Encyclopaedia Biblica/Jokneam-Joshah

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


(DW|T, rather DWp\ Jikneam, as if the (divine) Kinsman (?) makes, or acquires ; We. HeiJ.W 4, compares eKNlB&Aoc> the name of a king of Tyre, Jos. c. Ap. I 2 i ; (6KN&M [AL]). 1

i. A town of Zebulun (Josh. 19 n, teK/J-av [B]), reckoned by P as Levitical (Josh. 21 34, ^aav [B], eKva/j. [A]). It was also a royal city of the Canaanites (1222, ifKOyU. [B], -fj./jiafj. [L], isKovafj. [A]) ; Thotmes III. claims to have taken it in his victorious campaign against the upper Rutennu (WMM As. u. Eur. 393). The city was situated in the Carmel district (1222), to the E. of a torrent -valley (Sm ; 19u). We may probably identify it with the CYAMON \_q.v.~\ of Judith 7s, and both with the Tell Kaimtin, on the E. side of the Wady el-Milh, at its mouth as it enters the plain of Es- draelon, to which Eusebius and Jerome refer as Kafj.fji,uva, Cimona (see CAMON). The position is conspicuous and important, commanding the main pass from the western portion of Esdraelon to the more southern plain (Rob.). On Jokneam in i K. 4 12, AV, see JOKMEAM.

2. The Jokneam referred to above is called by way of distinc tion, Jokneam in Carmel (Josh. 1222). It follows that another Jokneam must have existed elsewhere. Probably it lay in the hill country of Judah, JOKDEAM (q.v.) in Josh. 1656 (letcvaan [L]) being wrong in the third letter.

1 On the forms cp Rob. BR, 4 115.


(] J |V ; leiAN, BD and in i Ch. L ; in Gen. 25 2 A (see Swete) ; in v. 3 A b D (iez*.N [A*]); I6KC&N [A in i Ch.], ieKTAN [E and L in Gen.]), a son of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 25 2/. [J], i Ch. 132).

Interpreted of a tribe Yakis in Yemen by Arabian genealo gists (see Osiander, ZDMG 1031). Glaser (Skizze, 2453) compares names like Wakasa in S. Arabia. Tuch's identification with Joktan (Gen. 1026) is attractive, but the change of B into y is hard to explain. p. jj


(JDj; ieKTAN [AEL]=|OJ5J), younger son of Eber, and father of thirteen sons or peoples, Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal or Ebal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab (Gen. 10 25-50 = i Ch. 1 19-23). Probably there were originally only twelve in the list (cp Israel, Ishmael, and see GENEALOGIES i., col. 1661, n. 2).!

Joktan is the assumed ancestor of the older Arabian tribes as distinguished from those later tribes which were more closely related by origin and perhaps by language to the Israelites. The Arab genealogists identify the name with that of Kahtan, an ancient southern Arabian tribe well known to themselves (see GENEALOGIES i. , 2). But this identification has no historical value. The name Joktan may indeed be simply an artificial name, devised for the younger son of Eber. When we look at the names of the Joktanites, we notice that two of them (Sheba and Havilah) occur in the list of Cushites. This simply arises from the fact that the names of the Cushites and the Joktanites come from different documents (P and J respectively), re flecting, perhaps, different political circumstances and tribal relations. It is difficult to explain all the Joktanite names. The very first (ALMODAD) is among the most obscure ; the name seems Sabaean. The limits of the Joktanites (Gen. 10 30) are also matter for discussion (see MESHA, SEPHAR).


PNO|T ; for attempted explanations see Wetzstein in Del. JesaiaW, 703 ; Olsh. LB 624).

1. A city in the lowland of Judah, mentioned between Mizpeh and Lachish, Josh. 15 38 ; either miswritten for Eltekeh, or a corruption of Jerahmeel, from which indeed Eltekeh may also come (cp ia/cape>)A [B], but AL iex^")^)- Cp JEKUTHIEL.

2. The name given by AMAZIAH (y.v.) to a place in Edom called the Cliff (y^Dn) which he had captured, 2 K. 14? (<ca0or)A [BL], ieK0o)A. [A]) ; it is the rock, or cliff, of Kadesh- barnea which is meant. Hale>y seeks to illustrate it by 2 Ch. 25 14, where Amaziah is accused of having bowed down before the gods of Edom, and extracts from it the meaning Yakt is God (Etutfes dedifes a M. le Dr. Leemans, 134). No such Edomite deity as Yakt is, however, known. The name is corrupt. Joktheel should probably be Jerahmeel, for the battle was in the valley called Itaintnelah., or rather Jerahmeel (see SALT, VALLEY OF). On the ragged spur of the north-easterly mountain -range, from underneath which the fountain of Kadesh issues, there must have been a fort. This fort Amaziah captured and named Jerahmeel, because of the crowning mercy which he had received. It is true, the place is commonly (see e.g. Kittel, Hist. 2289), identified with Petra ; but this must be an error, as Ki. in his commentary has shown. See SELA. T. K. C.

1 as represented by some MSS restored the normal number by leaving out Obal in Gen. and Jerah in Ch. The former omission has some plausibility (see EBAL, 2).


(IOJANOY [WH], -NNOY [Ti.]), Jn.l 4 2 ; RV John. See JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, i, and cp BAR-JONA.


PW, 27 44 46; icoNAAAB [BNAQL], abbrev. from^ TjirP Yahwe is munificent, cp Nedabiah, Abinadab, Amminadab).

1. Son of Shammah and nephew of David, who displayed his subtlety in advising his cousin Amnon how to entrap his half-sister Tamar ; 2 S. 13s ff. (in v. 5 MT gives Jehonadab ; iwifadajS [B a|vid - lb ], -aft. [B* b v. 3, B v. 5], in w. 3 5, luvadav [L]). See JONATHAN (4).

2. Son of Rechab and presumed author of the rules which bound the Rechabites, Jer. 3568^: (luvadav [X] in v. 8 ; luvad [Q*] in v. 16). Jonadab in MT only in w. 61019; elsewhere Jehonadab. It is usual to identify this Jonadab with 3. The true father of the Rechabites, however, was of older date. See RECHAB.

3. EV JEHONADAB, b. Rechab, an abettor of Jehu in his zeal for Yahwe, 2 K. 10 15 23. The clasping of hands in v. 15 implies partnership in the measures which followed (see HAND, b), though there are dif ficulties in the narrative. See JEHU ; ISRAEL, 31 ; RECHABITES.

4. The name of Saul s second son, according to (S B , i S. 31 2 (see ABINADAB). There is a similar confusion in s title of Ps. 71 [<5 70] (iuvada/3 [BN] a/Mvada/j. [R]). See JONATHAN, i.


(n3i\ 68, 'dove' ; originally, according to Robertson Smith [/. Phil. , 9 85], connected with totemism ; but many such names in modern Syria, at all events, are certainly due to fancy, and early corruption from jnji.T is possible ; ICON A [BAL], [in the title] ICONAC)-

i. A prophet, son of Amittai, 1 of GATH-HEPHEK (q.v. ), who prophesied the deliverance of Israel from the Syrian oppression (2 K. 1425). The reference to Jonah in Tob. 1448 (BA, followed by EV) is probably due to a scribe s error ; X reads Naoi>jU (Nahum) in v. 4. When we compare 2 K. 13 $f. it seems probable that Jonah delivered his prophecy in the time of Jehoahaz, the father of Jeroboam II. (Klost. ). Jonah seems to have spoken of a deliverer who would bring the Israelites out of the grasp of Aram (@ L /ecu e^riyayev avrotis), so that they would dwell in their tents as beforetime. The deliverer is not the Assyrian king Ramman-nirari III. (Duncker ; Whitehouse in COT 2 324 ; Wi. GI 1 154) though as a matter of history the victory of that king over Syria must have been a great relief to Israel but Jeroboam II. There is no probability that the Deuteronomistic writers of 2 K. 184-6, 14 25-27 knew any thing of Ramman- nirari ; but it is beyond doubt that they wished to do honour to Jeroboam. Cp Stade ZATIV, 85, p. 296. Hitzig and Renan think that the prophecy of Jonah is still extant in Is. 15 f. , but this is most improbable. See also JONAH [BOOK]. T. K. c.

2. Mt. 16 17. See BAR-JONA.

JONAH (BOOK)[edit]

1. Post-exilic.[edit]

It is by a strange inconsistency that the Book of Jonah ranks among the records of the Twelve Prophets, for the only oracle of Jonah which it professes to give is comprised in five words (Jon. 84, Heb. ). Obviously it must be compared, not with the accompanying prophetic books, but with narratives of episodes in the lives of prophets, such as are found in i K. 17-19, 2 K. 4-6, and Is. 7:1-16, 20:36-39. The narratives referred to are based on traditional material, sometimes oral, sometimes written. Can we hope to find such in the Book of Jonah ? Unfortunately we cannot. The leading fact of the story - the journey of an Israelite prophet to Nineveh - is so surprising that only on good pre-exilic testimony could we be excused for receiving it. Such testimony, however, is wanting. No part of the book is pre-exilic ; indeed, except in glosses and in the psalm ascribed to Jonah there is no trace of more than one hand. 2

i. It is certain that, though the diction of Jonah is purer than that of Esther, Chronicles, and Daniel, it has some striking Aramaisms and other late words or forms. Pusey, it is true, has endeavoured to refute this argument ; but his opposition to the criticism of the other OT books prevents him from forming a just idea of the phases of linguistic development. The phase of Hebrew which meets us in the book of Jonah is not that of the eighth century (Konig) not that of Amos and Hosea. One need not lay any stress on "I^ ED, which, though more Aramaic than Hebrew, might perhaps have been used by the non-maritime Israelites before the Exile ;1 but such words and forms as these are conclusive as to the post-exilic date of the Book ; pnv (ii 2 ); nxnp (3 2 ); cj/a (3 7 ); hoy, to labour 1 (4io); 13-1 (4 1 1); njD(2i 46^); pVra (1 7 ); ^3(1 12); |3t? (4 10). nBtyJV (1 e) and ITBJ in (4 8) are designedly omitted.2

1 Winckler AOF 2262 has suggested that the words ben Amittai in 2 K. are an interpolation from Jon. 1 1 ; but the double description is unobjectionable (see i K. 19 16).

2 Linguistic and other arguments have convinced an American Rabbi that the original Book of Jonah, which he thinks that he has disengaged from the additional matter, was much shorter than the present one, and that it may have been of the age of Jeremiah (Kohler, Theol. Rev. 79, pp. 139-144). His method, however, is arbitrary, and linguistically there is no distinction between the original Book and the inserted matter. W. Bohme also denies the unity of authorship (ZA T\V 7 224-284 [ 87]). He presents us with two distinct works on the story of ^Jonah, which have been combined by an editor ; he further recognises the hands of a supplementer and of a glossator. Bohme s argument is much more elaborate than Kohler s, but is hypercritical. He greatly exaggerates the critical importance of the inconsistencies, which permit us to speak of glosses, but not of composite authorship (so Kue., Einl., 2426, 86). For an earlier attempt (by Nachtigall) to dissect the Book of Jonah, see Eichhorn s Allgemeine Bibliothek, 9 2, 221-273 ; Bertholdt, Einl. 2407-2412 ; and cp Kleinert (Comm. 19), who is willing to admit that a later writer (temp. Ezekiel) may have based his account on two distinct traditional narratives.

