippopotamus was widely spread over southern and middle Europe, extending even into England, so that although at present there is no distinct evidence of its existing in the Jordan it is possible that it may formerly have done so.

The animals are exclusively fluviatile, and can remain under water for considerable periods as much as ten minutes. They are fond of frequenting the reed-covered margins of the rivers, piercing tunnel-shaped paths in the closely-matted vegetation on the banks. They are herbivorous. (See, further, BEHE MOTH, i 3.)

[There may be a safer reference t(7 the hippopotamus in Ps. 8014(13), where the reading varied between "UfD ar "d IN D (i.e., from the forest and from the River ) ; see Ginsb. Introd. to the Mas.-crit. ed. of the Heb. Bible, y$ff._ The latter reading was the more popular one in Palestine in pre-Roman times ; the swine of the River would naturally be the hippo potamus. Cp SWINE.] N. M. A. E. S.

1 [Verse 17 should probably run, He cleaves marsh plants as with a chisel (3srr IXVED pDJx) , the sinews of his neck (isij;) are knit together. T. K. c.]

^ Di. and Du. think that Jordan may be used as a kind of appellative. [For a critical emendation of the text see JORDAN, 2(3).]


(iTVn, noble ? cp Palm. TH), an Adullamite, a friend of Judah (Gen. 88112: [e]lp&C [ADEL]).


(D"Vn, perhaps an abbreviation of D TTltf, AHIRAM ; cp HIEL; Phoen. D~in ; \[e]ipAM [BttAL]).

1. Hiram I., king of Tyre, famous for the help he rendered Solomon in the building of the temple, and in the manning of his Tarshish-fleet (i K. 5i[is]^ 926^ ; see OPHIK, i), in return for which Solomon gave him twenty cities in the land of Galilee ( i K. 9 tiff. ; see CABUL). The later tradition that the friendship between the two was strengthened by Solomon s marriage with a daughter of Hiram (Tatian, Cent. GrcBC., 37) may rest upon i K. 11 1 Ps. 45 12 [13]. David, soon after occupying Jerusalem, is said to have received cedar-wood and workmen from Hiram to help him in his building operations (2 S. 5 n, cp i K. 5 1 [15]) ; but Hiram was also a contemporary of Solomon s. Unless, therefore, we assume that the event referred to in 28. relates to the last part of David s reign, we meet with a serious chronological difficulty. Hence some conjecture that the length of Hiram's reign (969-936 B.C., based upon Jos. c. Ap. 1 18) is inexact, or that it was Hiram s father, Abiba al, who really helped David (cp Kittel, Hist. 2 157 n. ). 2 More probably Hiram's kindly offices towards Solomon have been anticipated. 3 Hiram's reputed tomb ( Kabr Hlrdm ra/z) is still pointed out to the E. of Tyre ; the date is unknown (cp Baed.( 3 >, 296) ; see APOCRYPHA, 14 ; CHRONICLES, 8, n. 3. s. A. C.

2. The artificer sent by Hiram, king of Tyre (i K. 7134045 2 Ch. 2is[i2]/. 4m6). A man of mixed race, it would appear, though i K. I.e. leaves it open to the reader to suppose that his father, as well as his mother, may have been Israelitish. 1 His name is variously given in Kings and Chronicles. In 2 Ch. 2i3[i2J(not 4n), according to the common view (see Bertheau), the word ax, my father (rbv iraidd. /tou 2 (Babmg. A b L])and4i6v3N, his (i.e., the king s) father [<S [*rai] avriveytcev ; see note) is appended to Huram. Giesebrecht (ZA TW 1 239^), indeed, has argued ably for the view that Huram-abi or Hiram-abi ( Hiram is my father ) was the real name of the artificer sent from Tyre (van in 2 Ch. 4i6 being supposed to be an error). So, too, Stade (Gesck. 1330, n. 2), whilst Kamphausen (Kau. HS) thinks that Huram-abiw 3 may have been the original form of the name, shortened in our text of Kings and of 2 Ch. 4n into Hiram or Huram, and in our text of 2 Ch. 2 13 [12] into Huram-abi. These scholars, however, seem too ready to trust the Chronicler in this point ; neither form of the solution proposed seems plausible.

We are bound to consider in the first instance whether some error, either of the Chronicler or of the scribe, 4 may not be at the root of the strange name or reading Huram-abi. It appears certain that either the name of the artificer was precisely that of the Tyrian king (for which ancient parallels might be adduced), or that it was near enough to Hiram to be assimilated to this name through corruption. It might, e.g. , be (i) AHOLIAB [?..], a name which has analogies in Phoe nician (Vjn?nMi I^D N), and S. Arabian (W?nx, inny tf), and is given by P to the colleague of the artificer, Bezaleel, or (2) Huram (with a i for ) ; one remembers that Bezaleel in P is called ben Uri, ben Hur. 5

The more common form of the name is DTfl (cp above) found in 28. 5n i K. 5 \ff. [is^fi] 811^27 10 1122, and Kt. in i Ch. 14 i 2 Ch. 9 10, for(i); for (2) in i K. 7 13 40* 45. A variant is DTin (EV HURAM, cp btt 33 and SNUS) used of no. iin2Ch. 2 3 [2] n \\o\f. 82 18 9 21, and Kr. in i Ch. 14 i 2Ch. 8 18 9 io ; also of no. 2 in 2Ch. 4 n 6 and Ji<$ [Kr.]. On 2 Ch. 2i3[i2]5i6, see above. Finally, the rare form DlTn is me with in i K. 5 1018(2432] referring to no. i, and in i K. 7 400; for no. 2. This form agrees with the Ass. hirummu, the etpwjixo?, U pwjiios of Jos. (the last form used to represent no. 2), and the 0-i pwju.os of Herod. 798. Thus the names of the two Hirams present identical variations. Kittel on i Ch. 14 i suggests that the original form may have been Huram (D lin), which passed suc cessively into DTVin 7 and DITn (on this phonetic change see Barth, NB, p. xxix) ; hence, from a combination of these two forms, arose CH n. x. K. C. S. A. C.

1 Reading V3Ba Kin <D and ISN. Another suggestion is to read n|sa, hook (cp Am. 4 2) for VVjn.

2 p or other conjectures cp Ew. Hist. 3 226.

3 Similarly the author of i S. 1447^ ascribes to Saul deeds which really belong to David ; cp SAUL, 3.


(ypK&NOC [VA]) 2 Macc. 3 n, RV HYRCANUS [q.v,, 2].


p3B>) Gen. 31 8, p3B>) Job 7i. See SLAVERY.


(D Wn) i K. 74oEV m e- ; EV HIRAM (q.v., 2).

1 i K. makes his mother of the tribe of Naphtali ; 2 Ch., of that of Dan. To the latter belonged Aholiab.

2 This early reading found favour with the correctors of (S B and with one corrector of @A who may possibly have been the original scribe himself. Swete gives At> (A*?). The reading seems to be a guess, corresponding to the guess DX3 1 presup posed by <5 in 4 16 (see next note but one).

3 The name ex tas > which the artificer bears in Josephus, Hypomnesticum, 63, is only a corruption of e/3ia? (= 3N).

4 Two views seem possible, (i) The Chronicler may have misread DTn 3N ( the fleet of Hiram ) in i K. 10 n, DTIV3K, as if a person called Abi-Huram were the leader of Hiram s servants, and changed the relative position of Abi and Hiram or Huram to prevent the mistranslation father of (king) Hiram ; see Che. Exp. 7*9471 [July, 98]). (2) For 3N and van we may read "laV, my servant, VDy, his servant ; cp readings of (5 in 2 Ch. 2 13 [12]. But this seems too simple an expedient.

5 Josephus names the craftsman s father Uri(os) or Uri(as) ; Trarpbs Se Oupiov, he says (Ant. viii. 84). Does he think of Bezaleel s father?

6 According to Ginsb. some MSS in 4na and 8 18 have Kt.

7 Cp the form crovpiov, Eupol. ap. Eus., Pr. Ev.



  • Beginnings (1).
  • First History : J (2).
  • Recensions (3).
  • Second History : E (4).
  • History of Kindgoms (5).
  • Influence of Prophets (6).
  • Deuteronomistic School (7).
  • Biography of Jeremiah (8).
  • Hebrew Origines : P (9).
  • Combining of Documents (10).
  • Early Post-Exilic Works (11-14)
  • Chronicle of Jerusalem : the Chronicler (15).
  • Stories (16).
  • Histories of Asmonaians (17-18).
  • Hellenistic (19).
  • Philo (20).
  • Justin ( 21).
  • Josephus (22).
  • Seder Olam (23).
  • Literature (24).

The aim of the present article is to sketch the development of Israelitish and Jewish historiography from its beginnings down to the second century of our era. For fuller information about particular books the reader is referred to the pertinent articles.

1. Beginnings of Hebrew historical literature.[edit]

The making of history precedes the writing of history, and it is often found that the impulse to write history is first given by some great achievement which exalts the self-consciousness of a people and awakens the sense of the memorable character of what it has done. The Persian wars in Greece, the second Punic war in Rome, the empire of Charles the Great among the Germans, are familiar instances. In Israel, the national history begins with the consolidation of the tribes in a kingdom and the throwing off of the Philistine yoke. The circumstances in which this was accomplished, and the personality of the men who freed and united Israel and raised it at once to a leading place among the kingdoms of Syria, were such as powerfully to stimulate the national spirit and kindle the imagination. Internal evidence makes it highly probable that the earliest Hebrew historians wrote in the reign of Solomon (middle of the loth cent. B.C.), and wrote first of the great events of the preceding half- century.

A large part of 2 S. 9-20 i K. \f. is derived from such a work, the author of which was exceedingly well-informed not only about political affairs but also about the inner history of David s house and court. The story of David s youth, his relations to Saul, his romantic friendship with Jonathan, his adventurous life as a freebooter in the south, forms the natural introduction to the history of his reign. The older form of the history of Saul is probably of approximately the same age * (see SAMUEL ii.).

The beginnings having thus been made, the Israelite writers naturally turned to the earlier history of their people.

1 That the earliest Hebrew historians wrote soon after the time of David ; and that they began with contemporary history and gradually went back to the remoter past is the view of Graf ( 40) and of several recent scholars (Kittel, Hudde, etc.).

2 The theory that poems form the nucleus of the earliest prose narratives, the chief source of the first historians, has been much exaggerated.

3 For a more particular account of these sources see GENESIS, iff. ; EXODUS, 3 ; NUMBERS, 9 ; JOSHUA, 15 ; JUDGES, 15

2. The first comprehensive historical work.[edit]

i. Sources. Their sources, like those of the Greek logographers with whom it is natural to compare them, were poems, such as the Song of Deborah, and briefer lyrics like those in Nu. 21, of which collections had been made (see JASHER, BOOK OF ; YAHWE, WARS OF) ; 2 GENEALOGIES (q.v. ), often representing clan - groupings ; tribal and local traditions of diverse kinds, such as furnish the material for most of the book of Judges ; the historical traditions of sanctuaries ; the sacred legends of holy places, relating theophanies and other revelations, the erection of the altar or sacred stone, the origin of peculiar usages for example, Bethel (Gen. 28) ; laws ; myths of native and foreign origin ; folk-lore and fable - in short, everything which seemed to testify of the past. 3

To us the greater part of this material is not in any proper sense historical at all ; but for the early Israelite as for the early Greek historian it was otherwise ; our distinctions between authentic history, legendary history, pure legend, and myth, he made as little as he recognised our distinction of natural and supernatural. It was all history to him ; and if one part of it had a better attestation than another, it was certainly the sacred history as it was told at the ancient sanctuaries of the land.

The sources were not equally copious for all periods. The stories of the heroes who delivered their countrymen from invaders and oppressors gave a vivid picture of the times before the kingdom. Of the crossing of the Jordan and the taking of Jericho the local traditions of Gilgal furnished a pretty full account. Of the further progress of the invasion, the struggles by which the Israelite tribes established themselves in the hill- country, the oldest historian found no tradition. 1 About the deliverance from Egypt and the adoption of the religion of Yahwe at his holy mountain a mass of legendary and mythical circumstance had gathered (cp EXODUS i. , i ff. ) ; but of the wandering in the deserts S. of Palestine only the most fragmentary memories were preserved (cp WANDERINGS). Of the sojourn in Egypt, again, there was no tradition (cp MIZRAIM, 2^) ; the gap is filled by genealogies which really repre sent later clan-groupings. Beyond these centuries the stream of narration suddenly broadens out ; the stories of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Israel and his sons, are told with a wealth of circumstance and a vividness of colour which show that we have entered the realm of pure legend 2 (see the several articles).

ii. Limits ; remains. Whether the earliest compre hensive history of Israel began with the migration of the Terahites, or with the primeval history the first man, the great flood is uncertain. The literary analysis cannot decide the question, and the examination of the foreign elements in Gen. 1-11 has as yet led to no positive results. Nor is it quite certain where the history ended. The presumption is that the author brought it down to his own times ; but the evidence in our historical books is not as clear as we could wish.