2. The writer's conception of pre-exilic prophecy is opposed to the facts of prophecy gathered from the works of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. He imagines that revelations were, to prophets of the eighth century, as objective, as external, as they were to Zechariah. Doubtless it suited his purpose (which we shall study presently) to represent Jonah as seeking to evade his mission ; but he could not have done this had he lived in the age of Amos and Hosea. (The story of the disobedient prophet in i K. 13 is also too peculiar to be pre-exilic.) He assumes too that Jonah would have been surprised at the non- fulfilment of a prediction a surprise which there is no reason to suppose such a result would have awakened in Hosea, though certainly that prophet would have been very much surprised at the conversion of the arrogant Assyrians.

3. The writer s explicitly universalistic conception of religion and morality (cp 4n with Ps. ZQ6[j]b) is not in harmony with the prophecy of the eighth century.

4. His imitativeness is equally striking; cp e.g., 3:9 with Joel 2:14; 42 with Joel 2:13 and Ex. 34:6; and the story of Jonah under the kikayon (see below, 5) with that of Elijah under the broom-plant in the desert (i K. 19:4+).

5. The mention of Nineveh as a city of the past (nrrrr fnTJlt 3:3), with details implying that the readers did not know much about it, is significant.

6. Note also the patent improbabilities of the story. A prophet of the time of Jehoahaz banishes himself from Yahwe's land in order to divest himself of his prophetic character (contrast Am. 3:8). In order to go to Tarshish he proceeds, not to Tyre, but to the comparatively unimportant seaport of Joppa. He is swallowed up by a great fish, and remains three days in the fish s belly. He comes out alive (we are not told the place of his landing), and ventures among the fierce Ninevites without a companion or interpreter, believing that he will have more influ ence on them than their own prophets and teachers. We are not informed what the offence of the Ninevites was, nor as to the name of their king. The narrator assures us, however, that king and people turned to God (contrast Nah. 3:14), and so escaped the threatened destruction. Last, not least, we have the singular episode of the plant which came up in a night and vanished in a night (lit. son of a night ).

2. Class of literature.[edit]

The Book of Jonah, then, being post-exilic, to what class of literature does it belong? Obviously it is a Midrash - i.e. , an imaginative development of a thought or theme suggested by Scripture, especially a didactic or homiletic exposition, or an edifying religious story. 3 Tobit and Susanna are universally admitted to be such Midrashim ; Jonah should be added to the list. As such it is not deprived of value for historical purposes. For, as Kuenen long ago pointed out, 4 the Books of Jonah and Ruth are records of a current of thought among the Jews opposed to that identified with the name of Ezra. That great reformer, and the men of his school, based their system on the recognition of a real and permanent difference between Israel and the heathen, and even psalmists of the post-exilic period spoke sometimes as if the nations were necessarily wicked because non-Israelites. Against this the author of Jonah enters a protest. The scene of the prophet under the kikayon is specially introduced to check Jewish arrogance, and the whole course of the previous story leads to a fairer view of the nations. Indeed, the writer partly explains the non-fulfilment of prophecies against the heathen (which doubtless puzzled some of his contemporaries) by the readiness of the heathen to repent. One might even infer from the story that he placed the heathen morally and religiously above his own people. Jonah begins by stifling the voice of conscience, and afterwards both expects and desires Nineveh s destruction. No epilogue tells us of any change in the prophet s feelings towards the heathen. 1 The Phoenician mariners, on the other hand, fear the great God of the Hebrews (Jon. 1:9-10 ), and the people of Nineveh at once repent on hearing the prophetic announcements (Jon. 3:6-9). We are reminded of Lessing's Nathan the Wise, and of a more ancient and venerable story (the Good Samaritan).

1 SS read nij BD for niob in Is. 2 16 ; but this is hardly the best critical emendation.

2 Both words are plainly corrupt. Read for the former atJ nn (or 3B>rr), and for the latter "ins S ( it came to pass at dawn, when the sun rose ).

3 Dr. Introd. 497 ; cp We. ProL(^ 227 /. (chap. 6, end).

4 Rel. Isr. 2243/; Ond.P) 2 412.

3. Problems of the book.[edit]

This theory has excellent points ; but it does not do justice to the entire problem. If the hero of the story is merely a type of the too exclusive contemporaries of the writer, why is he called Jonah? why is he made a prophet ? and why is he swallowed up by a fish ? These questions are to a large extent answered by the symbolic theory.

1. The hero of the story is called Jonah, not primarily because an early narrative mentions a person of this name, but because a custom was springing up of calling Israel, symbolically, a dove. The earliest trace of this is in Ps. 68:13 [14], where the people of Israel, delivered by its God from the powerful kings of Caanan, and enriched with their spoil, is called a dove 2 whose wings [God] will cover with silver and her feathers with gold. S Elsewhere the faithful community personi fied wishes for itself the wings of a dove, not for their beauty, but for their swiftness and for the unerring instinct which leads the doves to their retreats (Ps. 55:6-8 [7-9]).

2. Jonah is made a prophet, because Israel was called upon to prophesy. * The Prophecy of Restoration said that all Zion s children would be Yahwe's disciples i.e. prophets (Is. 54:13 ; cp 50:4) and tnat the duty of the prophetic Servant of Yah we was to make known the true religion to the nations (Is. 424 49:6), for which purpose he was specially endowed (Is. 49:3; cp5(>4). It is true, there was a historical Jonah who prophesied, and who, by an interesting coincidence, is called Yahwe s servant ( ~3J?, 2 K. 14:25; cp Jon. 1:9 , oouXos Kvpc ou e-yw et/ou) ; but this was not the fundamental point with the late narrator, whose mind was absorbed in symbolism. It is also to be observed that, according to II. Isaiah, the 'servant of Yahwe' would not draw back from his work (Is. 50:5). The psalmists, too, bring Israel's deliverance into connection with the spread of true religion (see Ps. 22:26-27 [27-28], 96-100), and one of them makes the true Israelite promise to speak of God s precepts (like Jonah) before kings (Ps. 119:46). _

3. Jonah is swallowed up by the sea because this was a common poetical phrase for the danger of destruction which repeatedly beset Israel (see Is. 43:2, Ps.18:15 [16] 32:6 42:7 [8] 66:12 69:12 69:1-2 [2-3]. 74 [15] f. 124:4y; Lam. 3:54). And the purpose of the whole story, according to the symbolic theory, is, that Israel, called to preach to the nations (a touching antedating of II. Isaiah s revelation), evaded its duty, that God punished Israel by exile, but turned the punishment to Israel s good, and that Israel afterwards took up its neglected duty, but in an unloving spirit which grieved its patient teacher, the all-merciful God of the whole human race.

1 The omission of an epilogue was every way advisable, (i) If Jonah was symbolical, it remained to be seen whether those who were symbolised would amend their ways or not. (2) Epilogues are apt to weaken the effect of a work of art (as in the case of Job).

2 Symbolical designations of peoples are in the manner of this psalmist (see Ps. 68 30 [31]).

3 Point nsrp, and for pin p^TS read simply pina (Che. PS. (2i).

4 In later times Jonah or Dove became a standing title for Israel. Both (5 and Tg. recognise the people or the congregation in the n:V of Ps. 56 i. Cp Talm. Bab. Gittin, 453, etc., and the Midrash on Cant. 2 14 4 i ; also the Piiittm in the Jewish Passover Service, based on the midrashic explanation of the Song of Songs (especially the first, Festival Prayers, de Sola s ed., 1 97 ).

4. The great fish.[edit]

The theory here described is a great advance upon the preceding one, and much credit is due to Kleinert (1868) and J. S. Bloch (1876) for applying the key of symbolism to the narrative more fully than any previous writers. But the hesitation of critics to adopt it indicates that there is some serious defect in it. Where it fails is in its treatment of the story of the great fish. It is a mistake to say that Jonah's adventure in the sea is but a very subordinate feature (Kalisch, Bible Studies, 2209). On the contrary, it is the turning point of the whole narrative ; Yahwe prepared the great fish to be an instrument not only of preservation but also of moral discipline to the disobedient prophet. We must there fore supplement the key of symbolism by that of mythology.

The earlier critics (e.g., Eichhorn) were not wrong in seeking for parallels where they could at the time most easily be found, viz. in Greek mythology. That Andromeda was in peril from a sea-monster on the rocks of Joppa, gives, however, no- real help ; the myth may rather be regarded as an aetiological one for Joppa (Joi HA, 3); and only very moderate requirements can be satisfied with the parallel of the story of Hesione. F. C. Baur went to the right quarter when he took a hint from Berossus (Cannes) ; but Jonah neither was, according to the story, nor could conceivably have l.een, represented as a fish- god, which is also an objection to Trumbull s original use of DAGON [?.v.] and Cannes in JBL 11 ( 92), Pt. i. Quite recently Ball (PSSA), Konig (Hastings DB 2747/5), and some less accredited writers, have supposed a connection between the mention of the great fish and the fact that the Assyrian ideogram for Nineveh implies the explanation fish-dwelling (Sayce, Hibb. Lect. 57 ; but cp Hommel, PSBA, 99, Assyrio- logical Notes, 42).

Apart from other objections, however, (i) there is no trace of the writer of Jonah having been a man of learning, and (2) criti cism should group, not isolate, narratives, phrases, or other data which may refer to folklore. We have many references to the dragon-myth in the OT, and it is quite easy to regard the great fish as a degenerate dragon ; whereas fish-myths are, naturally enough, unrepresented. K6nig even illustrates the sojourn of Jonah in the belly of the fish by the descent of the dove Semiramis from the fish-woman Atargatis or Derceto.

That critics should look everywhere except in the right place for the origin of the Jonah story is one of the many proofs that the reproaches addressed to us by Winckler are not wholly unjustified.

Tylor saw much more clearly than most contemporary critics when he pointed out that the widely-spread nature-myth, of the dragon lies at the root of the apologue of Jonah. 1 But it was left for the present writer, in 1877, to combine the theory of Bloch with that of Tylor, and to show how indispensable each was to a due comprehension of the narrative. In details both theories admitted of improvement, by the help partly of biblical exegesis, partly of Assyriology. The writer also pointed out that the myth of the dragon or sea-monster is preserved, not only in the story of Jonah, but also in fragmentary allusions to Kahab, the leviathan, and the tannin in the Books of Job and the Second Isaiah (cp DRAGON). The only error (an error into which G. A. Smith seems to have fallen in Twelve Prophets, 2524) was in not distinguishing sufficiently between the dragon of the subterranean and the dragon of the heavenly ocean. It is the dragon of the subterranean ocean which (at Yahwe s command for he has been subjugated by Yahwe) swallowed up Jonah ; or, to pass from the myth to its application, it is the all-absorbing empire of Babylon which swallowed up Israel not, however, to destroy it, but to preserve it and to give it room for repentance.

The present writer also indicated the link between the story of Jonah and the original myth.

That link is to be found in Jer. 51:34-44, 'Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon has eaten and discomfited me (i.e., Israel); he has set me as an empty vessel, he has swallowed me up as the Dragon 2 (| 3B3), he has filled his belly with my dainties ; he has cast me out. And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and bring forth that which he has swallowed out of his mouth'. Of course, it is only a shrivelled-up myth that we have before us. Bel, who in the Babylonian story is the opponent of the dragon, has now become identified with that monster, and (as the destroying drag-on) is for a time successful. Bel, or the dragon, has in fact, as we have seen already, become a symbol of the Babylonian empire and of its head Nebuchadrezzar, who thought to bring Israel under his own power, but whom Jeremiah (27:6) distinctly calls Yah we s servant (i.e. , commissioned agent). For another instance of a story ultimately based on mythology, we may venture to refer to ESTHER (q.v.).

It is strange that Simpson (The Jonah Legend, 99), though he refers once to the Babylonian Tiamat legend, should so completely miss its significance as to make the stretching out of the slain monster s skin support his theory that the story of Jonah sprang out of a ceremony which was acted at a rite of initiation (perhaps into a priesthood). Criticism and archaeology seem here to be parted.

1 Primitive Culture, 1 306 ; cp Early Hist, of Mankind, 336 f.\ Waitz, Anthrop., 6670; de Gubernatis, Zoological Mythology, 2390.

2 Or as a dragon. Mythical dragons (plur.) are referred to in Ps. 74 136 Job9i3: helpers of Rahab. The singular, however, is more obvious. tyi3, belly occurs only in Jer. 51 34 ; cp karXds it, her (Tiamat s) belly, in the account of the fight between Tiamat and Marduk (Del. WtUtcktff. 44 106).

5. The plant.[edit]

The story of the wonderful plant, which contrasts with Elijah's perfectly natural desert plant in i K. 19:4, has quite a different origin, being obviously the product of the fancy of an individual. The name jvp p is probably connected with the Assyr. kukkanitum ( ^pj) ; this designates some garden-plant, the precise nature of which is unknown (for another such Assyr. plant-name in Hebrew see HABAKKUK). If the mention of the booth (4s) belongs (as it probably does) to the original narrative, we can hardly help agreeing with Tristram that some kind of gourd is meant, gourds being commonly used for shading arbours. If, however, the narrator mentioned only the plant, we may not unreasonably fix upon the Ricinus communis, L. (see GOURD). In either case, the growth of the plant has been super - naturally fostered.

We may compare the plant with the carob-tree (see HUSKS) which bore no fruit for seventy years as a sign to Honi Hame agel that he had really slept seventy years, and which so proved to him the credibility of Ps. 126 i (see Talm. Bab. Ta dnlth, 230).

On the other hand, folklore is certainly present in the story of the voyage.

Jonah, revealed by the lot as the guilty cause of the ship s danger, and thereupon thrown into the sea, is the counterpart of Mittavindaka, the son of a merchant of Benares, who is put out of the ship in which he has embarked as the spoiler of its luck, but not so roughly as Jonah. 1 He answers equally to the merchant in the Roman folk-tale of the Pot of Rue, 2 and the same traditional idea is at any rate presupposed in the classical passages (e.g., Horat. Od. 826-30) quoted by Kalisch (Bib. St. 2 162, n. d). Primitive superstition has also supplied a detail to chap. 3. The Persians are said to have made their horses and draught-beasts join with them in the rites of mourning for Masistius (Herod. 9 24). But the Assyrians in Jonah go beyond the Persians ; they make their animals abstajn from food like themselves to propitiate Yahwe. This may imply the Jewish idea of the depravation of animal nature (Gen. 6:1-2, ; cp Is. 11:6-8). For this Whitley Stokes has produced a parallel in mediaeval Irish literature. 3

Into the question of editorial alterations we cannot enter at length. The attempt of Bohme to distinguish four strata in the Book of Jonah has been already referred to (col. 2561, n. 2) ; it carries us beyond the evidence. But a few minor interpolations or insertions may safely be allowed, in addition to the great one in 2:1-9.

1 Jona c. i u. Jak. 43 9, by E. Hardy (ZDMG 50 153). In the Buddhist story it was not a storm, but another unknown power which hindered the progress of the ship. The guilt of Mittavindaka was caused by his disobedience to his mother. In almost the same words as those of Jon. 1:8, the mariners obeyed the law of self-preservation. Mittavindaka was put out upon a raft, and the ship pursued its course.

2 See Miss Busk s Folklore of Rome, 57-62. In this case the hero of the story is not actually thrown overboard.

3 Lebar Brecc, 259, cited in Acad., isth Aug. 96, p. 155.

  • The compound divine name Yahwe Elohim (4 6) is due to an

editor. His object was to show that the Yahwe who prepared the gourd was the Elohim who prepared the worm (4 7). It is true, this was very unnecessary with the clear statement of 1 ic. Cp Gen. 24-8 as we now have it.

5 Kohler, Theol. Rev., 79, pp. 140 143.

6. State of the text.[edit]

That chap. 4 has been touched by scribes or editors, is obvious (see especially Wi. AOF2 z^f.).* It is not impossible that the detail of the booth (v. 5) is an addition, and that it is connected with an alteration in the prophetic announcement of Jonah (so K. Kohler). According to the MT of 3:4 Jonah cried and said 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown'. LXX, however, gives three days instead of forty as the interval allowed, and though this reading may conceivably be an error produced by the mention of three days journey in v. 3, it is also possible that it may be correct. The story is constructed for effect, and the wonder of the repentance of the heathen Ninevites would be still greater if only three days were allowed as an interval than if there were forty. 5 A later editor, however, might prefer forty days, and alter the text accordingly, at the same time introducing the booth (see BOOTH) as a shelter for Jonah for the remainder of his time. This suggestion will seem to most not very probable. It was at any rate an editor that inserted the psalm in chap. 2, which is largely composed of reminiscences of the canonical psalms (31 42 88 107 115-116 120 142). It is, if faithfully interpreted, not more connected with the story of the prophet Jonah than the psalm of Hannah is with that of Hannah ; for it describes how pious Israel, when in danger of extinction, struggled with its des pondency. Not improbably the editor found a connection, apart from the purely external one, in the phraseology of v. 2b (out of the belly of Sheol, etc.). He may also have known that the Jonah of the book was, like JOB (q.v.), a 7WD or similitude.*

7. Other problems.[edit]

Three questions now occur. ( i ) Why was the book placed in the 'Twelve' (5w5e/ca7rpo07?ro^) ? (2) Was it previously an independent literary work ? (3) What is its date? A brief answer must suffice.

(1) The probability is that the closing words, assigned to God himself, brought the book into the prophetic canon.

(2) Budde (ZATW 12:40-43, [ 92]) conjectures that the Book of Jonah was originally a part of the Midrash (RV commentary ) of the Book of Kings, on which Chronicles is based (2 Ch. 24:27). The introductory 'And it came to pass' (\vi), and the absence of the descriptive statement who was of Gath-hepher (v. i), appeared at first sight to favour this. But the difficulty of imagining a reference to Assyria and still more to the destruction of Nineveh, has been well pointed out by Winckler (AOf 226i), who would prefer to give the Book of Jonah a place in that Midrash where the reign of Manasseh was treated. The Midrashic narrative of Jonah explained, according to Wi. , why the prophecy of Nahum was not strictly fulfilled. Wi. also thinks that the Jonah of the apologue is not the Jonah of Gath-hepher (see JONAH i. n. ). (Cp Smend, AT Rel.-gesch. 409 ; Konig, Einl. 77, p. 379.)

(3) The book is apparently referred to in Tobit (14:4-8; but see JONAH, i), and earlier still its existence is presupposed by the mention of the Twelve Prophets in Ecclus. 49:10 (see the Hebrew text). The considerations mentioned above justify us in assigning the narrative, without the psalm, to the half-century which followed the arrival of Ezra. The psalm, however, was probably written much later as late perhaps as the n^Bn ( 'prayer' ) in the appendix to Ecclesiasticus (51:1-12). If so, it is an interesting fact that the symbolic interpre tation of the book should have held its ground so long.

8. Late references.[edit]

Of later references to the book three have a special claim to be mentioned, viz., two passages in the Talm. and one in the NT.

In Ta'anith, 15,7, we are told that, in times of drought, it was usual for one of the leaders of the congregation to expound the teaching of Jonah, and in Meg. 10a, that Jonah was used as a lesson for the Day of Atonement ( a usage which still obtains in the liturgy of the synagogue). 2 The growing importance of the doctrine of repentance naturally sent Jewish teachers in search of illustrations to the Book of Jonah (see Briill, Jahrbb.f. jiid. Gesch. u. Lit. 3 158). The third passage is Mt. 12:39-41, which occurs again in a simpler and more probable form 3 in Lk. 11:29-32. The sign of the prophet Jonah means the striking fact that an Israelitish prophet proclaimed the purpose of God in a heathen city, and Jesus statement is that the men of Nineveh will rise up as witnesses (cp acaorrai Tes fiaprvpfs, Ps. 35:11, LXX) against his own generation and prove them guilty (KaTaxpi.vovcri.v looks like an inaccurate rendering of the Aramaic equivalent of y K>T ; cp Is. 54:17, where condemn is an impossible rendering). What the Ninevites testify is that they had not been repelled by the foreign garb and manners of Jonah but had believed him and turned to God. The divine Judge will then condemn the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus because they did not repent at a still greater 'sign' - the appearance among them of a more exalted personage than Jonah. It may be safely assumed that by the tune of Jesus the symbolic character of Jonah had been as completely forgotten as that of the good Samaritan must have been by those who first pointed out the traditional site of the inn of Lk. 10:34.!

The post-biblical legends respecting Jonah are uninteresting (see ps.-Epiphanius, DC I it. Proph. 10, and cp Kaiisrh, Bib. St. 2287-290). It was, however, an , appropriate fancy to place the tomb of Jonah on the hill called the mound of repentance, from which, the Moslems believe, Jonah delivered addresses to the people of Nineveh, to the E. of the probable site of that city. Nor must we omit to notice that Jonah and a fantastic monster (not a whale) occur several times in early Christian paintings in the catacombs at Rome.

1 So OPs. 127.

2 Jonah himself too is treated in this liturgy with a view to edification. His prayer out of the belly of the fish makes him an example of faith (Festival Prayers, de Sola, 5 168).