A considerable part of this oldest Hebrew history is preserved in the stratum of the HEXATEUCH which critics designate by the symbol J, and in the parts of Judges and Samuel that are akin to J. It has not, indeed, come down to us intact or in its original form ; re dactors, in combining it with other sources, have omitted parts, and additions to it of diverse character and age have been made. What remains, however, gives us a most favourable impression of the authors abilities. To this writing we may apply what a Greek critic says of the early Greek historians : A^tc . . . tirtTrjdevcrav . . . aa<f>?i Kal KOivyv Kal Ka.6a.pav Kal ffvvrofj.ov Kal TOLS irpdy/jiatn trpo<T<pvrj, Kal fj.ri8tfj.iav (TKevwpiav twHpai- vov<rav rexviKrji . 3

1 Judg. 1 is in the main an attempt to fill this gap by inferences from known facts of a much later time ; see JOSHUA, 15

2 The same phenomenon is observed in Greek and Roman history; see Wachsmuth, Einl. 511, 620.

3 They affected a diction clear, popular, pure, concise, suitable to the subject, and making no show of artful elaboration, Dion. Halic. De Thuc. judic. 5.

3. Recensions.[edit]

The early Hebrew historians did not affix their names to their works ; they had, indeed, no idea of authorship. The traditions and legends which they collected were common property, and did not cease to be so when they were committed to writing ; the written book was in every sense the property of the scribe or the possessor of the roll. Only a part of the great volume of tradition was included in the first books. Transcribers freely added new matter from the same sources on which the original authors had drawn, the traditions of their own locality or sanctuary, variants of historical tradition or legend. Every new copy was thus in some measure a fresh recension. When in the course of time the enrich ment of the narrative directly from oral tradition became a less considerable factor, it was succeeded by the more literary process of conflation or contamination of recensions ; scribes compared different copies, and combined their contents according to their own judg ments or interests. The transmission of the oldest historical writings, even in its earlier stages, before the systematic redactions of R JR and his successors, was thus an extremely complicated process. 1

The problems thus presented to criticism are often insoluble ; in general, only those elements can be certainly recognised as secondary which by underscoring the moral of the history or enlarging on its religious aspects in a prophetic spirit betray a different religious point of view from that of the older narrators, and even in these cases the age of the addition is often in doubt.

4. The Ephraimite history.[edit]

The oldest Hebrew history (J) was written in the southern kingdom. At a somewhat later time a similar work ( E) was produced in Israel. The material, drawn from the common fund of Israelite tradition, 2 is in the main the same ; but the local interest in E is that of the northern kingdom, and the moral and religious point of view is more advanced.

Thus, in the patriarchal legend traits offensive to a more refined age are frequently tacitly removed (cp, e.g., the way in which Jacob s flocks are increased in J and in K, Gen. 30yC) ; theological reflection is shown in the substitution of dreams and audible voices for theophanies as modes of revelation ; historical reflection, in the representation of the Aramsean fore fathers as idolaters, in the avoidance of the name Yahwe before Moses, and so forth.

In later recensions of the work (E 2 ) the conduct and fortunes of Israel are judged and interpreted from a point of view resembling that of Hosea. If those critics who ascribe to secondary strata in E such chapters as i S. 7 1 2 1 5 are right, some of these editors approximated very closely to the deuteronomic pragmatism. 3

1 It has its complete analogy in the transmission of the text, which is, indeed, but a part of the same process.

2 The distinctively Judaean element in J is small.

3 See further, GENESIS, 6 end, EXODUS ii., 3, JOSHUA, 6, JUDGES, 3, iv.

4 Direct evidence of this has frequently been sought in the titles of two officials of the court, the TDlo(EV RECORDER) and the 1210 ; but it is doubtful whether rightly. See GOVERNMENT, 21.

5. The history of the kingdoms.[edit]

For the period down to the time of Solomon the sources of the historians were almost exclusively oral tradition of the most varied character and contents ; of records and monuments there are but few traces, and these for the most part doubtful. With the establishment of the monarchy this is changed in some degree. The stream of popular tradition flows on and continues to be drawn upon largely by writers of history ; but by its side appears matter evidently derived from docu mentary sources. Records were doubtless kept in the palace. 4 From the references to them in the Book of Kings, and from the similar records of Assyrian and Egyptian monarchs we may infer the nature of their contents : the succession to the throne, the chief events of the reign (probably year by year), wars, treaties and alliances, important edicts, the founding or fortifying of cities, the building or restoring of temples, and the like.

Everything goes to show that these avaypa.<j>ai were brief; there is no reason to imagine that the records of a reign were wrought into narrative memoirs. It is antecedently probable that the kings of Israel and Judah, like other Oriental monarchs for example, their neighbour, Meshapf Moab commemorated their prowess or their piety in inscriptions ; but there is no evidence of this in the OT, nor has any such monument hitherto been recovered.

The temples also doubtless had their records, running in great part parallel to those of the kingdom. The succession in the priesthood (dated by the year of the reigning king); repairs of the temple as under Joash and Josiah or changes, such as the new altar of Ahaz ; the intervention of the priests in the affairs of state, as in the revolution which overthrew Athaliah and brought Joash to the throne, would naturally be set down in the archives of the temple. The priestly annals may, as in other countries, have taken a wider range, and included political events and remarkable occurrences, such as earthquake, famine, pestilence. There may have been also local records of cities and towns.

It is in accordance with frequent observation in other literatures to suppose that the history of the early kingdom of which we have spoken above was carried on from age to age by successive continuators. Such a continuation seems to underlie, e.g. , the present accounts of the reign of Solomon and the division of the kingdom, and traces of others may perhaps be recognised in the subsequent narrative. The continuators were doubtless at the same time redactors, who supplemented the work of their predecessors from oral or written sources as, for example, the history of Solomon is amplified and embellished from the luxuriant Solomonic legend or abridged those parts which seemed to them less inter esting or less important.

The kingdom of Israel also had its own historians, but little of their writing has come down to us ; even the reign of a monarch as great as we know from foreign sources that Omri was is an absolute blank in our Book of Kings. There is, however, one por tion of the Israelite historical literature that strongly appealed to later Judaean writers, and has consequently been largely preserved viz. , the lives of the great Israelite prophets of the ninth century, Elijah and Elisha. These stories are not all of the same age or origin ; whether they were taken from an earlier written collection is not certain, though, on the whole, probable. They are of the highest value for the light which they throw on the political as well as on the religious history of the northern kingdom (see KINGS, 8, and ELIJAH).

The relations of the two neighbour nations of the same people to each other in peace and war must have filled a large place in the histories of both, which ac cordingly had much in common ; but it is not probable that the attempt to unite them in a parallel history of the two kingdoms was made till some time after the fall of Samaria. In this combined history Judaean sources and the Judaean point of view naturally preponderated ; but it does not appear that any effort wrfs made to exalt Judah at the expense of Israel. The impartiality with which the author records, e.g. , the rebuff received by Amaziah from Joash ( 2 K. 148/1) is noteworthy. This history is the basis of our Books of Kings ; but the deuteronomic redaction has here been so thorough that the attempt to reconstruct the earlier work or even to determine more exactly its age is attended with un usual difficulty.

6. Influence of the Prophets.[edit]

The prophets of the eighth century interpreted Yahwe's dealing with his people upon a consistent moral principle : the evils which afflict the nation, and the graver evils which are imminent, are divine judgments upon it for its sins the injustice and oppression that are rife, the political fatuity of its statesmen, the religious corruption of priests and people, who desert Yahwe for other gods, or offer him the polluted worship of the baals, or affront his holiness with the sacrifices and prayers of unrighteous men. Nor was it the present generation only that had sinned : Hosea, in particular, traces the worship of the baals back to the first settlement of the Israelites in Canaan ; and in every age sin must bring judgment in its train.

The application of this principle by the writers of the seventh and sixth centuries makes an era in Hebrew historiography ; narrative history is succeeded by prag- matic history ; not the mere succession of events, but also their interdependence and causation engages the author s interest. This step has been taken at some period in most historical literatures ; what is peculiar in the Hebrew historians is that their pragmatism is purely religious.

The favour or the displeasure of God is the one cause of pros perity or adversity ; and his favour or his displeasure depends in the end solely on the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the people to the religion of Yahwe. The standard was at first that which the prophets of the eighth century had set up ; later, it was the deuteronomic law. Under the impression of the deuteronomic movement, of the prophecy of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and of the events of the last half-century of the kingdom of Judah, the interest of the writers was increasingly absorbed in the lesson of the history ; history was indeed for them prophecy teaching by example.

The influence of the prophets (orators) is manifested in another way ; the pragmatism of the new school of historians, like that of the Greek and Roman historians, especially under the influence of Isocrates, is a rhetorical element. This appears in the amplification and height ening of the congenial portions of the older narratives, and especially in the introduction at critical points in the history of speeches by prophets often anonymous in which the author s own comment or reflection is effectively put into the mouth of an actor or a spectator of the action.

This pragmatic historiography is frequently called deuteronomistic ; on account of its affinity to Deuter onomy. 1 It flourished in the latter part of the seventh century and especially in the sixth ; but the same moralising treatment of the history, the same distinctive turns of thought and phrase, recur in much later writers e. if. , in the Chronicler 2 and the fundamental prin ciple of the school is nowhere formulated so clearly and concisely as by Josephus in the Introduction to his Antiquities (3, 14, Niese).

7. The Deuteronomistic school.[edit]

i. Deuteronomistic history of the two kingdoms. The first product of the new school of historians was a history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel from the accession of Solomon, 3 written before the fall of Jerusalem, which (in a second redaction dating from after the middle of the 6th century) we have in the Books of Kings. The author took his material from older histories such as have been spoken of above ( 5). The purpose to enforce the moral of the history appears in the selection of material as well as in the treatment of it. It is presumably to this author that we are to ascribe the omission of all details concerning whole reigns (e.g. , Omri), where the recorded facts did not conform to the historical theory. The sovereign is responsible for the purity of the national religion ; upon every king a summary judgment is passed from this point of view.

With hardly an exception, all have come short of the strict standard of the deuteronomic law 1 ; but this departure has degrees ; some the good kings of Judah only tolerated the worship of Yahwe at illegitimate altars (high places) ; others Jeroboam and his successors in the northern kingdom wor shipped idols of Yahwe ; others still introduced foreign gods and rites. A few suppressed gross abuses such as the kcdeshim (see IDOLATRY, 6); only Hezekiahand Josiah instituted thorough going reforms, which were made the more imperative by the revival and importation of all kinds of heathenism under their predecessors, Ahaz and Manasseh.

The history is interpreted upon deuteronomic prin ciples, which are clearly set forth at the beginning in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, and are first applied to Solomon himself.

The earlier part of his reign, we are told, was prosperous ; in his later years there were revolts abroad and treasons at home ; after his death the kingdom was divided ; the cause was that Solomon in his old age, under the influence of his foreign wives, introduced the worship of other gods ; the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite declares the sin and denounces the divine judgment (i K. 11).

1 Particularly to the secondary parts of that book.

2 Cp also 2 Mace.

3 This was the natural beginning under the influence of the prophets and the immediate impression of the deuteronomic reforms.

The editor, who after the fall of Judah revised the work of his predecessor and gave the Book of Kings substantially its present form, sharpened the pragmatism throughout in the spirit of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and of the contemporary additions to Deuteronomy (esp. 4 29 /! and the end of 28) ; the Exile itself is the final vindi cation of the prophetic theodicy.

The rhetorical character of the new historical writing especi ally invited amplification ; if the older authors seemed not sufficiently to have emphasised the lesson, the later ones supplied the deficiency. Such chapters as i K. 13 exemplify the growth of moralising legend in the youngest additions to the book. The systematic chronology also, with its calculated synchron isms, is the work of the exilic editor.l

ii. The pre-monarchic period. The earlier history was now taken in hand by the new school. The in vasions and forays of the neighbouring peoples in the period before the kingdom were divine visitations, just like the invasions of Egyptians, Syrians, Assyrians, Babylonians in later times. a The sin, also, which pro voked this judgment was the same, unfaithfulness to the religion of Yahwe. The stories of the judges illustrate this moral.

In a general introduction (Judg. 26 36) and in the introduc tions to the individual stories the author draws out the lesson : whenever Israel fell into the worship of the gods of Canaan, Yahwe gave it over into the power of its foes ; when in distress it turned to him again, he raised up a champion and delivered it (see JUDGES, 2). Those parts of the older book of stories which could not be adapted to this scheme were omitted. A chronology having the same systematic basis as that of Kings, and directly connected with the latter, was supplied (see CHRON OLOGY, 5).