3 It may be regarded as critically certain that Mt. 1240 is a later insertion. It is the explanatory comment of an editor who required a sign of Jonah more marvellous, more overwhelming, than that which Jesus actually offered. The true sign of Jonah must have been one which the Ninevites at once re cognised. Cp Sanday, Batnpton Lect. on Inspiration, 419^ 435 > G. A. Smith, op. cit. 2 507^

9. Literature, etc.[edit]

For a full conspectus of works on Jonah see Kalisch, Bib. Si. 2, The Book of Jonah, 78 ; Chapman, Jonah, Smith s DBP) ; or Konig, Jonah, Hastings DB, vol. 2. Pusey s comm. should be read on the conservative side a side which is now seldom represented. Konig, Einl., 77, is of use for the linguistic argument, and his article, just referred to, comprises a rich collection of facts, though condensation would greatly have improved it. G. A. Smith, on the other hand (Twelve Prophets, 2 493^) gives much in a small compass, and is very judicious. On *5 s text see Vollers, ZATIV 3 219^ 4 iff. Kleinert s contribution to Lange s /yz <Ww,( Obadiah, Jonah, etc., 68) has an interesting introduction. J. S. Bloch, St. 2. Gesch. tier Sammlung der Alt. Heb. Lit., 7 5, and Che. Jonah, A Study in Jewish Folklore and Religion, in Th. : Rev., 211-219 ( 77), are referred to above. C. H. H. Wright, Biblical Studies, 86, argues very ably for the symbolic apart from the mythical theory. Nowack, Die kl. Proph., 97, gives a thorough exegesis, but is most unsatisfactory in his treat ment of the affinities of the story (175). Winckler, A OF 2 -zbojff. j (critically helpful, see above). On the plant called klkayon see I Tristram in Smith, DB, and cp GOURD. T. K. C.


RV Jonam (ICON AM [Ti. WH]), a name in the genealogy of Jesus; Lk. 830. See GENEALOGIES ii, 3-4


i. [B]) 1 Esd. 9:i = Ezra l0:6, JOHANAN, 2.

2. (iwa>/as [B], iiocos [A]), i Esd. 9 2 3 = Ezra 1023. See ELIEZER, 8

3. (twVa [Ti. WH]), Mt. 12 3 o, RV JONAH, q.v.

4. (oai/i/ou [Ti.], -a.vm, [WH]) Jn. 21 15-17, RV John. See BARJONA, SIMON PETER, JOHN [SON OF ZEBEDEE].


Oni -liT 1 and in 7, 8, 12-15, *7 jrOV ; 'Yahwe gives', 27 ; iooN&6&N. I60N&6&C)-

1. Eldest son of Saul, with whom he fell on Gilboa ; according to tradition, David's sworn brother, i S. 14:6 and often ; 2 S. 1:12-17 23 25-26, 44, 1 Ch. 8:33-34, 1 Ch. 9:40 [-fj., N] (in a genealogy of BENJAMIN [q. v. , 9, 11. J3] ; see JQR 11 110-113). There is a possibility that Jonathan and Abinadab, or Jonadab (see JONADAB, 3), are really the same person, 'Jonathan' and 'Jonadab' being liable to confusion (cp Marq. Fund. 25). Cp, however, MALCHISHUA. For the romantic story of Jonathan, see DAVID, SAUL; and on 2 S. \^ ff. see JASHER, BOOK OF. See also MEPHIBOSHETH. -*

2. b. Gershom b. Moses, 3 head of the priesthood at Dan (Judg. 1830 -fji [B]) ; Dan was one of the places (Abel being the other) proverbially renowned for the retention of old customs (2 S. 20:18, (5), and that the priests of Dan traced their descent from Moses is a fact of great interest. For Mosaic priestly families see GERSHOM, ELEAZAK, MUSHI.

3. b. Abiathar, mentioned along with Ahimaaz b. Zadok as David s messenger and spy during his contests with Absalom (2 S. 16:27-36, 17:17-20). He was the person who announced to Adonijah and Joab the tidings that Solomon had been anointed ( 1 K. 1:42+ , MT jruv ; twaca- Bav [A] in v. 42).

4. b. Shimei, the brother of David who slew Goliath (2 S. 21:21 = i Ch. 20:7). He is apparently the same as Jonadab ( i ). See GOLIATH.

5. b. Shage, the HARARITE \ij.v.~\, is enumerated among David's thirty in i Ch. 11:34 (jruv). In 28. 28:32 the name of Jonathan, without a patronymic, is immediately followed by that of Shammah the Ilararite. But as Shammah the Hararite has already been enumerated (2 S. 23:11 : see SHAMMAH), there can be little doubt (i) that in S. immediately after Jonathan s name the word -73 ought (with L) to be restored from Ch. ; (2) that in Ch. net? ought (with L. aa^aio.) to be read for nio (Bii. for the common <jc>, ffay-r} [A], awXa [BX]). Thus in both places Jonathan the son of Shammah the Hararite ought to be read. Marqunrt (Fund. 20 f. ) goes further in reading N^N in place of ncv (<5 [(r]o>Xa = N l ?K). Jonathan was the brother of Shammah in 2 S. 23 n.

1 'A place where an affair happened which perhaps never did happen' (Hasselquist Voyages and Travels, 126 [1766])

2. On Wi.'s view of Jonathan, see SAUL.

3 The MT inserts an n over the name to suggest that Jonathan was a descendant of the idolatrous king Manasseh. See T. Bab., Baba bathra, 109 b ; on LXX see Moore's note.

6. A scribe, temp. Zedekiah (Jer. 37 [<B, 44] 15 20 38 26, -ft [B everywhere]).

7. b. Kareah, a Judahite captain (Jer. 40s, (5 om. with some Heb. MSS).

8. b. Jada, the father of Peleth and Zaza (i C\\.Z^/.).

9. AV JEHONATHAN, b. UZZIAH, one of David s overseers (iCh. 27:25 ).

10. The kinsman (TH) of David, a counsellor (iCh. 2732). He is possibly to be identified with 4.

11. EV JEHONATHAN, a Levite, temp. Jehoshaphat (2Ch. 17s).

12. Father of Ebed (2), Ezra 86=1 Esd. 832.

13- b. Asahel, one of Ezra s opponents (cp Kosters, Het Herstel, 119 f.) in the putting down of the foreign marriages, Ezra 10 15 = i Esd. 914.

14. b. Joiada and father of Jaddua (see EZRA ii., 6b), Neh. 12 ii (iuiavada. [n c - a ]). See JOHANAN (2).

Two priests, temp. Joiakim (EZRA ii., 6 i, ii), viz: (15) Head of the Family of Malluchi, Neh. 12 14 (om. BK*A). (16) EV JEHONATHAN, head of the family of Shemaiah (Neh. 12 is; om. BN*A).

17. Father of Zechariah, a priest in the procession at the dedi cation of wall (see EZRA ii., 13^), Neh. 1235 (iwavav [BK*]).

18. The Maccabee, son of Mattathias (i Mace. 2s, noi/afty? [*] 9 19 etc., ia>i/a0T)s [A 10 59, 2 Mace. 8 22 (A)], ivaQav [V*ll37] see MACCABEES i., 5. In i Mace. 25 he is surnamed APPHUS (aan-^ous [KV], crayons [A], apphus [Vg.], t-qnciOi.. [Syr.]) i.e., C13n, dissimulator.

19. Son of Absalom, sent by Simon the Maccabee to seize Joppa(i Mace. 13n); he is perhaps the brother of the Mattathias in 11 70.

20. The priest by whom the prayer was led when the first sacrifice was offered up after the return from the Exile (2 Mace. 1 23, itavaOos [Va]). See NAPHTHAR.

21. A member of the high-priestly family who sat in judgment on Peter and John (Acts 46). So D and other ancient authori ties (see Blass, and cp Nestle, Einfiihrung, 205). Cp Jos. Ant. viii. 4363, BJ ii. 12 s_/C and see ANNAS. Most MSS, how ever, have John (so RV). See JOHN, 6.


RV Jathan(i&6AN [BA], NAGAN [N]). brother of the Ananias, Tobit's kinsman, whose son the archangel Raphael, when in disguise, claims to be (Tob. 5:13 ).


(D^S n: V^ D prn ; vn-ep rov Aaov rov ano TUV ayiiav fxe/uaxpvfX/xcVou [BXRT] ; Of the congregation of Israel which is like a mute dove [Tg.] ; vurep TrepitTTepo? aXaAou jj.a.Kpv<TfLiav [Aq.], vjrep TTJJ Trep. iurep TOV <f>\i\ov auroO dmoa^ieVov [oym. ap. Eus. ; but see Field]; un-ep rrjs Trepio-rfpas? [Theod.]; it. T. n. TTJS fioyiAaAov KfKpvmt-tvtav [ed. quinta] ; pro columba muta, eo quod procul abierit David, etc. [J]).

A phrase in the heading of Ps. 56, still defended by Konig, 1 but most probably corrupt. Emending as in analogous cases we may read: for the Sabbath ; for the sacrifices.

rul" 1 ?!! AV upon Jonath, is probably a corruption of njtrtrtl-^y ( for the Sabbath ), or more strictly of the inter mediate reading riirar^V (EV upon Neginoth ; cpPs. 54yi); and D pm D*?N (RV Elem - rehokim), of D rnirr 1 ?^ ( for the sacrifices ). That n^D 1 ? (EV for the chief musician ) also = DTQlS, is no objection to this theory ; in the headings, as else where, dittography comes into play. The favourite modern view, however, is that C ? X should be pointed C7K (so Bochart), and the phrase explained to the tune of 'The dove of distant terebinths' Jewish tradition (see @, Tg.; cp JONAH ii..P 3, T) took the 'dove' to be the Jewish people. Arb 7i)v &yYiwv in LXX is difficult. Ba. refers to Lev. 1821, where the name of thy God becomes in TO ovofj-a. TO ayiov; Neubauer, more plausibly, thinks that read C^X, porch ; cp 2 Ch.158, the porch of Yahwe. More probably & read CtfS people, and took it for an explanation of DJV. Cp, however, Staerk, 2 A 77K12 136 [ 92].

T. K. C.

1 K. would explain, Columba (silentii = )silens peregrinorum locorum = inter et propter peregrines (Hastings DB 2 7476).


(IS* or Nia; ; lOTTTTH [BAL ; Ti. WH ; Jos. IOTTH] ; Phoen. S 1 ; Egypt. lapu [Maspero], Yepu [Vv MM] ; Am. Tab. Ya-a-pu, Ya-pu ; \s&. Yappu, Yapu}. The name and site of Joppa have never changed.

The biblical passages are :

Josh. 1946 [AV JAPHO], 2 Ch. 2 16 [15] Jon. 1 3 [urmji/ N*] ; Ezra 87; JOPPE AV, lEsd. 655; i Mace. 10 75^ [iwTnrr), V z: 75 and Va in v. 76] 11 6 [ICOTTTTT) Va] 1233 13 n 145 [ITTTTOC N*j 34 15 28 35 2 Mace. 4 21 [irnnriv A] 12 3 7 fi07nr(e)tTcu A, -TJTCH V in v. 3, V* in v. 7, men of Joppa ], Acts 9 36 38 42 f. 1658 2332115 i3f.