Here also more than one stage in the deuteronomistic redaction is probably to be recognised. The deutero nomistic book of Judges included Eli and Samuel, and was an introduction to the history of the kings.

In the view of the author, the deliverers formed a continuous succession of extraordinary rulers (shophetlm, judges ), differing from the kings who followed them in that their office was not hereditary, each being immediately designated by God.

The history of Saul and David (i S. 13.^) was not subjected to so thorough a deuteronomistic redaction.

The rejection of Saul was already sufficiently motived in the prophetic source he disobeyed the commandment of God by his prophet (i S. 15) : the glorious reign of David was, from the point of view of the pragmatic school, evidence enough of his fidelity to the religion of Yahwe. The traces of deuteronomistic hands in i S. 13-2 S. 21 are limited to relatively inconsiderable additions (see SAMUEL ii., zf. sf.).

iii. Prehistoric period. The peculiar deuteronomistic pragmatism was from its nature little applicable to the patriarchal story or the primeval history. The wander ings, from Horeb to the banks of the Jordan, are briefly recounted from this point of view in Dt. 1-3 (cp also 9 7-10 5) ; but in the parallel portions of Ex. and Nu. there is no evidence of a deuteronomistic recension. The history of the conquest of Canaan as we have it in Joshua is, on the other hand, largely the work of an author of this school (see JOSHUA, 4 ii).

The corruption of the religion of Israel was, as Hosea had taught, the consequence of contamination with the religion of Canaan ; the prophetic legislation strictly forbids alliance and especially intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land (f.f., Ex. 34 12-16) ; the later deuteronomists demanded their extermin ation as the only sure way to prevent the infection (Dt. 1 2). The generations which followed Joshua had neglected these commands and reaped the bitter consequences (cp Judg. 2 1-5, late) ; but Joshua and the god-fearing generation, which in the might of Yahwe conquered Canaan, did God s bidding faithfully in this as in all other things. They must, therefore, have destroyed the Canaanites, root and branch ; if the older histories did not so represent it, they must be corrected. This is the chief motive of the deuteronomistic account of the conquest (see esp. Josh. 10-12). We have here an instructive example of the way in which the pragmatic dogma overrides a conflicting tradition ; what is said to have been has to yield to what must have been. The unflinching consequence with which this unhistorical re presentation of the conquest is carried through reminds us of the Chronicler (see below, 15), and, with other things, suggests that the deuteronomistic redaction of Joshua is one of the later products of the school, 1 which continued its work long after the restoration.

1 See KINGS, $ 3, CHRONOLOGY, df.

2 How far this treatment may have been preformed in older recensions (E 2 RJ E ) is a mooted point ; cp JUDGES, 14.

8. Biography of Jeremiah.[edit]

Besides the productions of the deuteronomistic school of historians, we have one other work from the sixth century which possesses a peculiar interest : the life of the prophet Jeremiah, which was united with the collections of his oracles by the compiler of our book of Jeremiah. It was written from the memories of the prophet s inti mate disciples, apparently not long after his death. In addition to its historical value, especially for the reign of Zedekiah and the years following the fall of Jerusalem, and its still greater value as a revelation of the person ality of one of the greatest of the prophets, it is, as far as we know, the first essay in biography, and stands nearly, or quite, alone in the extant literature. 2

9. The Hebrew 'Origines' : P.[edit]

In the Persian period, probably in the fifth century, appeared a work which treated the ancient history from a new point of view.

i. The history. The author's purpose was to set forth the origin of the sacred institutions and laws of the Jews, thus showing their antiquity and authority. Beginning with the creation of the world, he closed with a minute description of the territories of the several tribes in Canaan. The contents and character of this work, now generally designated by critics by the symbol P, P2 , PG3 etc. , are sufficiently exhibited elsewhere. 4

The whole tendency of the book is to carry back the origin of Jewish institutions to the remote past ; the sabbath was ordained at the creation ; the prohibition of blood was given to Noah ; circumcision is the seal of the covenant with Abraham ; the developed temple ritual of the kingdom and even the temple itself with all its paraphernalia in portable form are Mosaic ; the post-exilic high priest has his prototype in Aaron.

This is, no doubt, to some extent to be ascribed to the working of a natural and familiar process which may be observed in the older literature as well as in the later (Chronicles) ; it may also be surmised that there was a desire to give the laws, in the eyes of the Jews themselves, the authority of immemorial prescription or the sanctity of most solemn promulgation. Besides this, however, the question may properly be asked, whether contact with the ancient civilisation and religion of Babylonia may not have prompted the author to attempt to vindicate the antiquity of the Jewish religion, just as, somewhat later, the Hellenistic historians, especi ally in Egypt, were moved to do. The same influence may be suspected in the minute chronology, which in its antediluvian parts certainly stands in some connec tion with that of the Babylonians (see CHRONOLOGY, 4).

ii. The laws. The Mosaic laws in the Origines are doubtless to be regarded not as a transcript of the actual praxis of the author s own time, but as an ideal of the religious community and its worship, projected into the golden age of the past as Ezekiel s is projected into the golden age of the future. Whether the book was com posed with the more definite aim of serving as the basis of a reform in the Jerusalem use, is not so clear ; the whole character of the work seems unfavourable to the hypothesis that PG was from the beginning a reform programme as the original Deuteronomy was.

iii. Sources. The narrative portions of the work present an appearance of statistical exactness in matters of chronology, genealogy, census -lists, and the like, which led earlier scholars, who regarded P as the oldest stratum in the Pentateuch (cp HEXATEUCH, 24), to infer that the author had access to ancient documentary records. This supposition is excluded both by the late date of P G and by the character of the matter in question. See GENESIS, zf.

1 Perhaps it is a second redaction.

2 The older legends of Elijah and Elisha, and the multi tudinous prophet legends of later times are hardly to be com pared.

3 P ( ;, the groundwork of P, P s , secondary extensions of P G .

4 See HEXATEUCH, 24; GENESIS, if. ; EXODUS, 25; LEVITICUS, 3; NUMBERS, \off\ JOSHUA, 5 12.

The semblance of more definite statistical knowledge in P, as compared with the older historians, has an instructive parallel in the younger Roman annalists, for example, Valerius Antias,! and is to be explained in the same way. We have another illustration of the same phenomenon in Chronicles.

In the patriarchal story and the narrative of the exodus it is not demonstrable that the author used any other sources than the older historical works which, combined with his own, have been transmitted to us (J and E) ; but he doubtless had them in a more complete form, and, it may be, in a different recension. Whether in the primeval history he made a fresh draught upon Babylonian tradition in the account of creation (Gen. 1), for example, or in the variant form of the flood legend or whether here also he had Hebrew precursors, is a question which seems at present not to admit of a confident answer (see CREATION, %ff. n 17 f. ; DELUGE, -Loff.).

iv. Later additions. P contained many laws purporting to have been given to Moses ; to these a multitude of others were added by later hands, sometimes singly, sometimes in whole collections (Ps), until the symmetry and consistency of the original work was completely destroyed ; the result was the heterogeneous conglomerate which it is customary to call the Priests Code (see HEXATEUCH, LAW LITERATURE). Late additions to the narrative parts of P also can be recognised, especially in Ex. and Nu. (see EXODUS, 5, NUMBERS, io_f.).

10. Histories combined.[edit]

It has been observed above ( 3) that copies of the same work, differing in text or in contents, were compared and combined by subsequent transcriber-editors. A process of a similar kind, on a much larger scale, was the union of the parallel histories J and E in one continuous narrative, JE.

i. Union of J and E. This task was accomplished with considerable skill ; the redactor (R JE ) for the most part reproduces the text of his sources with little change, combining them in different ways as the nature of the case indicated. The additions of his own which he makes are akin to the later strata of the separate books, J and E ; they are chiefly enlargements upon prophetic motives in the history, and have frequently a reproductive character, as, e.g. , in the renewal of the promises to the patriarchs. 2 The author (RJE) probably lived in the second half of the seventh century. This composite work can be followed in our historical books from the creation to the reign of David ; if it went farther than this, the latter part was supplanted by a history of the kingdoms written on a different plan.

JE did not at once displace the separate works J and E ; they continued to circulate till a considerably later time, and later transcribers of JE may have enriched their copies by the introduction from the older books of matter which the first redactor (Rj E ) had not included.

The deuteronomistic redaction described above ( 6f. ) is based upon JE, though some of the deuteronomists used E, at least, separately.

ii. Union of JE with D and P. A post-exilic redaction, finally, united P with JE and D. The method of the redactor (R P ) is more mechanical than that of R JE ; his religious and historical point of view is that of P especially of the later additions to P and Chron. 3

iii. Later priestly editors. R P very likely ended his compilation where P itself ended ; but later editors not only made additions to his work, but also extended a priestly redaction over the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, sometimes restoring (from JE) passages which the deuteronomistic redaction had omitted, some times adding matter drawn from the midrash of their time, sometimes combining the old version of a story with the midrash upon it. In this way the great Hebrew history, from the creation to the fall of Judah, which we possess in Gen. -2 K., gradually assumed substantially its present form. In consequence of the essentially compilatory character of the Jewish historiography, this work of the fifth or fourth century B.C. has fortunately preserved, without material change, large parts of the pre-exilic historical literature, from the tenth century to the sixth. 1

1 The fondness of Valerius for enormous numbers also is shared by P.

2 On the character and method of this redaction see further, HEXATEUCH, 24; GENESIS, 6; EXODUS, 3; NUMBERS, 6 ; JOSHUA, ii ; JUDGES, 14.


11. History of the Jews after the restoration of the temple.[edit]

The national history of Judah came to an end in the year 586, when Judoea became a Babylonian province. During the century which followed, many writers occupied themselves with the history of the kingdoms and of the earlier ages ( see above, 7 ); but there was little to inspire the Jews either in Judaea or in Babylonia to write the his tory of their own times. It is plain that when long afterwards the attempt was made to relate the events of this period, the author had hardly any material at his command except the references to the completion of the temple in the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. It is scarcely to be doubted that in the archives of the temple the succession of the priests, repairs and improve ments of the edifice, and other matters, were recorded, and official documents relating to the temple and its privileges or to the city were preserved ; 2 perhaps also lists of families (with their domiciles), on the basis of which the capitation tax was collected ; some such material is preserved by the Chronicler. There is much less, however, than might have been expected ; it is possible that the archives were partially or completely destroyed when the city was taken by the armies of Ochus, as they were almost certainly destroyed in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.

13. Personal memoirs.[edit]

A new type of Jewish historical literature is repre sented by the memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra. 3 Nehe- miah narrates in a plain and straight forward way, though not without a just appreciation of his own merit, what he had done for his people by restoring in the face of great difficulties the ruinous defences of Jerusalem, and by remedying many abuses which he found rife in the community. 4 Ezra tells how he conducted a colony from Babylonia to Jerusalem, and describes the sad state of things he found among priests and people, his efforts to purge the community from the contamination of mixed marriages, and finally the introduction and solemn ratification of the book of the law. 5

The memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra were used by the Chronicler as sources for the reign of Artaxerxes, and through him considerable portions of them have been transmitted to us, though curtailed, deranged, and in parts wrought over.

1 A most instructive parallel to the Jewish literature in this respect is afforded by the Christian chroniclers and historians of the Middle Ages ; see, for example, the Saxon Annalist, in Alonumenta Germanitf, 6.

2 The library of the Jerusalem patriarchate now contains a collection of Arabic and Turkish edicts about the holy places, beginning with the Testament of Mohammed.

3 Delitzsch (ZL 7*3136 [ 70]) compares the beginning of the memoir literature among the Greeks and Romans. See also Wachsmuth, Einl. 204 f.

4 A natural motive for the memoirs is the desire to acquaint the Jews in the E. with what he had found and done in Jeru salem. See NEHEMIAH.

5 See EZRA and EZRA-NEHEMIAH. The genuineness of the Memoirs of Ezra has recently been impeached by Torrey, Ezra- Nehemiah ( 96).

13. Aramaic chronicle of Jerusalem.[edit]

To the latter part of the Persian or the beginning of the Greek period must be ascribed another of the sources of the Chronicler ; an Aramaic narrative, incorporating documents relative to the building of the walls of Jerusalem and of the temple, parts of which, worked over and supplemented by the Chronicler, are preserved in Ezra 4-6. The original scope of the work can only be uncertainly guessed from the extant fragments. The conjecture that other parts of Ezra were translated into Hebrew from the same source (van Hoonacker, Howorth) is not well founded. Some interest attaches to these fragments as the first trace of historical writing in the vernacular. The experiment seems to have found little favour ; Hebrew was too firmly established as the literary language.

14. The Midrash of Kings.[edit]

To the same age is to be assigned a lost work on the history of the kingdom which is frequently referred to by the Chronicler, and of which considerable parts are preserved in Chronicles. The Chronicler cites this work under a variety of names (Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, or, of Judah and Israel, etc. ), and particular sections of it under special titles (Words 1 of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, Gad the Seer, 2 and so on). Twice the book is referred to under the significant name midrash (chip), The Midrash of the Book of Kings (2 Ch. 2427), the Midrash of the Prophet Iddo (ib. 13 22 ).

The name denotes a homiletic exposition, particularly a story teaching some edifying religious or moral lesson, and usually attaching itself more or less loosely to the words of an older text. This is the character of both the passages in connection with which the term occurs, and of many others in Chronicles e.g., 2 Ch. 148 [7]-15 15 20 285-15 33 10-19, et .c-. Budde (ZATIV 12 yiff.) called attention to the fact that edifying stories of a kind similar to those which in Chronicles are supposed to come from the lost Midrash of Kings are found in other parts of the OT, and conjectured that the Prayer of Manasseh and the Books of Jonah and Ruth are derived from the same work, extracts from which he surmises in i S. 161-13 an d i K. 13. The obvious resemblance is, however, sufficiently explained by the supposition that these writings, together with other pieces of the same kind in Num. and Judg., are the product of the same age and school ; that they were all taken from the same book is hardly to be proved.

That the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah which the Chronicler cites was based upon the deutero- nomistic history of the kingdoms (Sam. -Kings) is beyond question. The most probable theory is that it was an edition of that work enriched by the introduction of a large element of historical midrash illustrating the moral and religious lessons which the history ought to teach, and with such changes and omissions as the additions or the author s pragmatism rendered necessary. Its relation to the canonical KINGS was thus very similar to the relation of the Book of Jubilees to Genesis. The author s religious point of view, ruling interests, and literary manner so closely resemble those of the Chronicler that what is to be said under this head will best be reserved for the next paragraph.

1 i.e., Narrative [of Samuel , etc.].

2 See CHRONICLES, 62. It is not quite clear whether this form of citation is only a convenient way of indicating the part of the extensive work in which the prophet named figured ; or whether it implies a theory that each prophet wrote the events of his own time (Jos. c. Ap. 1 8).

15. The Chronicle of Jerusalem.[edit]

In the early part of the Greek period, probably after 300 B.C. , an author connected with the temple composed a history of Jerusalem from the time of David to the latter part of the fourth century . prefixing a skeleton of the preceding history from the creation to the death of Saul in the form of genealogies, in which are manifested interests the same as those which dominate the body of the book. This history we possess in our Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, which originally formed a single continuous, work.

The narrative begins with Saul s last battle, the anointing of David as King of all Israel, and the taking of Jerusalem (i Ch. 10_/;) ; from this point to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar it runs parallel to Sam. and Kings, but deals with Judah only. From the deportation of 586 the author passes at once to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to Palestine (2 Ch. 36 22 f. = Ezra 1 i/.). The return and the rebuilding of the temple are then related, to the completion of the building in the sixth year of Darius ; then follows immediately the commission of Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, his return at the head of a colony, and his attempted reforms in Jerusalem (Ezra 7 ff.)\ and, again without any connection, the appointment of Nehemiah as governor in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes,the rebuilding of the walls (Neh.1-7), and the ratification of the law (Neh. 8-10). The narrative ends with the measures of reform which Nehemiah found necessary on the occasion of a second visit in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes ; but the genealogies are brought down to the reign of the last Persian king.

The author's sources naturally varied for the different periods.

i. For the earlier part of the work he used the Hexa- teuch and the older historical books, the genealogical material in which he excerpted, condensed, and combined in his own way, supplementing it with constructions of his own which plainly reflect post-exilic conditions.

ii. For the history of the kingdom the ulterior source was the deuteronomistic work (Sam. -Kings) ; it seems probable, however, that the Chronicler used this work, not in the form in which it lies before us, but as it was embodied in the Midrash of Kings ( 14), of which Chronicles may then be regarded as mainly an abridg ment.

iii. From the fall of Jerusalem in 586 to the time of Alexander, the sources were the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, 1 the Aramaic history already spoken of ( 13), the Memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra ( 12), a list of high priests from Jeshua to Jaddua, and probably other priestly genealogies, etc. The narrative material all belonged to the first quarter century of the Persian period and a few years in the reign of Artaxerxes ; there was evidently no continuous historical tradition, written or oral, when the Chronicler wrote ; indeed, his knowledge was not sufficient to enable him rightly to arrange the fragmentary remains at his disposal. 2

In the Chronicler s account of the first two (i. and ii. ) of these three periods there are occasional historical notices not otherwise transmitted to us which seem to come from old sources.

The recension of Gen. -Kings which lay before the Chronicler or the author of the Midrash may have been different from ours, as the recension in the hands of the Alexandrian translators frequently differed from that on which MT is based. The restoration, by the last redactor of Judges, of considerable material from JE which the deuteronomistic redactor had omitted, proves that the final loss of the old Hebrew history books occurred at a comparatively late time, as so much of the classic literature perished late in the Byzantine period.

The Chronicler s work is an ecclesiastical history ; the Jewish Church in Jerusalem is its subject. The whole history of the Northern Kingdom, which was included not only in the deuteronomistic Book of Kings but also in the Chronicler s immediate source, the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, is therefore omitted. The temple, the ministry, the ritual, have central importance ; and special interest is shown in the prominence of the Levites on festal occasions (see CHRONICLES, 7). The clergy are also the custodians of the law ; they give instruction in it and decisions under it. The liturgy of the temple and the minute organisation of the ministry with its guilds of musicians, singers, door-keepers, etc. , are attributed to David. 3 Upon the deuteronomistic pragmatism which it found in its sources the post- exilic History superimposed a pragmatism of a new type. In it also prosperity and adversity depend upon fidelity to the religion of Yahwe ; but the conception of religion is clerical rather than prophetic. The ideas of theodicy and retribution are more mechanical ; 4 the vindication of God s law is not only sure, it is also signal and swift.

The exhibition of this principle in history is the motive of the most radical changes made in the representation of the older books as well as in the long haggadic additions. In both, it is probable that the Chronicler was preceded by the author of the Midrash ; but the same spirit appears in the Chronicler s own work in Ezra and Neh. 5

Taken altogether, it is as historical midrash (i.e. , as edifying fiction with an historical background), not as history, that Chronicles, like its lost precursor, must be regarded and judged. This type of literature enjoyed, as we shall see, an immense popxilarity in the Greek period among both Hebrew and Hellenistic Jews.

The first part of the Chronicle of Jerusalem, from the creation to the exile, ran parallel to the great historical work Gen. -Kings; the second, beginning with the edict of Cyrus, had no competitor. The latter was accordingly detached to serve, under the title Book of Ezra, 1 as a continuation of the older history through the Persian period. When at a later time the first part (Chronicles) was given a place in the canon, it was not reunited with Ezra, but was counted either as the last (Talmud) or as the first (Massora) of the Kethubim (see CANON, 9). In the Alexandrian Bible, where a general rearrangement was effected, the original order was restored.

The oldest Greek translation of the post-exilic History is preserved to us as a torso, beginning with 2 Ch. 35 1-27 and ending abruptly with Neh. 8 12.2 It presents the material in a different and to some extent more original order than MT and the later Greek version ; and contains one long passage not found in either (Pages of Darius, 3_/C). 3

1 The influence of Is. 40 ff. is also visible. ! The derangement of Ezra-Neh. is, however, partly to be ascribed to later hands.

3 This may be connected with the belief that David composed Psalms for the temple service.

4 The influence of Ezekiel is manifest.

5 On the character of the additions and changes, see CHRONICLES, iff.

16. Popular religious stories.[edit]

A sketch of Jewish historical literature would be incomplete without some mention of the popular religious stories so abundant in the last three or four centuries before our era. These all have an historic setting, and doubtless passed from the beginning, as they still do with many, for veracious history. In character they do not essentially differ from the haggadic additions in Chronicles ; but instead of attaching them selves to a given situation in the older history, they create their own situation. With this freedom is naturally connected a greater variety in the motive and moral of the story.

i. and ii. Two of the longer tales of this class, to which we might perhaps give the name historical romances, are the books of Judith and Esther. They have in common the patriotic motive, and also that in each it is a woman who, at great peril to herself, saves her people from threatened destruction. JUDITH (q.v. ) was probably written in Palestine, in Hebrew. The setting of the action is purely fictitious ; the author s notions of history and of geography, beyond his own region, are of the most confused kind.

If any historical incident furnished the nucleus of the story, the circumstances had been thoroughly forgotten. The religious point of view, as it appears in the speech of Achior, for example, and in the stress laid on clean meats (cp Dan. 1) and the sacred- ness of tithes, etc., is that of correct Judaism ; it is erroneous to say of Pharisaism. The lesson of faith in God and fidelity to his law is obvious ; but it is not necessary to assume that the book was written to inculcate this lesson and to encourage its readers in a particular crisis.

The considerable differences in the recensions (three Greek, Old Latin, Syriac) show that the book had considerable currency ; but it never enjoyed the same popularity as its companion, Esther. 4

A peculiar interest attaches to ESTHER (g.v. ) as one of the very few remaining pieces of the literature of the Oriental Jews. 5 The feast of PURIM (q.v. ), the origin of which is celebrated in the book, 6 was certainly adopted by the Jews in the E. Probably too (see ESTHER, 7) the legend was borrowed or imitated ; but this does not alter the fact that the story constructed upon it is one of the most characteristic works of Jewish fiction.

How the young Jewess Esther becomes Queen of Persia ; how the proud vizier Haman is compelled to do the almost royal honour he had conceived for himself to the Jew Mordecai whom he hates most of all men ; and how Esther by her address saves her people from the general massacre which Haman had planned, gets the minister hanged on his own gallows and Mordecai appointed in his place, and procures a counter-edict by authority of which the Jews in Susa and the provinces slaughter their fellow-subjects without resistance, that was something to delight the heart of a race whose peculiarities and contempt for the state religion involved it in such bitter sufferings.

1 Our Ezra and Nehemiah (cp EZRA-NEH., 4).


3 See Torrey, JBL 16 168-170 ; cp EZRA (GREEK), 6 i.

4 On parallels and reminiscences in Jewish literature see Lipsius in ZWT\ 337^ ( 67). The midrashimall put the occur rence in the Asmonsean times, and several of them connect it with the Hanukka festivities as Esther is connected with Purim.

5 Tobit is the only other of which this can confidently be affirmed.

6 In the subscription to the Greek version it is called eTROToAr) Tiav <j>povpai (Esth. 10 ii).

When the temple was destroyed and the other feasts ceased, Purim only gained in importance, and the book connected with Purim so well expressed the feelings of the oppressed Jews that Esther became, next to the Torah, the best known and most highly-prized book in the Canon. 1

iii. A book of very different spirit and tendency is JONAH (q.v. ), which tells how the prophet, who was unwilling to preach to the heathen, was miraculously constrained to go, and how at his message Ninevah repented and its doom was averted, and pointedly rebukes the spirit which would have God show no mercy upon the nations. The protest against the persuasion that God s word and his compassion are for the Jews only is noteworthy. The book is not only a story about a prophet ; more than any other product of its age, it breathes the prophet s spirit. 2

iv. A similar motive is thought by many to actuate the Book of RUTH (q.v.); the author would answer those who, like Ezra and Nehemiah, were so hot against mixed marriages, by showing how the blood of a Moabite ancestress flowed in the veins of David himself. v. One of the most pleasing of these writings is TOBIT (q.v. ), with its attractive pictures of Jewish piety and its instructive glimpses of current superstitions, for the history of both of which it is an important source. It is a moral tale simply, without any ulterior motive other than the edification of its readers. The numerous varying recensions show that it had a wide popularity among Jews as it had afterwards among Christians. See ACHIACHARUS.

vi. Smaller didactic stories. Other stories celebrate the constancy of pious Jews to their religion in spite of all efforts to turn them from it. The Gentile world- power, whether represented by Babylonian, Persian, Seleucid, or Ptolemy, appears not only as the oppressor but also as the persecutor of the Jews, prohibiting the exercise of their religion and trying to force them to worship idols and practise abominable rites.

Some of the stories tell of the miraculous deliverance of God s faithful servants, others of the triumphant fortitude of the martyrs under the most appalling tortures. To inspire a like faith and devotion in the readers, leading them to prize more highly a religion which has produced such fruits, and making them also ready, if need be, to die for their holy law, is the obvious motive of the tales. 3

To this class belong the stories of Daniel and the three Jewish youths in Babylon, in the Book of DANIEL

Here the faithful worshippers of Yahwfe are miraculously delivered from the fiery furnace and the lions den, and endued with a supernatural wisdom which puts all the Chaldean astrologers and magicians to shame, so that the heathen kings are constrained to confess the god of the Jews the supreme God. In the Greek version other stories are added ; Susanna and the Elders, illustrating Daniel s wisdom in judg ment ; Bel and the Dragon, showing how Daniel ingeni ously proved to Cyrus that the gods of the Babylonians were no gods. The display of Jewish wisdom before heathen kings is the motive also of the story of the Three Pages of Darius (i Esd. 3i/. ), where a contest of wits in answer to the question, What is the mightiest thing on earth? wins for Zerubbabel permission to return and restore the temple at Jerusalem. 4

The Greek-speaking Jews also had their story-books with similar subjects. One of these is 3 Maccabees (see MACCABEES [THIRD]), which professes to narrate events in the reign of Ptolemy Philopator after the defeat of Seleucus III. at Raphia in 217 B.C. It may be regarded as in some sense a Hellenistic counterpart to Esther, and is one of the worst specimens of this kind of fiction.