1. Earlier history.[edit]

There is no reference to Joppa in any early biblical writing ; but we know (Am. Tab. 21 4 32/1 ; cp 178 20) that Earlier an Egyptian officer guarded 'the gate of Gaza and the gate of Joppa' for Amen-hotep IV. The place occurs in the list of cities in Syria and Palestine conquered by Thotmes III. (RFC 1 ) 647, no. 62), and in the papyrus Anastasi I. , where its gardens with their blooming date- palms are specially mentioned. 1 The ruse, exactly like that of Ali Baba in the Thousand and One Nights, by which an Egyptian officer was said to have taken Joppa, forms the theme of an Egyptian folk-story. 2 It is no sport of the fancy, however, when Sennacherib tells us that he besieged and took Joppa, then a part of the dominion of Ashkelon (AT? 2 93). The notice is im portant. It is the only hint we have of the political connection of Joppa during any part of the pre-exilic period of the history of Israel. We may assume that throughout that period it was either Philistine or Phoenician. The circumstance that Joppa is nowhere mentioned in the pre-exilic biblical writings where the Philistines are referred to seems to justify us in suppos ing that during the nourishing period of the Phoenician cities its political connection was Phoenician, not Philis tine. 3 That it was ever in Israelitish hands, is not suggested even by P (Josh. 1946) ; it was Jonathan, or rather Simon the Maccabee, who first incorporated Joppa into the Jewish territory. In the meantime, however, had the Israelites no access to the sea by Joppa ? Did not Jonah, son of Amittai, go down to Joppa and find a ship going to Tarshish (Jon. 1 3 )? The reason why pre-exilic Israelites did not go down to Joppa (cp JONAH, BOOK OF) is that there was Philistine territory to be traversed before getting to Joppa. In post-exilic times, however, we do hear of timber being brought to Jerusalem from the Lebanon by ships which discharged their cargo at Joppa (Ezra 87), and accordingly the Chronicler (2 Ch. 2i6[is]) changes the indefinite ex pression (i K. 5 9 [23]), to the place that thou shalt appoint me, into to Joppa. 4 What the place re ferred to indefinitely by the older writer was, is un certain ; it may have been DOR [g.v.~\.

1 Chabas, Voyage cfun Egypticn, v-,of. ; Brugsch, Gesc/i. Aeg. 558.

2 Maspero, Contes populaires de lEgypte ancicnne, 149-160.

3 So Budde, Urgesch. 336, n. 2.

  • So RV, Ezra and Chronicles ; also Kau. HS. AV, less

correctly, renders to the sea of Toppa. 5 HG 137.

2. Later history.[edit]

In 148 B.C. Joppa was captured by Jonathan the Maccabee (i Macc. 10:76). To keep a coast-town like this, however, was difficult, owing to the mixed character of the population, and Jonathan's brother Simon had to recapture it about six years later (12:33-34 ). It was felt to be an important event, for never before had the Jews possessed a harbour on the Great Sea. 'And together with all his (other) glory', says the historian (1 Macc. 14:5), 'he took Joppa for a haven, and made it an entrance for the isles of the sea', i.e., he opened the door for commerce, and perhaps (as G. A. Smith thinks 5 ) for the propagation of the Jewish religion. Simon himself took a pride in his achievement, for he caused ships to be represented on the family monument at Modin (13:29-30).

For other references to Joppa, see 2 Macc. 12:3-7, 1 Macc. 13:11. Pompey, after capturing Jerusalem (63 B.C.), refortified Joppa, and annexed it to the province of Syria (Jos. Ant. xiv. 4:4). Sixteen years later it was restored to Hyrcanus (ib. xiv. 10:6); next, it was united to the kingdom of Herod the Great (ib. xv. 7:3), upon whose death it passed to Archelaus (ib. xvii. 114). On the deposition of Archelaus (6 A.D.) it was annexed, with the rest of Palestine, to the Roman province of Syria.

Joppa is mentioned several times in the Acts of the Apostles (9:36-43, see DORCAS; 10:5-23, 11:5, see CORNELIUS). No better place could be imagined for the vision assigned by the historian, rightly or wrongly, to Peter, which showed that Jews and Gentiles alike were admissible into the fold of Christ. The city, now fanatically Jewish, suffered terribly during the Roman war. It was surprised by Cestius Gallus, who massacred 8400 of its inhabitants (BJ ii. 18:10). Some what later, it was repaired by enemies of the Romans, and became a nest of pirates. Vespasian quickly took action, and captured and destroyed the city. The people had fled to their ships, but a black north wind (jU,eXa.//,/3<5po* ; cp WIND) arose, and the ships were dashed to pieces on the rocks (ib. iii. 9:2-4).

Later Joppa rose from its ashes. In the fourth century it became the seat of a bishopric. During the Crusades it was taken and retaken by Franks and Saracens, and fell into a state of ruin. According to Badeker (/W.( 3 ), 8) the construction of the stone quay dates from the end of the seventeenth century. That may be ; but Hasselquist, in 1751, found that it had lately been rebuilt by an Armenian from Constantinople, who also erected some stone houses and magazines on the shore. 1 These, he adds, give the place an appearance from the seaside, much preferable to the miserable prospect it formerly afforded. 1 In 1799 it was taken by the French under Kleber. It had already been surrounded by walls. 2 Fortifications were erected by the English, and afterwards extended by the Turks. Under the name of Yafa. (Jaffa) it is now an important town, partly from its trade, but still more from the large number of pilgrims passing through every year to Jerusalem ; the population is estimated (1897) at over 35,000.

3. Situation, etc.[edit]

Joppa is built on a rocky eminence 116 feet high, and its name probably means 'the conspicuous' 3 (cp JAPHIA ); on such a level beach the, smallest eminence is noticeable. It is only with qualifications that Jaffa can be called a seaport. Josephus (BJ iii. 9 3) remarks that by nature Joppa is harbourless, for it ends in a rough beach, straight for the most part, but the two extremities nearly converge, and here there are steep crags and rocks that jut out into the sea. In fact, the harbour is formed by a ridge of low and partly sunken rocks which run out at a sharp angle towards the NW. from the S. end of the town. Boats can enter it either by rounding the point or by a narrow break in the ledge, and even this by no means pleasurable entrance is often impos sible, the haven being (with some winds) more dangerous than the open sea. So Josephus truly states, adding that on the rocks of which he has spoken the chains wherewith Andromeda was bound are still shown, attesting the antiquity of that mythus. Pliny also states that in front of the city lies a rock upon which they point out the vestiges of the chains by which Andromeda was bound (HN 5 11) ; the skeleton of some marine monster was also shown (see JONAH ii. , 4). Certainly it is probable that the dangerous character of the haven of Joppa was accounted for in olden times by the presence of a dragon, just as a tawny fountain near Joppa was thought to derive its hue from the blood of the monster slain by Perseus. 4 The sea seemed more alive near Joppa than elsewhere (cp Jos. BJ I.e.], and the living power in certain waters was frequently held to be de rived from serpents or dragons. Some may have said that the dragon was actually slain, others that he was merely confined below the sea (cp DRAGON, 4).

Jaffa is beautiful when viewed from the sea, beautiful also in its surroundings. The orange gardens are modern ; but fruit has always been grown in abundance on this rich soil. All the Jaffa fruit has a high reputa tion, and, as agriculture and viticulture spread, other parts of SW. Palestine will vie with Jaffa. Antiquities are wanting. Dean Stanley s defence of the supposed house of Simon the Tanner (Sinai and Pal,, 277 /) is at least eloquent and chivalrous. T. K. C.

1 Voyages and Travels in the Levant (1766), 116 118.

2 These have since been razed.

3 Beauty is not equally plausible (cp JAPHETH).

4 WRSXel. Seta.P), 174.


(i"W; Furst, harvest-born, cp iTlV, early (i.e., autumn) rain ; but see below ; oyRA [B], ICORA [A], -pne [L]), a family in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9, 8c), Ezra2i8 = Neh. 7 24 (HARIPH) = i Esd. 5i6 (AZEPHURITH, RV ARSIPHURITH).

Harvest-born (cp ]nh, autumn ) for Jorah and Hariph is certainly wrong. The forms are parallel to Haroeh and Hareph in i Ch. 2$if., both of which (like REAIAH and possibly EI.I- HOREPH) come from Jerahme el. In ap<ret<j>ovp(i9 [B] of i Esd. 5 16 (see HARIPH) apo<ejt(|> = Hariph, and oup(e)t0 probably = Hurith, a variant to Hariph. See, however, Guthe (on Ezra- Neh.) ; E. Meyer, Entst. 144. X. K. C.


(nV), a Gadite; iCh.5i 3 (icopee [B], icopec [A], ico&peiM [L]). Jorai occurs among other corruptions of tribal names. See JORAH.


(D^T 1 , shortened from JEHORAM, g.v. Pinches and Hommel, however, compare Ai-rammu, an Edomite royal name read by Schrader and Bezold Malik- ram mu [Taylor Cyl. 254], Ai being viewed by them as = Ya ; cp Del. Par. 163 f. It is a question whether all these three names have not arisen out of Jerahme el).

1. SonofAhab; see JEHORAM, i.

2. Son of Jehoshaphat ; see JEHORAM, 2.

3. A Levite, i Ch. 2625 (DT, iwpofi [BAL]).

4. A doubtful reading in 28. Sio; see HADORAM, Toi.

5. One of the captains of thousands in i Esd. 1 9 (napa/j. [BA], iu)aj3a[L]), corresponding to JOZABAD (y.v., 5), chief of the Levites, in 2(jh. 869. T K C


(|T)!. for JTl! [Olsh. 215-], , O pA&NHC [<& ; also -avv-qs, -acos], -HC -QC [Jos.]), the chief river of Palestine. (See maps to GILEAD and EPHRAIM. )

1. Name.[edit]

The name was felt by the Hebrews to be an appellative ; hence in prose it almost always has the article. It is most probably of Semitic origin (though Wi. dissents), and may be connected with Syr. yarda 'a lake', Ar. warada to go down to water (of cattle), wird" 1 watering-place ; and hence we may explain pr as 'watering-place', 'ford'. x lapSavos [Iordanos] was a river in Crete (Horn. //. 7136, Od. 8392).

See further Ew. Hist. 1 245 267; Wi. AT Unters. 186, AOF 422. Of the two traditional explanations, one - that from TV. i to descend (cp OS 169 81 203 98) has found much acceptance, but we should expect rather the swift or sinuous stream to be the title of the Jordan. The other, from IX and jl, as if pT = JYlN meant either 'river of Dan' or 'the river which has two sources, Jor and Dan' (Jer. on Mt. 1613; cp DAN ii., 2), needs no refutation, though it is perhaps implied by <5 s iopSar);. By a coincidence the current Arabic name of the Jordan (es-Seri'a) means 'the watering-place', or the ford (another Serta, from which the Jordan is sometimes distinguished by the addition of el-Kebira the great, is the Yarmuk, see 6). The name al- Urdunn, however, is also known (see KampfTmeyer, ZDPV, 92, p. 27).

1 Since the above was written, the author has found that this explanation was first proposed by Seybold, MDPV, 96, p. loyC 261.

2 AV gives Jordan by (also, near) Jericho ; RV the Jordan at Jericho (cp Kara. lepei^w). Kautzsch (ffS) supplies gegeniiber (opposite). But in Gramm. 125 h he recognises that the genitive (irrr) is added to indicate a particular part of the Jordan. Dillmann paraphrases that part of the Jordan which touches the domain of Jericho.