It seems to be an elaborated variation of an older legend preserved by Josephus (c. Ap. $5). Many scholars are of the opinion that the occasion of writing the book was the persecution of the Alexandrian Jews under Caligula. 1

Of the stories of martyr heroism, the most famous are those of the aged Eleazar and of the mother and her seven sons in 2 Macc. 6/, repeated in great detail in 4 Macc. , which took their place among the most popular of Christian martyria.

There were doubtless many other religious stories in circulation ; from a later period considerable remains of a similar literature have come down to us ; e.g. , the tale of Joseph s wife Aseneth (see APOCRYPHA, 12).

1 The entire lack of a religious element in the story was made good in the Greek translation by extensive additions.

2 Cp Ezek. 3s/ Mai. 1 \if.

3 We should compare the Christian martyna.

4 Cp Ep. Arist. tfff. (Schmidt) ; EZRA (GREEK), 6.

17. Hist. of Asmonaeans: Hebrew.[edit]

The glorious events of the Asmonasan age inspired more than one author to write the history of Mattathias and his sons. The oldest and by far the most important of these works is that which we have in the First Book of Maccabees (see MACCABEES [FIRST]), written in Hebrew, probably in the reign of John Hyrcanus. It covers the period from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes (175 B.C.) to the death of Simon (135 B.C. ) ; but it deals chiefly with the struggle with the Syrians ; of the fierce and treacherous strife of Jewish parties we catch only passing glimpses. The author had probably no older written account of the events, but drew upon a tradition close to the Asmoneean house. Besides this tradition, he incor porated certain documents which were preserved in public places (\^i / ) or in the archives (cp 11 37 127)- 2 The writer is sincerely religious, as are the heroes of his story. As to his method of conceiving history, we need only point out here that the action moves wholly on the earthly stage, without miracle, or prophecy, i Mace, is an historical source of the first value for the times of the early Asmonseans ; it is deeply to be regretted that we have not similar sources for other epochs of Jewish history.

At the end of the work (162 3 / ) the reader is referred for information about the following period to the Chronicles of the high-priesthood of John Hyrcanus. Of these Chronicles nothing has survived ; it cannot even be shown that the history of Hyrcanus rule in Josephus ultimately goes back in whole or in part to these Chronicles. 3

1 See now, however, Buchler, Tobiaden u. Oniaden, iT^ff. 9 On the genuineness of these pieces, see MACCABEES (FIRST),

3 Aeainst Bloch see Destinon, 44.

4 Schiirer considers it doubtful whether Jason made an end here ; but cp 2 Mace. 2 20, and see Willrich, Juden u. Griechen, 66.

B See, however, Buchler, 277^, Niese, Hermes, 1900.

18. Greek.[edit]

The struggle of their brethren in Palestine had a keen interest for the Greek-speaking Jews also. Jason of Cyrene wrote a history of it in five books, beginning with the antecedents of the conflict under Onias III., and ending, if we are to judge from the summary of its contents in 2 Macc. 2:19-23, with the liberation of the city by Judas after the victory over Nicanor (cp 2 Mace. 15 3 7)- 4 We know this work only through 2 Macc. , which is professedly an abridgment of it. The original must have been very prolix, which is perhaps one reason why it was not more generally known. The character of the work is in striking contrast to i Macc. ; it imitates and outdoes the worst types of Greek rhetorical historiography. 5 The straining for effect is tiresomely persistent. Everything is exaggerated ; special divine interventions occur at every turn ; and the operation of the law of retribution is everywhere emphasised (see chap. 9). There is no evidence that Jason had any written sources ; the whole character of the book suggests rather that he derived his information from the reports confused and mingled with legend which came 1 by various channels from Palestine. On the two epistles in 2 Mace. 1 1-2 18, and on the other critical points, see MACCABEES (SECOND). 2

Other writings of a legendary character are known to us through Josephus, who, directly or indirectly, drew upon them in his history of the Greek period ; among them were the account of Alexander s relations to the Jews (Ant. xi. 8) and the story of the Tobiadoa and Oniados (Joseph the tax-farmer), Ant. xii. 4, cp BJ 1 i. On the latter see Buchler (op. cit. preceding col. n. i).

19. Histories of the Jewish people by Hellenistic Jews.[edit]

In the third and the second centuries B.C., most of the Hebrew historical literature was translated into Greek. Jews in the new centres of Greek culture, especially in Alexandria, became Acquainted with the writings of Greek historians, and with works like those of Manetho and Berossus, written in Greek, through which the ancient history of Egypt and Babylonia from authentic sources was brought to the knowledge of the educated world. It would be strange, indeed, if they had not felt stirred to perform a like service for the history of their own nation.

i. Demetrius. The earliest of these writings of which we know anything is that of Demetrius, TLepi TUV fr TT) lovdaLg, /3acuAeaw. 4 It is a chronological epitome rather than a narrative history, and was doubtless composed for Jewish readers. The author brings to the solution of the difficult problems of chronology thorough knowledge of the OT and great acumen.

The occasional explanations of other difficulties in the Scriptures show honesty as well as ingenuity. The close connection in many of these points between the Hellenistic and the Palestinian exegesis has also been remarked.

ii. Eupolemos. The work of Eupolemos under a similar title was of a different nature. He narrated the history more at large, and with embellishments in the taste of his times, such as the correspondence of Solomon with the pharaoh, the legend of Jeremiah (fr. 24), and so on. In him also we first note the disposition to vindicate for the Hebrews the priority in philosophy, science, and the useful arts, which is so characteristic of later Hellenistic authors.

Moses was the first sage (crowds), and the first who gave his people written laws. He taught the art of writing to the Jews ; the Phoenicians learned it from the Jews, and the Greeks from them.

Eupolemos probably wrote under Demetrius Soter (circa 158 B.C.), and it has been surmised that he may be the same who is mentioned in i Mace. 817 ; in which case his book would have additional interest as the work of a Palestinian Hellenist. 5

iii. Artapanos. It was natural that Jews in Egypt should seek to connect the story of Abraham s sojourn in Egypt, of Joseph s elevation, and above all, of Moses and the exodus, with Egyptian history.

They had an additional reason for giving their version of these events in the fact that native writers had set afloat injurious accounts of the expulsion of the leprous hordes, which found only too willing credence not merely among the populace but with serious historians. 6

The Jewish writers had no access to authentic sources of information ; in the most favourable case they could give only uncritical combinations of names and events taken from Egyptian history or legend (known to them through a Greek medium) with the narratives of the Pentateuch. The spinning out of these com binations is doubtless in the main pure invention.

1 See Torrey,

2 The book may perhaps have been used as a Hellenistic Haggada for the Hanukka as Esther for Purim.

  • On the works described in this paragraph see Freudenthal,

Hellenistische Studien, 75 (the fragments edited, 219 ff.~) ; Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, 2, 33 (5 200 ff.~) ; Will- rich, JudenundGriechen vorder makkabaischen Erhebung, "95.

  • Freudenthal fixes the date under Ptolemy IV. (222-205);

Willrich tries to prove that all this literature is much younger.

5 Against both this combination and the date given in the text, see Willrich.

6 If the account ascribed to Manetho is genuine which has seldom been questioned these malicious inventions began very early in the Ptolemaic period.

Considerable fragments of a work of this sort have been transmitted to us under the name of Artapanos. This Persian name is with reason suspected of being a pseudonym, the glorification of the Jews being for greater effect attributed to an unprejudiced foreigner 1 who collected his information from the best Egyptian authorities. However that may be, the author shows considerable knowledge of things Egyptian and a very respectable degree of Hellenistic culture. The design of the book is plainly to magnify the forefathers of the Jews by showing that they are the real authors of the Egyptian civilisation.

Abraham, during his twenty years sojourn, taught the Egyptians astrology ; 2 Joseph first caused the fields to be properly surveyed and meted out, reclaimed by irrigation much uncultivated land, allotted glebes to the priests, and invented measures. His kins men, who followed him to Egypt, built the temples in Athos and Heliopolis. It is particularly in the story of Moses, how ever, that Artapanos develops all his art. Moses, who was named by the Egyptians Hermes and is known to the Greeks as Musseus, was the adopted son of Merris, the childless queen of Chenephres. He was the inventor of boats, the Egyptian weapons, engines for hoisting stones, for irrigation, and for war ; he divided the country into its thirty-six nomes, and assigned to each the god which was to be worshipped in it ; he was the founder of philosophy and the author of the hieroglyphic writing used by the priests. Besides all this he was a great general, who at the head of an army of fellahin subdued the Ethiopians, built the city of Hermopolis, etc. The jealousy of Chenephres finally compelled him to flee the country ; on the way he slew an Egyptian officer who lay in wait for him to kill him (cp Ex. 2 ii ff.~). As the last example shows, the author deals very freely with the biblical narrative when it suits his purpose.

iv. Fragments. We possess fragments of several other works of similar tendency to those of Eupolemos and Artapanos ; the names of Aristeas and Malchos- Kleodemus may be mentioned. Of peculiar interest are some fragments of this sort which plainly come from the hand of Samaritan Hellenists. One of these (erroneously ascribed in Eusebius to Eupolemos) makes Mt. Gerizim the site of the city of Melchizedek and the temple of the most high God ; and is otherwise instruc tive for the combination of the OT narrative with Babylonian learning : for example, Ur of the Chaldees is Camarina ; Abraham brought the Babylonian astrology to Egypt, but the real father of the science was Enoch, etc.

The same aim, to exalt the Jewish people in the eyes of other races, appears in a different way in various pseudepigraphic works purporting to be written about the Jews by foreigners. 3

v. Pseudo-Hecataeus. Hecataeus of Abdera (under Ptolemy I. ) had given in his History of Egypt a brief and unprejudiced account of the Jews ; which gave occasion for forging in his name a whole book, the partiality of which for all things Jewish aroused the suspicion of ancient critics.

vi. Aristeas. The letter of Aristeas, pretending to be written by a Gentile to a Gentile, giving the history of the translation of the Hebrew law into Greek, also is palpably spurious.

In it we have a glorification of the Torah and of the LXX translation, of the profound and practical wisdom of Jewish sages, of the temple and the cultus a fabrication on a grand scale, fortified with edicts, correspondence, and all the apparatus with which fictitious history had learned to give itself the semblance of authenticity.

1 Cp Pseudo - Hecataeus, Aristeas, the Jewish Sibyl, etc. ; Freudenthal, i^ff.

2 This is repeated by many Jewish writers. Abraham brought the art from Babylonia (FHG 8213 A).

3 This species of literature flourished rankly in the centuries before and after our era.

20. Philo of Alexandria.[edit]

Among the voluminous writings of Philo at least one work dealing with the ancient history of his people demands mention here - the life of Moses. The first book, in particular, on Moses as a ruler, fairly deserves to be called the best specimen of Hebrew history retold for Gentile readers.

It narrates the life of Moses from his birth to the permission to the two tribes to occupy the conquered territory E. of the Jordan (Nu. 32), following the Pentateuch with occasional allegorical digressions and many edifying reflections, and with those speeches by the personages at important moments without which no author of this time would have thought it possible to write history ; but free from any infusion of the Hellenistic midrash which we have found in Eupolemos and Artapanos.

Philo's work differs favourably from the corresponding parts of Josephus Antiquities in the point just mentioned, and also in the fact that Philo does not, like Josephus, suppress unpleasant passages, such as the worship of the golden calf which Aaron made. The second book is on Moses as a lawgiver ; l the third, on Moses as a priest (the tabernacle and its furniture, priests vestments, and so on).

Philo wrote also a history of the persecutions of the Jews in his own time, apparently in five books.

The first, it is inferred, was introductory ; the second described the oppression of the Jews in the reign of Tiberius by Sejanus at Rome and by Pontius Pilate in Judsa ; the third dealt with the sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews at the beginning of the reign of Caligula; the fourth, with the evils in which the Jews were involved by the demand of Caligula that divine honours should be paid him, and his determination to set up an image of himself in the temple at Jerusalem ; whilst the last described the change in the fortunes of the Jews brought about by Claudius s edict of toleration.