2. References.[edit]

i. We now understand how P can use the expression inr jrv, the Jordan of Jericho 2 (Nu. 22:1, 26:3, 34:15, Josh 13:32 etc.), apparrently with a reminiscence of its original use as an appellative ( ford ). Probably the famous fords immediately opposite Tell es-Sultan are meant. In adopting the expression once, and once only, the Chronicler (i Ch. 6:63 [78]) is conscious that it needs a paraphrase ; he therefore adds on the E. of Jordan.

2. Another expression which may now become plainer is IT)!? 133 EV 'the plain (lit. circle) of Jordan', Gen. 13:10-11. (see LOT), i K. 7:46 (see ADAM, ZARETHAN). 2 Ch. 417, or simply 133:,, EV the plain (Gen. 13:12, 19:17, 25:28-29, Dt. 34:3, 2. S.1823), to which corresponds the phrase rj ireplx<>pos rov lopSdvov in the LXX and in Mt. 3:5 Lk. 3:3. The Hebrew phrase means, according to Buhl (Pal. 112), the middle and broader part of the Jordan valley from the S. end of the Dead Sea to about the Wady Ajlun (see GILEAD). This view is based on a comparison of Dt. 34:3( 'the circle, even the Plain of Jericho [the city of palm-trees], as far as Zoar' ) with 2 S. 18:23, i K. 7:46. In Dt. 34:3, however, the phrase 1 'the Circle' (nssn ; cp PLAIN, 4) certainly appears to have a narrower reference, and the words 133:1 in 2 S. 18:23 and pT,Ti333 in i K. 7:46 are with good reason suspected of corruption (see MAHANAIM, TEBAH). The primary meaning of the phrase 'the Circle of Jordan' was probably the district between Jericho and ZOAR [g.v.]. This suits not only Dt. 34:3 but also Mt. 3:5, where the phrase all the region round about Jordan (iracra. i) irepix- T - lopd. ) seems to mean the country near Jericho and the Jordan. 1

3. In Job 40:23 Jordan has been thought to be used as an appellative. Most critics (e.g. , Dillmann, David son, Duhm) render, He is careless though a Jordan break forth upon his mouth, explaining a Jordan to mean a violent outbreak of water. Considering that the context points to the Nile, this is hard doctrine, and if 1 Jordan were used as an appellative, it should mean ford. Hence Ley and Budde propose to omit JIT as a gloss, and Winckler emends it into -IN Nile (but whence comes p?). Certainly the Nile, not the Jordan, is to be expected, and perhaps we should read thus, jirn 13^ 3 naa\ he is careless though GIHON (i.e. , the Nile, || in:, i.e. , the Euphrates) overflow ; for v. 24 see Crit. Bib. ).

4. In Ps. 42:6(7) from the land of Jordan and the Hermonites is commonly thought to mean the neigh bourhood of Dan (Tell el-Kadi) or Caesarea Philippi (Banias), where the Jordan rises from the roots of Hermon (Kirkpatrick). This view of the text places v. 6 (7) in a very pleasing light, and adds a fresh and interesting association to the picturesque scenery of the Upper Jordan ; but it is of very doubtful accuracy. See HERMONITES, MIZAR.

5. On Jer. 12:5 the swelling (AV RV m e-, Ew. ) ; or the pride (RV) of Jordan, 1 see 6 and cp FOREST, 3 (c).

6. Josh. 3:15. Whether the passage of the Jordan was represented in the earlier form of the tradition as having occurred opposite Jericho, or at a point farther N. , such as the ford ed-Ddmieh (some 16 m. above the ford near Jericho), need not be discussed again (see JERICHO, 4, i). The latter view fits in better with the story of Jacob s migration as it now stands (Gen. 32 f. ) and with the direction given to Moses in Dt. 11 29 /. (see GERIZIM, if.). Still, whichever theory we adopt, it remains true that, if the reported passage of the Israelites occurred at harvest-time, it must have synchronised with the overflow of the Jordan. The circumstance that this river overflows the narrow strip of vegetation on each side of its channel at harvest time (i.e., at the latter end of March, cp i Ch. 12 15. Ecclus. 2426), is recalled to the mind of the reader that he may duly estimate the marvel which tradition has reported. 2

7. Passing over the references in the lives of GIDEON. DAVID (cp FORD), ELIJAH, and ELISHA, we pause at the deeply interesting scene of the baptisms of John in Jordan. It was to the reed-covered banks of this river that the one religious teacher of his time whom none, as Jesus implies (Mt. 11:7), could compare to a reed, summoned his penitents. To a modern observer, indeed, the scenery of the Jordan near Jericho seems the most appropriate that could have been chosen for those solemn events.

At the same time we must not be too sure that Jesus baptism occurred there. That John baptized at the great ford near Jericho, is likely enough. But that he also baptized at Beth-nimrah (the probable original of the readings Bethany and Bethabara in Jn. 1:28 ; see BETHANY, 2), and at AEnon, near Salim (Jn. 3:23, see SALIM), are facts by no means difficult to accept, considering that the new Elijah must have travelled about like the old. And we may reasonably suppose that the scene of Jesus baptism was in some district more convenient than that of Jericho for Galilasan pilgrims.

Without such inquiries as these, a critical geography of Palestine is impossible ; but the historical interest of the Jordan (in spite of the want of great events in political history connected with it) is not seriously affected by them. To us, as well as to Elisha, the Jordan is far more than Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, more even than the great river, the river Euphrates. T. K. C.

1 See Keim, Jesu von Naz. 1494 (ET2z3i^). In Lk. 83, however, a wider reference is possible.

2 On the legendary character of the narrative cp Wi., Gesch. 2io6f-

3. Physical features.[edit]

The physical interest of the Jordan is hardly inferior to the historical. It has been well said, 'There may be something on tne surface of another planet to match the Jordan Valley : there is nothing on this'. No other part of our earth, uncovered by water, sinks to 300 ft. below the level of the ocean. But here we have a rift more than 1 60 m. long, and from 2 to 15 broad, which falls from the sea-level to as deep as 1292 ft. below it at the coast of the Dead Sea, while the bottom of the latter is 1300 feet deeper still. 1 It was supposed by Burckhardt that the waters of the Jordan originally flowed down the whole course of the depression from the Lebanon to the Gulf of Akaba. This view, however, has been rejected by Lartet and disproved by Prof. Hull (see PFQ, 86, pp. 145/0-

'I am disposed to think', says this eminent geologist, 'that the fracture of the Jordan-Arabah valley and the elevation of the tableland of Edom and Moab on the E. were all the outcome of simultaneous operations and due to similar causes, namely, the tangential pressure of the earth's crust due to contraction the contraction being in its turn due to the secular cooling of the crust. As the land area was gradually rising out of the sea [at the close of the Eocene period], the table-lands of Judaea and Arabia were more and more elevated, while the crust fell in along the western side of the Jordan-Arabah fault ; and this seems to have been accompanied by much crumpling and fissuring of the strata. 2 From this time the basin of the Dead Sea must have been a salt lake, the level of which, however, must have varied greatly at different times. In evidence of this we find a succession of terraces of Dead Sea deposits extending around the basin of the sea and far up the Jordan valley.3 The present level of the waters of the Dead Sea having been reached at the close of the Miocene or the commencement of the Pliocene period, no material change can have occurred in the course of the Jordan during historical times. Cp DEAD SEA, 2.

1 GASm. HG 468.

2 PEFM Geology, loS/T

3 Dawson, Egypt and Syria, 106.

4 The source at Dan is mentioned by Jos. (Ant. v. 3i, viii. 84) as being that of the Little Jordan, eAao-o-oi/os lopSdvov, TOV juuxpoC lopSavov.

6 For the source of the Jordan at Banias, cp Tos. Ant xv 10 ^ BJ i. 21 3, iii. 10 7.

4. Upper Jordan.[edit]

The valley of the Jordan may be naturally divided into three parts :

  • (a) the Upper Jordan from the Hasbani to Lake Huleh ;
  • (b) from Lake Jordan Hilleh to the Sea of Galilee : and
  • (c) from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea.

(a) The reputed sources of great rivers in antiquity were often not the real ones. Though supposed to take its rise at Tell-el-Kadi 4 (see DAN) and Banias 5 (see CESAREA, 7), the highest perennial source of the Jordan is in the bottom of a valley at the W. base of Hermon, a short distance from the small town of Hasbeya (2295 ft.) and 12 m. N. of Tell-el-Kadi.

The fountain is in a pool at the foot of a basalt cliff; the stream from it, called Hasbani, flows through a narrow glen into the plain, and falls into the main stream about a mile S. of the junction of the Leddan and Baniasi. The relative size of the three streams Robinson thus estimates That from Banias is twice as large as the Hasbani ; while the Leddan ... is twice if not three times the size of that from Banias (BR 3 395).

The river then flows southward through the marshy plain for 6 m., and then into Lake Huleh.

Besides the streams mentioned a considerable stream comes down from the plain of Ijon, W. of the Hasbani ; and two large fountains (called Balat, and Mellaha), burst forth from the base of the mountain-chain of Naphtali. The Birket er-Ram (i.e., the ancient Phiala), which Josephus (2?/iii. 10 7) asserts 1 to be the source of the Jordan, is at the bottom of a deep basin resembling an extinct crater. According to local tradition, it occupies the site of a village which was submerged to punish the inhabitants for their inhospitality to travellers (cp SODOM AND GOMORRAH). With regard to the morass above Lake Huleh it is enough to refer to J. Macgregor s entertaining narrative, Rob Roy on the Jordan. That the Lake is not the Me-Merom (Josh. 11:5-7), as used to be supposed, may be taken as almost certain (see ZDPV 9 252 348 f. ; and cp MEROM, WATERS OF).

5. Middle Jordan.[edit]

(b) On issuing from Lake Huleh the river flows in a moderate current for about 2 m. On passing through Jisr Benat Yakub ( bridge of Jacob's daughters, see 7), however, the banks suddenly contract and become steep. The river now dashes along over a rocky bed in sheets of foam. Here and there the retreating banks have a little green meadow, with its fringe of oleanders (a characteristic plant) all wet and glistening with spray. Thus it rushes on, in its serpentine course, till, breaking from its rocky barriers, it enters the rich plain of Batiha, where on the left bank stand the ruins of Bethsaida [BETHSAIDA]. The river now expands, averaging some 20 yards in width. Across its channel here and there extend bars of sand, at which it is easily forded. At length the turbid stream reaches the still bosom of the Sea of Galilee, where, for a considerable distance, it is still visible. This gave rise to the Jewish legend (Ber. rabba, 4) that its waters and those of the lake do not intermingle. The fall of the river between Jisr Benat Ja'kub and the lake (a distance of only 7 m. ) is not less than 689 feet. The total length of the section between the two lakes is about n m. as the crow flies.

1 The statement is quite groundless.

2 See GASm. HG 483. The Jordan itself runs in too deep a channel to be easily useful for irrigation. But cp Merrill, PEFQ, 79, p. 140.

6. Lower Jordan.[edit]

(c) The Jordan between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea flows through a deep depression (65 mi. long) called in Arabic the 'Ghor' (i.e., bottom, depth, cavity, valley ), the ARABAH [q.v.], of the Hebrew Bible and the ai/Xuv of Greek writers (e.g., Diod. Sic. ii. 48 9). The Ghor is 3mi. wide at its northern end, but gradually expands till it attains a width of upwards of 12 mi. at Jericho. Down this broad valley the Jordan has worked out for itself a bed about 20 ft. deeper at the northern end, and 200 ft. towards the Dead Sea ; this bed varies from a quarter of a mile to two miles in breadth, and is known as the Z5r. Along its banks is that jungle of semi- tropical trees known in the OT as the Pride of Jordan. The Ghor itself is to a large extent of exuberant fertility.

On the E. side, N. of the Zerka. (see JABBOK), where streams abound, the productivity is great, and the traces of ancient canals S. of that river show that the land was in ancient times well cultivated. And why should not the desert once more blossom as the rose ? A number of the affluents of the Jordan would lend themselves admirably to the purposes of irrigation. 2 It is only at the southern end of the Ghor, for a few miles N. of the Dead Sea, that the soil is really sterile, being covered with a white nitrous crust, like hoar frost, through which not a blade of grass can possibly spring.

The Jordan issues from the Sea of Galilee, close to the hills on the western side of the plain, sweeping round the little peninsula. The fall of the river is at first 40 ft. per mi. ; but on entering the plain of Beisan it becomes only 10 or 12 ft. per mi. ; and farther S. only 4 or 5 ft. A short distance down are the remains of a Roman bridge, whose fallen arches obstruct the stream, and make it dash through in sheets of foam. Below this, says Molyneux, who surveyed the Jordan in a boat in 1847, are several weirs, constructed of rough stones, and intended to raise the water, and turn it into canals, so as to irrigate the neighbouring plain. Five miles from the^ lake the Jordan receives its largest tributary, the Serl at el-Menddireh 1 (the Hieromices of Pliny, the Yarmuk of the Talmud), which drains a large section of Bashan and Gilead. This stream is 130 ft. wide at its mouth. Two miles farther is the quaint structure (Saracenic, according to Porter) of the bridge of el-Mujami a. Here Molyneux found the river upwards of 100 ft. broad and 4 to 6 ft. deep.

As described by Porter, the ravine now inclines east ward to the centre of the plain, and its banks contract. Its sides are bare and white, and the chalky strata are deeply furrowed. The margin of the river has still its beautiful fringe of foliage, and the little islets which occur here and there are covered with shrubbery. Fifteen miles S. of the bridge the Wady Yabis (see JABESH-GILEAD) falls in from the E. A short distance above it a barren sandy island divides the channel, and with its bars on each side forms a ford ; on the western bank, in a well-watered neighbourhood, the site of SUCCOTH [q.v, ] has been placed.

About 9 mi. lower down, and about half-way between the lakes, the JABBOK [q.v.], the only other considerable tributary, falls into the Jordan, coming down through a deep wild glen in the mountains of Gilead. After this the jungle of cane, willow, and tamarisk along the banks grows denser, and the plain above more dreary and desolate.

As the river approaches the Dead Sea, the mountain ranges on each side rise to a greater height, and become more rugged and desolate. The glen winds like a serpent through the centre, between two tiers of banks. The bottom is smooth, and sprinkled on the outside with stunted shrubs. The river winds in endless coils along the bottom, now touching one side and now another, with its beautiful border of green foliage, looking all the greener from contrast with the desert above. The banks are of soft clay, in places 10 ft. high ; the stream varies from 80 to 150 ft. in breadth, and from 5 to 12 in depth. Near its mouth the current becomes more sluggish and the stream expands. Where the Wady Hesban falls in, Lynch 2 in 1848 found the river 150 ft. wide and n deep, the current four knots. Farther down the banks are low and sedgy ; the width gradually increases to 180 yards at its mouth ; but the depth is only 3 ft. Lynch adds that the extraordinary fall in the Jordan is accounted for by its tortuous course. In a space of 60 mi. of latitude, and 4 or 5 mi. of longitude, the Jordan traverses at least 200 mi. . . . We have plunged down twenty-seven threatening rapids, besides a great many of lesser magnitude.

1 Its name is derived from the Bedawln tribe called el- Menadireh Sari a being the Arabic word for ford or watering- place, etc. who graze their flocks in its valley and cultivate its slopes (Schumacher, Across the Jordan, 8).

2 Lieutenant Lynch made an adventurous boat-voyage in 1848 to survey the Jordan from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea.

3 Robinson, BRI^i ; GASm. HG 427 429. The origin of the name is unknown (but see Ritter, Pal. u. Syr. zbg/.). Not far off is a khan now n&med after the pit of Joseph.

7. Affluents and fords.[edit]

The four main affluents are the Yarmuk and the Jabbok on the E., and on the W. the Jalud passing Beisan, and the Fari'a rising not far from Shechem. The supply of these and other perennial streams, however, and fords, scarcely balances the loss from evaporation of the river. It is difficult to compute the total number of the fords. According to PEFM 2 79 225 385 8170 there are 50 fords in the 42 mi. of stream above Jisr Damieh, and only 5 in the 25 mi. below. Some of them have been historically important, e.g., Abara near Beisan (according to Conder, the Bethabara of Origen), Damieh on the road from Shechem to Gilead, and the ford of el-Hajla (see below). The bridge called Jisr Bennt Ya kftb may also "be mentioned (see 5) ; it was long the leading pass from Western Palestine to Damascus. 3 It is first referred to in 1450 A.D., but as early as the Crusades a Ford of Jacob (I adum Jacob, Will. Tyr. /to/. 18 13) is mentioned. The bridge was probably built during the fifteenth century, when the caravan road was constructed from Damascus to Egypt. At Makhadet el-Hajla, opposite the Roman Jericho, the annual bathing of the pilgrims takes place (see BETH- HOGLAH and cp Stanley, Sin. and Pal. 314^). There are two fords, one above and one below the bathing-place. They are much deeper than those higher up, and when the river is swollen they become impassable. On the bridges, see Merrill, PEFQ, 79, P- I38/

8. Climate.[edit]

The Jordan valley is a tropical oasis sunk in the temperate zone. It is possible to pass in the depth of winter from sleet and cold winds at Jerusalem to a delightful summer atmosphere (6o-8o" Fahrenheit) at Jericho. In summer the heat is equatorial. The climate of the shores of the Sea of Galilee, though enervating, is less trying ; Josephus's panegyric of the natural products of Gennesaret is well known (see GALILEE i., 4, end).

Josephus, however, does not mention the graceful papyrus (Cyperus papyrus) which flourishes, not only in the marshes of the Hiileh, butalso on the W. shore of the Sea of Galilee. Here too we find the nabk or dom tree (Zisyphus spina cliristi), a tropical tree, which abounds all along the lower course of the Jordan. Below the Sea of Galilee indigo is grown, and many trees unknown elsewhere in Palestine crowd the river-banks. In the five oases of the Dead Sea region many products of the tropic zone, including the zakkfitn, or false balm of Gilead (Balanites SEgyptiaca), the gorgeous scarlet Loranthus, the henna (see CAMPHIRE), and the Salpadora persica abound. Balsam (see BALSAM, 2) has long since disappeared ; but in the crusading age sugar was still grown at Jericho. On the rose of Jericho (Anastatica) see Tristram, NHB 477. The plane does not grow any longer at Jericho, but is found at Masada.

To boat voyagers the jungle of the Jordan affords a delightful spectacle of luxuriant vegetation (see FOREST, and cp Lynch, Narrative, 211-215), varied not seldom by tokens of the presence of wild animals.

'At one place', says Lynch, 'we saw the fresh track of a tiger on the low clayey margin (of Jordan), where he had come to drink. At another time a wild boar started with a savage grunt and dashed into the thicket ; but for some moments we traced his pathway by the shaking cane and the crashing sound of breaking branches'. 1 Evidently, however, it was a cheetah, not a tiger, that the voyager observed. The jackal, fox, hyaena, boar, ibex, leopard, and cheetah (the two latter both probably- called naj, see LEOPARD) may in fact easily be met with in the Jordan Valley.

How wonderful, too, is the bird-life of the Jordan Valley ! One often notices there Indian, and still oftener Ethiopian species. The butterflies, too, which hover over the flowers in winter are, like the flowers themselves, many of them of Nubian and Abyssinian types. What a garden all this favoured land must have been not merely in the time of Jesus but in the more remote age when the Yahwist (J) wrote the eulogistic description in Gen. 13 10 !

Literature. See Survey of Western Palestine, Flora and Fauna (Tristram, 89), Molyneux, Narrative and Official Reports ( 47) ; Lynch, Narrative of the U.S. Expedition ( 49) ; J. Macgregor, Rob Roy on the Jordan ( 70) ; Neubauer, Geogr. 29-31 ; Warren in Hastings DB ii. ; works of Robinson, Porter, Tristram, G. A. Smith. I /. T. K. C.


(itopiBoc [BA]), i Esd. 8 44 = Ezra 8 16 JAKIB, 2. RV has Joribus (so EV in i Esd. 9ig = Ezra 10 18 JARIB, 3).


( i oo pel M [Ti. WH]), a name in the genealogy of Jesus, Lk. 829. See GENEALOGIES ii. , 3/.


or rather, as in RV, JORKEAM (D^T), grandson of SHEMA (q.v. ), one of the sons of Hebron (i Ch. 2 44 , in b MT Dj^Pl see REKEM, 3). The readings of @ (lAKA&N, I6K. [B], lepKAAN [A], lepeK&M [L] suggest that this is the same name as that which MT of Josh. 15 56 (cp 5 B ) gives as JOKDEAM (q.v. ). There is no satisfactory explanation of Jorkeam ( pallor populi, Ges. Thes. , may serve as a warning to etymologists) ; and the name is most probably a cor ruption of ^NDrrv (see JERAHMEEL, 4). T. K. c.


i. i Ch. 124p3TV) AV. See JOZABAD, I.

2. i Esd. 863 (i<oera|3Sos [A]). See JOZABAD, 6.

3. i Esd. 929 (<ofa/3aSos [A]). See ZABBAI, i.


(io>cM>AT [Ti.WH]). Mt. 18, RV JEHOSHAPHAT [q, v. ].


(itoc&&lt;t>iAC [BA]), i Esd. 8:36 = Ezra 8:10, JOSIPHIAH.


(iHCOYt Ti -WH]), Lk. 8:29, AV, RV JESUS, 8. See GENEALOGIES ii. , 3-4


CHdooCHX [Ti.WH]) ,Lk. 3 2 6RV, the reading to be preferred to AV, JOSEPH (q.v.}. See GENEALOGIES ii., 3-4.


(pnyirV), Hag. 1 1 (etc. ) ; AV, RV JEHOZADAK; Josedec (icoceAeK), i Esd. 5:5 ( = Ezra 8:2), etc., AV ; RV JOSEDEK. See JEHOZADAK.


(SlpV ; on name see next article, i ), one of the constituent parts of Israel in its wide sense.