Of these books only the third and the fourth have survived (Adversus Flaccum, Legatio ad Caium}. Philo was a witness of the tribulations of the Jews in Alexandria in the last year of Flaccus s administration, and was the leading member of the deputation to Caligula. Notwith standing their tiresome preaching tone, and obvious reticence about the result of the mission -not to say sup pression of its failure the books are historical sources of high value, not only for the troubles of the Jews but also for the character of the Emperor.

21. Justus of Tiberias.[edit]

The revolt against Rome in the years 66-73 A.D. found its historians in two men who had themselves been actors in it, Justus of Tiberias and Flavius Josephus.

The work of Justus is lost it is known to us only through the polemic in the autobiography of Josephus and the loss is the more to be regretted because Justus would have enabled us to control Josephus's account of the events in Galilee, where we have only too good reason to distrust him. Justus wrote also a Chronicon or concise history from Moses to the death of Agrippa II. (in the third year of Trajan), which was used by Julius Africanus, through whom some material derived from it has been transmitted to us. Both works of Justus, like those of Josephus, were written in Greek Josephus testifies that he had a good Greek education for Greek and Roman readers.

1 In this book the history of the LXX translation is repeated after Aristeas.

- Schiirer, (7/K(2)l 47 ^r. ET 1 65^

3 Schurer, GJVM\*f>ff., ET 177^; where the literature will be found (Hist. \oi,ff.).

  • <I>AauiOu IUOTJTTOV io-ropia lovScuKOu TroAe juou irpb?

Piu^iai ovs ; De Bella Judaico Libri Septem.

22. Flavius Josephus.[edit]

i. Bell. Jud. Josephus (b. 37A.D., d. end of century) first wrote the history of the war in Aramaic for the Jews in the E. Afterwards, moved (he says ) by the number of misleading accounts which were in circulation, he put his own work into Greek. 4 The Greek cannot, how ever, be a mere translation of the earlier work ; for Greek and Roman readers it would need to be materially recast, and we can hardly doubt that his own part in the action was put in a quite different light. Very prob ably also the resume of Jewish history from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Herod (bk. i. ) was first prefixed in the Greek ; the greater part of the seventh book was doubtless added at the same time. The history ends with the taking of Masada (the last stronghold of the insurgents) and the closing of the temple of Onias in Egypt, with a final chapter on the outbreak in Cyrene. The work was completed before the death of Vespasian (79 A. D. ).

For the agitation which preceded the war, and for the war itself, Josephus was both at the time and afterwards in a position to be exceptionally well informed ; but it must be remembered that, writing for the eyes of the emperor and his officers, he was under strong temptation to put things in the way which would be most pleasing to his imperial patrons ; and that he had the difficult task of giving an honourable colour to his own conduct. We know that Justus charged him with falsifying the history of the events in Galilee, and the acrimony of Josephus s reply shows that the shaft had found a vulnerable spot.

For the earlier part of the work, from Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Nero, he used substantially the same sources as in the parallel books of his Antiqui ties. The Jewish War is composed with considerable art ; Josephus had a remarkably dramatic subject, and he puts his facts together in a highly effective way ; the Greek style, in revising which he had expert assistance, is praised by Photius for purity and propriety.

ii. Antiquities. Later in life Josephus wrote his Antiquities, or, rather, Archaeology ( louSa-iicr) apxa-io- Xo-yt a), the Ancient History of the Jews, in twenty books. *

The first ten books extend from the creation of the world to the end of the Babylonian exile (closing with Daniel). His sources here were the books of the OT, chiefly in the LXX version; but when he affirms (i Proem. 3, x. 106) that he reproduces exactly the contents of the sacred books, without addition or omission, he claims too much or too little.

The Antiquities was written for Gentile readers, and was intended not merely to acquaint them with the history of the Jews, but also to counteract the current prejudice against the people and its institutions, and to exhibit both in a favourable light. To this end he omitted things which might give ground for censure or ridicule, and embellished the narrative from legend and midrash. That he used the writings of Hellenistic Jews who before him had treated the history in the same way (see above, 19) is certain ; the extent to which he was dependent upon them cannot now be determined. Josephus also often refers for confirmation or illustration of the biblical narrative to foreign authors ; who are sometimes cited, not at first hand, but from compilations or other intermediate sources. 2

For the following period, from Artaxerxes I., under whom he puts Esther (the latest book in the OT), the sources used \vere of diverse character and value. 3 From the middle of the fifth century to the beginning of the second there was no authentic historical tradition ; a few stray facts and a mass of legends have to stop the gap. From Antiochus Epiphanes to the accession of Herod, Josephus s chief authority was an unknown Jewish writer who had combined his Jewish sources ( i Macc. , a history of the later Asmonasans ?) with Greek writers on the history of Syria (Polybius, Posidonius, Strabo). This work probably began with Alexander, and came down at least to the death of Germanicus (19 A. D. ). To this Josephus added the fruit of his own reading in the Greek historians, some Jewish marvel- stories, and a collection of documents authenticating privileges of the Jews. For the life of Herod he drew directly on Nicolaus of Damascus, with additions from a Jewish source unfavourable to Herod. In the later part of the work the narrative becomes fuller and the sources more numerous ; among them information derived from King Agrippa, and a Roman author (? Cluvius Rufus) may be recognised. The history closes with Gessius Florus (=DJ ii. 14 1), on the eve of the war.

iii. The Life, which in the manuscripts immediately follows the Antiquities, is not really an autobiography; it is an apologia, and is chiefly occupied with a relation and defence of the author's conduct as commander in Galilee in the earlier stage of the revolt. It supple ments the War; but is to be used with even greater caution.

iv. The short work which we commonly call the Reply to Apion (Contra Apionem), but of which the true title seems to be On the Antiquity of the Jews (Ilept T?}S rCiv lovdaiuv dpxaibTriTos) is a defence of the Jews against their assailants, of whom the Alexandrian grammarian and polyhistor Apion is taken as a leading representative. 1 The chief value of the book, apart from the light it throws on the antisemitism of the times, lies in the copious extracts from profane writers on Oriental history which are incorporated in it.

1 The title and the number of books are in imitation of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, PuiftcuiCT) ap^aioXoyi o.

2 The ancients understood as well as the moderns this trick 01 seeming to be familiar with books they had never seen.

3 For titles of works on the sources of Josephus, see Schurer, Hist. 1 \o\ff. Of more recent investigations Biichler, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden. QQ, also /(?./? 9 311 ff., REf 32 179^, 3969^, and Unger (SMA IV, 95^) must be named.

Josephus was the author through whom the Roman and, later, for centuries, the Christian world got most of its knowledge of Jewish history. His works were translated into Latin ; a Greek abridgment of the voluminous Antiquities was made ; the mediaeval Hebrew Josippon professes to be the work of Josephus, from whose writings the material is largely drawn ; in modern times Josephus has been translated into all the languages of Europe. His authority as an historian stood very high, his writings were appealed to with almost as much confidence as the OT itself.

In recent times, on the contrary, he has not infre quently been judged with unjust severity. The gravest faults of the Antiquities are those which it shares with the Jewish Hellenistic historiography in general, and indeed with no small part of the profane history of the Alexandrian age, not the individual sins of Josephus.

To expect critical history of these writers is to look for figs on thistles. The business of the historian is to interest his readers ; an effective story carries it off over all dry investiga tions ; and legends which redounded to the glory of the race were accepted without impertinent question. It is not to be charged as a crime to Josephus that in these respects he is an author of his time and his people. On the other hand, the care lessness and lack of pains with which the latter part of the Anti- gitities particularly is worked out may fairly be laid at his door ; he visibly wearies of his long task before it is completed.

23. Seder Olam.[edit]

We have no extensive historical writings in Hebrew or Aramaic to set beside the productions of the Grecian Jews. Some works on particular periods have perished, or, like i Macc. and Josephus's Jewish War, have reached us only in Greek garb. The chief motive of the Hellenistic authors for retelling the ancient history of their people to bring it to the knowledge of foreigners was lacking. Their own need was satisfied by the Sacred Books themselves, interpreted by Targum and Midrash. The only comprehensive Hebrew work on Jewish history of which we know anything is the bald chronological epitome known as Seder Olam. Down to the Persian period it follows the OT with occasional midrashic episodes, and with a minute determination of the chronology which is evidently the raison d etre of the work. 2 The six centuries and more from Nehemiah to the war under Hadrian are comprised in the second half of chap. 30. The lack of any continuous historical tradition is here again obvious ; the chronology of the Persian, the Greek, the Asmonaean, and the Herodean periods partly in consequence of corruption of the text is far out of the way. The work, which enjoys Talmudic authority, is attributed to R. Jose ben Halaphta (circa 130-160 A. D. ), probably because he is often cited in it as an authority. It has undoubtedly been more than once worked over by later hands. 3

24. Literature.[edit]

E. Schrader, art. Geschichtskunde bei den Israeliten, BL 24:13^; Franz Del. Die Formenreichthum der israelitischen Geschichtsliteratur, Zeitsch.f. lather. Theol. Kirche, 36 3 ijf., 70; L. Diestel, Dieheb. Geschichtsschreibung, JDT 18365 ff. ( 73) I R. Kittel, Die Anfange der heb. Geschichtsschreibung im A T, 96 (Rektoratsrede) ; B. Duhm, Die Entsteh. des A Ts, 97 ; see also HEXATEUCH, and the articles on the several books discussed above.

On various aspects of the general subject : F. Creuzer, Die historische Kunst der Griechen in ihrer Entsteh. und fr ort- bildung, 45 ; H. Ulrici, Charakteristik der antiken Histori- ographie, 33 ; K. W. Nitzsch, Romische und deutsche An- nalistik und Geschichtsschreibung, in Sybel s Zeitschr. 11 iff. ( 64); A. v. Gutschmid, Aus Vorlesungen uber die Gesch. der griech. Historiographie, Kleine Schrjften, ^2-jgjff". (esp. the mtrod. 279-298).

J. \V. Loebell, Das reale und das ideale Element in der geschichtlichen Uberlieferung und Darstellung, in Sybel s Zeitschr. \ 269-331 ( 59); W. Wachsmuth, Ueber die Quellen der Geschichtsfalschung, Ber. d. konigl. sdc/iischen Gesellsch. der Wiss. 8 121-153 ( 56) , E. Zeller, Wie entstehen unge- schichtlichen Ueberlieferungen, Deutsche Rundschau, Feb. 93 (excellent) ; Steinthal, Mythos, Sage, Marchen, Legende, Erzahlung, Fabel, Z. fiir l* 6lkerpsychologie u. Sprachiviss. 17 113 ff. ( 87). See also Bernheim, Lehrb. d. historischen MetlwdeV] ( 94); and C. Wachsmuth, Einl. in das Studium der alien Gesch. ( 95). G F- M .


(DTjri), a name which occurs rather frequently in the OT, and is often connected with regions somewhat remote from one another.

1. Occurrence of name in OT.[edit]

Tne name is given to one of the groups of pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Southern Palestine, whose full name is B'ne Heth (XT) ; so Gen. 28357 2746. A single member of the group is Hitti ( FIH x eTTO >*i e.g., Gen. 492g, 28.1124), and from the form, the group is commonly referred to as ha-Hitti i.e., the Hittite. So throughout Ex., Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ezra, and Neh., and also i K. 9 20 (|| 2 Ch. 87). The references so far given refer to the earlier period of Hebrew history, before detinite steps had been taken leading to the formation of the kingdom ; but Hittites are mentioned also in the later period, in the days of Saul (i S. 266), David (2 S. 1136172124 129/1 2839 xerrfi [L], and a parallel passage i Ch. 1141 x"ret [BN], Xerflei [AL]), Solomon (i K. 1029 x e "-ieti/ [B ; om. A], -/u [L], 11 1 2 K. 76 and a parallel passage 2 Ch. 1 17 ye88ai<av [A]). The term Hitthn occurs more rarely only twice for the earlier period, Josh. 14 (BA om.), Judg. 126 (x.eTreii [B], -KIJU [A], -v [L], land of the Hittites ); and three times for the later period (i K. 1029 2K.76 and a parallel passage 2 Ch. 117, kings of Hittites ). The persistent occurrence of Hettites in the Greek transliteration in place of Hittites should not be overlooked.

2. Gen. 10 may be ignored[edit]

In the genealogical table, Gen. 10, Heth is introduced (v. 15 [J]) as a son of Canaan ; but the mention of Heth here is evidently a gloss - though an old one - tacked on to 'Sidon, the firstborn of Canaan'.

The Greek translators, perceiving the incongruity of the use of Heth for the nation alongside of gentilicia, like Jebusi, Emori, etc., changed Heth to Hitti (TOV \erTalov). We may indeed accept the view of Ball (SBOT ad loc.) and others, and regard the introduction of all the nations mentioned in v. 16 as a redactorial addition suggested by the gloss Heth ; but this will not affect the question of the inference about Heth to be drawn from the passage. For the entire section, Gen. 10i6-io, is an independent fragment (taken from some genealogical list of Canaanites) belonging to the same stratum of tradition as that preserved in the song, Gen. 825-27, according to which the three divisions of mankind were Canaan, Shem, and Japheth. This wide sense of Canaan^lO 19) accords well with certain passages in the OT (see CANAAN, 2) which make Canaan a general term for the whole district between the Jordan, the Mediterranean, the wilderness in the S., and the Lebanon range in the N. ; but it is to be noted that this usage is in contradiction to the more common application of the term in the Hexateuch and in passages like Judg. 85 Ezra9i (eflci [B], e#0<. [A]) Neh. 9s dependent upon the Hexateuch where the Canaanites are merely one of five, six, or seven divisions into which the district defined is divided. When it is furthermore considered that in this enumeration the Canaanites are assigned not always the first place at times the second (Ex. 2328 34n) or the third (Dt. iQij Josh. 9i 24n), or even the fourth (Ex. 2823) it is evident that no value is to be attached to the assignment of Heth as a son (i.e., subdivision) of Canaan. One conclusion, however, may be drawn from the variation in nomenclature : at one time the Canaanites were spread over a much larger area than was the case when the Israelites entered the country. To Israel the Canaanites still loomed up large enough ; but the tradition which made them the ancestors of all the other groups occupying the highlands, and valleys to the west of the Jordan, and which regarded them as one of the three great divisions of mankind, belongs to a more remote age.

1 [On the Hittites of Hebron cp REHOBOTH.]

3. Hittites of S. Palestine, Gen. 23.[edit]

We conclude, then, that the Hittites of the OT, as an ethnic group, do not necessarily stand in a closer relation to the Canaanites than to the Amorites, Hivites, Perizzites, or any of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine.

The question confronts us here, whether in all cases where the OT mentions Hittites, the same people is meant? To put it more precisely, are the B ne Heth, of whom an interesting incident is recorded in Gen. 23 [P], identical with the group called ha-Hitti (win), and enumerated among the pre- Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine, and are these Hittites the same as those found in the days of Saul, David, and Solomon?

According to Gen. 23 [P], Abraham purchases a burying-cave at Mamre from the B'ne Heth, who are represented as a settled population with Hebron as a kind of centre.

The antiquity of the tradition is hardly open to question, though the details, such as the formal deed of purchase, may have been supplied by the fancy of a much later age, to which Abraham had already become a favourite subject for Midrashic elaboration. That the Hebrew tradition regards the Hittites of Hebron 1 as identical with those mentioned elsewhere follows from the introduction of Heth in Gen. 10 15 [J], as well as from the qualification ha-Hitti added to the name of Ephron(Gen. 23io),2 the chief of the B ne Heth.

These Hittites extended as far south as the edge of the desert, since we find Edomitic clans, settled around Gerar and Beersheba (Gen. 2634 [P], xeryaiov [E]), entering upon matrimonial alliances with Hittites.

The opposition of Isaac and Rebecca to Esau s marriages with Hittite women (i A., 27+6 [R]) reflects the later sentiments ex pressed in the Hexateuchal prohibition (Dt. "3), whereas the tradition itself clearly points to there being at an early period friendly relationships between Hebrew and Edomitic clans on the one side and Hittites on the other.

3. Hittites of Central Palestine.[edit]

Bearing these two features in mind (i) the settlement of the B'ne Heth in the extreme south of Palestine, and (2) the friendly relations between them and the clans which constitute the ancestors of at least a section of the later Israelitish confederacy it is certainly not without significance that the Hittites mentioned in the OT outside of the book of Genesis dwell in the centre or extreme north of Palestine, and that they are viewed as the bitter enemies of the Israelites. True, in the days of Saul and David, we find Hittites joining their fortunes with David (i S. 266), and a Hittite occupies a prominent place in David s army (2 S. 2839) ( see below, 5), whilst Solomon enters into matrimonial alliances with Hittite princesses (r K. 11 1) (see below, 6) ; but these are exceptional incidents. The Hittites, together with the Canaanites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Girgashites, 3 hold the various parts of Palestine proper against the Hebrew invaders, and contest every advance. The chief passages are Ex. 3 8 17 13s 232 3 332 Dt. 7 1 20 17 Josh. Siolla (om. F) 128 (om. L) 24 ii Judg. 85. An important indication of the distribution of the various groups is furnished by Josh. 113. The Canaanites are settled both in the E. and in the W. ; Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, and Jebu sites in the mountains, and the Hivites at the foot of Mt. Hermon in the N. (In <S B the positions of the Hivites and Hittites are exchanged ; but the gloss in Nu. 13 29 is a support for MT ; see HIVITES, 2. ) Here, then, we find the Hittites settled in the mountainous districts of Central Palestine contesting the encroachments of the Hebrews. It is, of course, not impossible that the southern Hittites were gradually forced northward through circumstances of which we are ignorant ; but a solution of the problem more in keeping with the con ditions of OT nomenclature is to suppose an inexactness and vagueness in the use of the term Hittites, similar to that which characterises the use of such terms as Canaan ites, Amorites, and even Philistines. A support for this view is to be found in Josh. 1 4, where the whole district of Israel s prospective possessions, from the wilderness in the S. to the Lebanon in the N. , and eastward to the Euphrates, is designated as the whole land of the Hittites. It is true that these words are a gloss, and perhaps a late one, since they are not contained in BAL ( " alone inserts). Their value is not impaired, how ever, by this circumstance ; in the opinion of the scribe who added them, Hittite was a term covering a very large territory.

Judg. 126 is perhaps another instance of the vague use of the phrase land of the Hittites, though here we have to reckon with the possi bility of a redactional insertion referring to a Hittite empire established in NE. Syria, of which we hear much in the inscriptions of Assyrian monarchs (see below, 6), just as this empire is referred to in 2 K. 76, and probably in i K. 1029.

Again, when Ezekiel tells Jerusalem, Thy father was an Amorite and thy mother a Hittite (Ezek. 16345 [om. Q*]), he is using both terms in a vague and comprehensive sense for the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine.

From such usage it follows that there is no necessary connection beyond the name between the southern Hittites and those whom the Israelites encounter in Central Palestine. Indeed one might be inclined to regard thegrouping of Hittites with Canaanites, Amorites, etc. , as a conventional enumeration without any decided reference to actual conditions ; but such a passage as Josh. 11s is against this view.

1 [ Sta. (GescA.M 143), Bu. (Ifrg-escA. 347 /), E. Mey. and others (e .g., Che., art. Hittites, EB($)) are quite sure that in this use of the name " Hittites" for the population of the land (cp also 2634 f. 2*46 with 28 i), A. (i.e., the Priestly narrator, P) is deplorably wrong (Di. G -n. 297 [ 92], ironically).]

  • Also 7 . 8, according to the Samaritan version.

3 The order in which these nations are enumerated varies, and at times one or other Girgashites, Perizzites, or Hiwites is omitted, though the Greek translators usually supplied the deficiency by inserting them.

5. S. Hittites in later times.[edit]

Since the older inhabitants of Palestine were not exterminated, it is not surprising to find a Hittite - the famous Uriah - among the chiefs that constituted the following of David (2 S. 2839 i Ch. Il4i). The position occupied by Uriah points to a partial assimilation between Judaeans and Hittites, and similarly the strange tale of David and Bathsheba ( Uriah s wife), as related in 2 S. 11, embodies a distinct recollection of a close alliance at one time between the two groups. The unfavourable light in which David s act is placed is due to an age which regarded it as a heinous crime for any Hebrew to marry a woman who was not a worshipper of Yahwe ; but the age of David is still far removed from the spirit which animates Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code on this point. There is no objection against regarding these Hittites as the descendants of those whom we encounter in the days of Abraham.

6. Solomon's Northern Hittites.[edit]

The case is different, however, when we come to Solomon, whose marriages with Hittite princesses solemnize political alliances, just as does the enlargement of his harem through Moabitish, Ammonitish, Edomitish, and Sidonian concubines. Solomon but imitated the example set by the kings of Egypt, who had long been in the habit of adding to their harems representatives of the various nations whom they had conquered or with whom they had entered into political alliances. The king s harem in ancient days in a measure took the place of the diplomatic corps of our times. These Hittites cannot possibly be identical with those we encounter in the days of David ; there is no room in the days of Solomon for a Hittite empire or principality in Southern Palestine. The Hittite district must have been as clearly defined, however, as that of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Sidonians (i K. 11 1). That there was a Hittite empire, and that it wns important, is implied by the statement (i K. 1629) that Solomon imported horses from Egypt for all the kings of the Hittites (see HORSE, 3, MIZRAIM, zb}. The same Hittite power is referred to in 2 K. 76, where the juxta position of kings of the Hittites with kings of Egypt may be taken as a measure of the importance of this power. This reference alone might be sufficient warrant for concluding that the Hittite district is to be sought in the N. of Palestine, the purport of the passage being to imply that Aram was attacked simultaneously from the N. and the S. A more definite conclusion, however, may be drawn from 2 S. 24 6. Despite the corruptness of the passage, one may be certain that it contains a reference to the land of the Hittites. x The reference is tq a land lying N. of Gilead, and we are thus brought to the region where, as we know from other sources to be mentioned presently, an extensive Hittite empire flourished as early at least as 1000 B, c.

7. Summary of OT data.[edit]

In a study of the Hittites of the OT we must therefore take into consideration the varying use of the term. We must distinguish (a) the Hittites settled around Hebron (who maintain their identity down to the days of David) from (b) the conventional 1 Hittites whom tradition enumerated with other groups as opponents whom the Hebrew invaders in a severe and protracted struggle dispossessed of their land ; and both these divisions must be kept separate again from (c) an extensive Hittite power (divided up into principalities) situated in the north-eastern part of Syria, beyond the confines of Palestine proper ; and, lastly, there is the vague and indefinite use of the term which makes Hittite almost synonymous with (d] all Palestine and Syria, and thus adds another complicating element.

So far as the evidence goes, there is nothing to warrant any connection (beyond the name) between the Hittites (b) who form part of the pre-Israelitish population of southern Palestine, and the Hittites (c) whose alliance is sought by Solomon. It is the latter Hittites who play much the more prominent part in the ancient history of the East.

8. Egyptian data.[edit]

Thotmes I., the third king of the eighteenth dynasty, began about 1600 B.C. an extended series of Asiatic campaigns which eventually brought about the subjection of Palestine and Syria to the pharaohs of Egypt. Among the more formidable enemies enumerated by the Egyptian rulers is a people whose name H-t 2 appears to be identical with the term Heth or Hetti of the OT. This people occupied the mountainous districts of northern Syria, and extended to the E. as far as the Orontes, indeed at times beyond it to the Euphrates. A stronghold of the H-ta which is prominently mentioned in the inscrip tions of Thotmes III. (circa 1500 B.C. ) is Kedesh. The Ht-a did not confine themselves, however, to their mountain recesses. Joining arms with the various nationalities of northern Palestine and the W. district, they advanced as far as Megiddo to meet the Egyptian armies. The pharaohs found their task difficult, and, even after many campaigns had been waged, the subjection of the H-ta was not definitely accomplished. The kings of Egypt advanced to Carchemish, Tunep, Hamath, and claim to have laid siege to these places ; but again and again armies had to be sent into northern Syria and the Taurus region. Marash, at the extreme E. of Cilicia, appears to have resisted all attempts at conquest. The Egyptians at one time found a valuable ally in Dusratta, king of Mitanni a district to the NW. of Assyria. This alliance between Egypt and Mitanni seems to have kept the H-ta in check ; but it was not long before the H-ta of Marash, Carchemish, Hamath, and Kedesh regained their complete independ ence. In the fourteenth century the hold of Egypt upon her Asiatic possessions was loosened, and about a century later her control practically comes to an end.

It is clear from the way in which the H-ta are spoken of in the Egyptian records that the prevailing notions about them were vague. To assume that there was at this time an extensive Hittite empire is a theory that meets with serious difficulties. The district embraced by the Egyptian rulers under the designation H-ta appears to have been divided up among a varying number of principalities, and it does not follow that the rulers and inhabitants of these principalities were even of one and the same linguistic or ethnic stock.

1 Read D Finn f"lN, and see further TAHTIM-HODSHI.

2 This is the transliteration now adopted by Egyptologists. The character of the vowel following t cannot be definitely deter mined. The spelling adopted here is H-ta (after WMM).

9. Cuneiform statements.[edit]

Our knowledge of the early history of Babylonia and of the rise of the Assyrian power is still too uncertain to enable us to say when the inhabitants of the Euphrates valley first came into contact with the Hittites. The Kassite dynasty, which maintained its sway over Babylonia for upwards of 500 years, was of an aggressive character, and in the fifteenth century we find Babylonia joined with Egypt in a close alliance. The use of the Babylonian script and language at this time as the medium of diplomatic interchange between the court of Egypt and officials stationed in Palestine and Syria under Egyptian control points to a predominating Babylonian influence and an earlier Babylonian supremacy, during which the Babylonian language was introduced into the district in question.

The text containing an account of the western exploits of Sargon I. [see BABYLONIA, 41] (whose date is provisionally fixed at 3800 B.C.) is of a very late date, and cannot therefore be relied upon as confirming the general tradition of an early con quest of Syria on the part of Babylonian rulers. (The name Hittite does not appear in the text referred to, the lands to the W. being embraced under the general designation of Amorite country. On this point see CANAAN, 7 ff.)

As the Asiatic campaigns of Egypt begin in the eighteenth century B. C. , we must assume that the Baby lonian control of Syria and Palestine belongs to an earlier time. We know enough of the history of the Kassite dynasty in Babylonia to say that it was probably during the period of its ascendency that the control of Babylonia over the western districts was most effective, and the testimony of the Egyptian inscriptions warrants us in assuming that the Hittites were then the most powerful federation against whom the Babylonians had to contend.

10. The Hatti.[edit]

It is to be noted, however, that the term Hittite, or Hatti, which appears to be identical with it, does not make its appearance in cuneiform literature till the days of Tiglath-pileser I., about noo B.C. Then it means a distinctly defined kingdom lying along the Orontes (with Carchemish as one of its important centres) and extending well into the Taurus range. Against these Haiti the Assyrian ruler waged a fierce campaign. According to his account it ended in a complete triumph for the Assyrian arms. In reality, however, the conquest was far from complete. The successors of Tiglath-pileser were much harassed by the troublesome Haiti, and it is not until the reign of Sargon (721-704 B.C.) that they finally disappear from the horizon of Assyrian history.

Curiously enough, we encounter in the Assyrian in scriptions Ihe same vagueness in Ihe use of the term Haiti that is characteristic of OT usage ; Sennacherib and olher Assyrian rulers, when Ihey speak of Ihe land of Haiti, have in mind Ihe entire region lo the W. of Ihe Euphrates, embracing Ihe Phosnician coasl and in cluding apparenlly Palestine (see CANAAN, 12). Still, Ihere can be no doubl that the Assyrians distinguished the Haiti proper from Ihe olher principalities of Syria and Palestine ; and if the leslimony of the comparatively | lale Assyrian inscriptions could only be used for Ihe earlier periods, Ihe elhnic and geographical problems involved would be considerably simplified.

===11. Hittite monuments.

Fortunately, as an aid to the solution of these problems, we have a considerable number of monuments left us by the Hittites themselves, and although the date of these monuments does not carry us back to as early a period as the Egyptian campaigns in Western Asia, they help us to a clearer underslanding of the earlier history of the Hittites. At Carchemish and Hamath have been found remains of sculplures accompanied by inscriptions, and elsewhere in this region, as al Zenjirli, there are abundant traces of Hittite art. Quite recently (August, 99) a Hittite slele has been found at Babylon, transported from a Hittite centre by an Assyrian monarch. 1 This art is so distinctly based upon Assyrian and Babylonian models as to decide definitely the influences at work in producing the civilisation in this region. In addition to this, Cappa- docia, Paphlagonia, Lycaonia, and Phrygia abound in remains of edifices and of works of art showing the same types and the same general traits as those of Carchemish and Hamath, whilst the inscriptions found with the edifices belong likewise to the same class.

Thanks to the .researches of Jensen it may now be regarded as certain that the inscriptions cover the period 1200-800 B.C. ; and it has also been made probable that the spread of the Hittites was gradual from the region of Cilicia to the N. , NE. , and NW. , nearly to the borders of the Euxine, and W. to the ^Egean. 2 It is fair to presume that the language of all the so-called Hittite inscriptions is the same, although it may be added that several styles of Hittite characters may be distinguished, some being pictorial, others branching off into conventional forms with a strong tendency towards becoming linear. These varieties, which are quite paralleled by the styles of writing in the Egyptian and Babylonian-Assyrian inscriptions, do not affect the question of the language ; and, this being the case, we can understand the vagueness in the geographical use of the term Hittites among the ancients. At what period the extension of Hittite settlements began it is as yet impossible to say ; but the indications are that we must go back several centuries beyond 1200 B.C. for the date. On the other hand, whilst in general the Hittite traits are clearly defined on the monuments, there are good reasons for assuming several ethnic types among those grouped under the term. From an anthro pological point of view, the Mongolian, or to speak more definitely the Turanian, type seems to prevail ; but, whatever the ground-stock of the Hittites of Asia Minor may have been, there is a clear indication of Semitic admixture.

1 R. Koldewey, Die Hettitische Inschrift gefunden in der KSnigsburg von Babylon (Leips., 1900).

a At Karabel, near Smyrna, there is sculptured on a rock the picture of a Hittite warrior with a few Hittite characters.

12. Hittite inscriptions.[edit]

The decipherment of the Hittite inscriptions which would throw so much needed light on the ethnic problems, is now being vigorously prosecuted. After several attempts on the part of Sayce, Peiser, and Halevy, which constituted an opening wedge, Jensen has recently struck out on a new path which gives promise of leading, ere long, to a satisfactory solution of the mystery. With great ingenuity he has determined much of the general character of the inscriptions. He has identified ideographs and sign-groups for the names of countries and gods, some of which appear to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Passing beyond those limits, Jensen is fully convinced that the language of the in scriptions belongs to the Aryan stock is in fact the prototype of the modern Armenian. This rather startling result, although it has received the adherence of some eminent scholars, cannot be said to be definitely assured, and for the present remains in the category of a theory to be further tested. The proof furnished by Jensen for the Aryan character of the Hittite language is not sufficiently strong to overcome the objection that many of the Hittite proper names occurring both in the Egyptian and in the Assyrian inscriptions are either decidedly Semitic or can be accounted for on the assumption of their being Semitic, whilst the evidence which can be brought to bear upon the question from OT references points in the same direction.

Again, if, as Jensen believes, and as seems plausible, the Hittite characters are to be regarded as showing a decided resemblance to Egyptian hieroglyphs so much so, indeed, as to suggest a connection between the two systems there would be another presumption for ex pecting to find an affiliation between the Hittite language and the Semitic stock, if not indeed, as in Egyptian, a Semitic substratum. No valid conclusion can be drawn from the unquestionable relationship of the Cypriote characters to the Hittite signs, since the Cypriote syllabary is clearly the more simplified of the two, and is presumably, therefore, a derivative of the former. What we know of early Semitic influences in the proto-Grecian culture and religion of Asia Minor, speaks against an Aryan civilisation flourishing in the region covered by the Hittite monuments.

These suggestions are thrown out with all due reserve, for the problem is too complicated to warrant at present anything like a decided tone. So far as Jensen s de cipherment has gone, the inscriptions some thirty in all contain little beyond the names and titles of rulers, lands and gods, with brief indications of conquests. Valuable as such indications would be if definitely estab lished, it does not seem likely that our knowledge of Hittite history would be much advanced by the complete decipherment of the meagre material at our command. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that excavations in Hittite centres will increase the material, and we may also look forward to finding a bilingual inscription of sufficient length to settle definitely the still uncertain elements in the decipherment, 1 and clear the field of the many hypotheses that have been put forward. Meanwhile, bearing in mind the necessarily tentative character of all conclusions until excavations on a large scale shall have been carried on in centres of Hittite settlements, we may sum up our present knowledge as follows :

13. General result.[edit]

i. Among the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine there was a group settled in southern Palestine, known as the Hettites or Hittites. 2. When the Egyptians began their conquest of Syria, Hittites formed one of their most formidable adversaries, and continued to be prominent throughout the several centuries of Egyptian supremacy in Syria and Palestine. The chief seat of these Hittites was in the extreme N. of Palestine and extended well into Syria. The further extension of Hittite settlements brings under control not merely the district to the W. of the Taurus range, but a considerable portion of western Asia Minor (including Cilicia and Cappadocia) extending to the Euxine Sea on the N. and the ^Egean to the W. The north-eastern boundary is uncertain ; but it may have reached to Lake Van. After the withdrawal of the Egyptians from Asia Minor the Assyrians engage in frequent conflicts with the Hittite kingdom in the region of the Orontes, and it is not until the eighth century that they are finally reduced to a condition where they could no longer offer any resistance.

The vagueness in the use of the term Hittite, in the OT as well as in the Egyptian and Assyrian records, makes it difficult to decide whether all Hittites are to be placed in one group. The evidence seems to show that the sons of Heth settled around Hebron at an early period, have nothing in common (beyond the name) with the Hittites of central and northern Palestine, and have nothing to do, therefore, with the Hittites of Syria and of regions still farther N. The Hittites of Hebron were Semites and spoke a Semitic tongue ; the Hittites of northern Palestine and Syria were probably not Semitic but became mixed with Semites at a comparatively early period. Their language, likewise, appears to contain Semitic elements, and may indeed have a Semitic sub stratum. The Hittite script appears to have been taken over from the Egyptian hieroglyphics, and in any case has strong affinities with it, though it seems also certain that it contains elements which are either original or derived from some source that is still unknown.

M. J. (Jr.)

14. Literature.[edit]

Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, of Art in Sardinia, etc., vol. ii., The Hittites ( 90); Sayce, The Hittites ( 88); Wright, The Empire of the HittitcsV) ( 84) ; Lantsheere, De la Race et de la Langue des Hittitts CQI); Jensen, Hittiter und Arntenier ( 98), and articles in ZDMG, 48.

1 The only bilingual as yet found is a small silver boss (of Tarkondcmos) containing a rather obscure Assyrian inscription accompanied by eight Hittite characters.


RV the HIVITE ( inn *.*., the Hivvites ; oi ey<MOl [BAL]), named in the lists of tribes driven out of Palestine by the b'ne Israel (Ex. 38 17, etc., also Is. 17 9 i 1 SHOT, where, however, Cheyne now holds the reading to be impossible).

1. Name.[edit]

The origin of the name and even its existence (see below) in the true text have been disputed (see HORITE). Some critics explain from the Ar. hayy, family, as if = people who live in Din, Bedawin encampments (see GOVERNMENT, 4, HAVVOTH- JAIR) whilst Wellhausen (CV/( 2 ) 343) suggests that the name is derived from Wn, Eve (on the meaning of which name see ADAM AND EVE, 36). It is at any rate possible that, if the reading in is correct, the early interpreters in the Onontastica were right in connecting it with >"|jn, serpent (OijpiwSes, uonrep o^cis : OS 16464, et c.), and that the Hivites were originally the Snake clan (so, doubtfully, Moore, Judg. 83_/^).

2. Location.[edit]

In Gen. 10 17 ( = i Ch. 1 15, Bom., euet [L]) the Hivites are reckoned among the sons of Canaan. Moore thinks they were a petty people of Central Palestine (Judges, 79) ; but, if so, the textual and critical difficulties in passages which would otherwise be of value, render it impossible to fix upon their locality.

In Josh. 7 the Gibeonites are spoken of as Hivites ; cp 11 19 the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon (< BAF om. ; cp Bennett, SBOT). As we know, GIBEON [^.f.] remained for a long time in the possession of non- Israelites, but whether they were Hivites, Horites (as (gBAFL suggests), 2 or Amorites (cp 2 S. 21 2) is un certain. ( may, however, be right in reading Horite for Hivite in Gen. 342 (see SHECHEM b. Hamor ; cp HORITE), and the same emendation is required in 862 (see ANAH, BASHEMATH, ZIBEON).

Another error occurs in Josh. 11 3, where the Hittites must certainly be referred to in the geographical loca tion, under Hermon in the land of Mizpah ; the Hivites (om. < A ) and Hittites, as <@ B shows, have acci dentally exchanged places (cp Meyer, ZA TW 1 126, Bu. Ri. Sa. 81 n. , Moore, Judg. 81 ; see HITTITES, 4). So again in Judg. 83, for the Hivites who dwell in Mt. Lebanon, etc., and who are named after the Zidonians, we should most probably read Hittites (cp Moore, I.e. ). It is difficult to decide whether Hivites in 2 S. 24? (evet [L]) is correct. The cities of the Hivites and the Canaanites are enumerated after Zidon and Tyre, and by adopting the reading Hittites (so Pesh. ) the geographical details will agree substantially with the above-quoted passages. On the other hand, the words in question may be a gloss based on the lists in Ex. 3 8 etc. , and it is noteworthy that the Pesh. goes a step further and adds Jebusites. s. A. c.

1 Read inn for Bnit.l (BNAQ oJ evaioi), with Lowth, Lag., etc. (cp RVmg.). Cheyne now reads Bnnn = Bnjri (see GIRSHITE).

2 Read Trpbs TOV \oppaiov (in sing.). Vg. ad eos is either a corruption from ad ha>(os, or points to the reading c^ 1 ? which is perhaps the more probable alternative.


Opm), i Ch. 817 RV, AV HEZEKI.


(npm), Zeph. li AV, RV HEZEKIAH.