1. Earliest trace of name.[edit]

If Joseph was really called a tribe ( Nu. 13:11, P, j h), he differed considerably from the rest of the tribes. He ranked not only with Gad and Zebulun, but also with Jacob and the other ancestral heroes of Israel ; indeed he even stands apart from them. As a legendary hero, mainly, he is considered in the next article. Here Joseph is dealt with as a community.

With regard to the name something must be said on the theory of a connection with the place-name Y-sa-p-a-ra? no. 78 in Thotmes III. s Rtnu list. The question is, Can the interpretation of this as a transcription of 7NBD , first brought prominently for ward by Edward Meyer in 1886 (ZATW Gift ; cp 841 ff.) and by Groff (Rev. Egypt. 4 98 150 /.), 3 be regarded as made out? That a-ra may be 7^ is admitted : it is a regular and recurrent equation (e.g. , no. no ; Bai-ti-sha-ra). The difficulty, as Meyer admitted, is in the sibilant.

Egyptian 5 usually represents jy (e.g., no. 38; Sa-na-ma.= Shunem). The Semitic name would therefore be ^K SB" rather than 7XSD - Noldeke, accordingly, has suggested (ZA TW 8 45 n. 3 [ 88]) that the Hebrew name to be compared is rather Ishpah (njt? , i Ch. 8 16) which occurs in a genealogy of Ben jamin. 4

There has been a temptation to save the original hypothesis by adopting some conjectural explanation implying differences of pronunciation. 6

W. Max Muller 6 thinks it certain that the Rtnu list embodies names which the scribe had before him in cuneiform, and suggests that although he accommodated his transcription to Canaanite pronunciation where the word or its etymology was known to him, elsewhere he wrote s for iy and / for Q, following (probably) a northern (Mesopotamian) usage. The name we are considering might, on this theory, have been written in the source employed approximately Ya-a-si-pi-i-li.

Notwithstanding the prevailing tendency in the contrary direction 7 it seems for the present more prudent to abstain from making any use of the Meyer-Groff hypothesis. 1

1 The late passage where the word tribe is applied to Joseph is evidently out of order. There can be little doubt that the clue is to be found in the name Joseph in f. 7. Igal, son of Joseph (tpv p 7j<;p) should be Iga ... Of the sons of Joseph (rjD J37 XJS cp the suggestions of Di. ad loc.) ; v- 7 f- perhaps represents a MS which gave the tribes in the order Zebulun, Issachar, Joseph, i.e., Ephraim and Manasseh, Benjamin ; whilst 71. iof. represents a MS that gave them in the order Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph i.e., Manasseh, Ephraim. It is not unlikely therefore that tribe of Joseph ought to be sons of Joseph. In Dt. 27 12, however, Joseph and Levi are treated as two of twelve tribes. See later.

2. [hieroglyphs]

3 See also de Roug, Rev. archeol., nouv. sir., 4355-372 ( 61). Valdemar Schmidt, Assyriens og Aegyptens gamle His- torie, 2 535 ( 77), rejects without discussion any connection with the patriarch Joseph.

4 On the view of Petrie, who adheres to t>i, see next article, i.

5 Such as that at the time of Thotmes III. the name was pro nounced with jy and that the Q of the Hebrew nor is due to a later peculiarity of Ephraimite pronunciation aided perhaps by the explanation from fp i f]CN (see next article, i). See, how ever, SHIBBOLETH.

7 Driver, for example, passes over the phonetic difficulty (Hastings, DB 2 526*).

===2. Application.

The next question is, To what sections of the community was the name Joseph applied, and when ? That it included Ephraim and Manasseh is clear. P tells us that ' the children of Joseph were two tribes (JYIBD), Manasseh and Ephraim' (Josh. 14:4) ; and a gloss (see below) says the same in 17:17. That this was not merely a late notion is shown by its being assumed in the genealogies of J and E. The case of Benjamin is more ambiguous. P excludes Benjamin formally : the children of Benjamin settled between the children of Judah and the children of Joseph (Josh. 18:11), with which agrees the southern border assigned to the sons of Joseph (16:1-3 P), which is repeated (with modifications) as the northern border of Benjamin (18:12-13, P). That Benjamin was sometimes, however, definitely included in Joseph there can be no doubt (see BENJAMIN, i) ; and that some of the ambiguous cases also may have been meant to include it is possible.

In Josh. 24:32 we should probably (Kue., Di.) read not 'sons of Joseph' (MT) but, with LXX 'Joseph' [Bab (mg.) AL], i.e., the hero himself. In Josh. 17:14-18 'house of Joseph' (read so also in v. 14, with Di.) is not improbably correctly interpreted by the interpolated gloss in v. 17 (om. BA) o f Ephraim and Manasseh. On the other hand, in Judg. 1:22-23, 1:35 there can be little doubt that house of Joseph includes Benjamin, as it certainly does in 2 S. 19:20 [21] ; and here perhaps would belong the Blessing of Jacob if we should adopt the restoration of Gen. 49:22 proposed by Cheyne (PSBA 21 24:2 [ 99]) :

Ephraim is an ornament for Joseph,
Manasseh a bracelet for Israel ;

for in v. 26 Joseph seems to be less than Israel i.e., probably, N. Israel.

It was natural, however, that Joseph should give its name to the whole of the N. kingdom, as England often does to Great Britain : in Amos 56 house of Joseph is the N. kingdom, and so in 66 Joseph. Perhaps i K. 11:28 is similar.

In Josh. 18:5 'house of Joseph' and 'Judah' seem between them to represent the whole of western Palestine. Similarly, in Ob. 18 'house of Joseph' is parallel to 'house of Jacob', and in Zech. 10:6 to 'house of Judah' ; compare Ps. 78:67, where 'Joseph' = 'Ephraim' i e., Israel. In the other passages in the Psalms the text has been questioned. 2 'Remnant of Joseph' in Amos 5:15 (on the late date of which see Nowack, ad Hoc.) reminds one of the still later idea of a Messiah ben Joseph alongside of the Messiah ben David (see EPHRAIM 10, end, and reff. there).

There is clearly a tendency to apply the name Joseph to the whole of the northern kingdom. Winckler goes further. He holds ((7/267-77) that Joseph is not really a tribal name at all, in which capacity Joseph is represented by his son Ephraim. Joseph is a genealogical creation, a personification of the northern kingdom, and therefore older than Israel, the personification of David's kingdom of the twelve tribes (p. 68). 3 However that may be, there is certainly a tendency to equate Joseph and the Ephraimite kingdom. The case of Benjamin, however, requires special study (cp BENJAMIN, MANASSEH). Whatever may be the real facts of the earlier history of that tribe, 1 it appears that in later times it seemed unnatural to regard it as forming part of the same whole as Ephraim and Manasseh.

If, as is frequently supposed, Joseph was an old name for all the clans that settled in EPHRAIM [q.v. . i. , i], this will account for its not being mentioned in the Song of Deborah : it is represented by its constituent parts. It seems not improbable that Joseph and Ephraim are simply two names, older and younger, tribal and geographical (see EPHRAIM, i), for the same thing (cp also RACHEL).

1 This is probably now the attitude of Meyer himself (ZA TW 845 n. 3 [ 88]; cp also W. E. Crum in Hastings, DB \ 6650), who mentions with approval Noldeke s remark that there is a further difficulty in the [probable] fact that p,ov would be pro nounced Yausif with tiu for o. WMM, however, cites against this (in a private letter) the Canaanitish gloss Ya // ini in the Amarna letters. He winds up his recent discussion of the ques tion (I.e.) by saying that the equation y-sa-p-a-ra = ^xspv is not proved, but probable. He now says possible, describ ing as better Winckler s identification with the old Canaanite name Ya-su-ub-ilu (see next art., i), which Winckler writes i. <7/268n. 3).

2 Three times in the Psalms (post-exilic) we apparently find Joseph as a designation of the entire people of Israel, side by side with Jacob or Israel. It is highly probable, however, that all these passages (Pss. 77 15 [16] 80 1 [2] 81 4 [5] f.) are corrupt. Beyond the shadow of a doubt this is the case with Ps. 814 [s\f., where MT gives the resolved form D1.T- None of the examples of such forms adduced by the grammarians will bear examination (Che. JBL 18210 f. [ 99]). In Ps. I.e., >]Din 3 is preceded by a warning Pasek ; most probably the right reading is ncto T2 (Cheyne, MS note).

3 Like Jacob, Joseph has also a mythological significance. As hero of Shechem he is the Baal-berith of the northern confederation, and represents the sun-god to whom the moon and the eleven stars bow down. On Winckler s explanation (from the calendar) of the two sons and the advancement of the younger, see MANASSEH.

3. Other points.[edit]

We have suggested that Ephraim was a younger name than Joseph ; but only as the name of a people. As a geographical name it may have been much older. The question arises accordingly, Were there Israelites in Ephraim before Joseph settled there ? We are hardly entitled to find a hint of a theory that this was so in the story of the sons of Leah - dwelling by Shechem (Gen. 37:14b, J ) or tending their flocks in the plain of Dothan (v. 17b, E) before Joseph joined them ; this may as easily belong to the Joseph-tule. There is more chance of there being a legendary trace of such a theory in the story of Gen. 34 (see DINAH, SIMEON, LEVI, EPHRAIM, 7 n. ; cp Wi.

Nor would it be safe to interpret of the tribe what we are told in J of Josephs having an Egyptian wife. 3 In this respect Joseph stands with Jacob and the other heroes of legend, in whose case also the name of the wife is given. This is so even if we should incline to follow Marquart in finding traces of Egyptian names in Josephite clans. The point that the names of Joseph's sons are bestowed not by his wife, as is the custom in the patriarch stories of J and E, but by himself (Gen. 41:51-52, E), may be taken direct from the source that both E and J used (see next article, 4).

On the notions about the mutual relations as to dignity and status of Reuben, Joseph, and Judah (2 S. 19:43 [44] : with Thenius, read maa for -ma, with BAL ; and i Ch. 5i/) see REUBEN. H. \v. H.

1 For a brilliant discussion of the whole question see Winckler Gl ii. (Rossini), where it is argued that Saul, a Gileadite, made himself ruler of Benjamin, which he transformed into a state representing roughly what was later the Ephraimite kingdom (but stretching southwards beyond Ephraim). Cp SAUL, JUDAH, and articles referred to there.

2 The mention of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as being not with the sons of Leah (?), but with Joseph, seems to be due to a late hand (Gen. 37 2). The Test. xii. Pair, makes Gad in particular take great blame to himself for ill will to Joseph.

3 For Winckler s mythological explanation, see GI 272.

4 Cp Milki-asapa (Melki-asaph ?) and Raal-iasupu (Baal- yasaph ?), the one, the name of a king of Gebal, in the time of Esar-haddon and Asur-bani-pal {KB 2149 241); the other, of an Arvadite prince, in the time of Asur-bani-pal {KB 2 173).

JOSEPH (in OT)[edit]

(S)DV, 53, 79, 84, 'he [i.e., the tribal god] increases', cp the fuller form !T2pi\ itoCHCp passim).

1. Name.[edit]

i. Son of Jacob and Rachel and brother of Benjamin (Gen. 30:22-24), the eponym of the tribe of Joseph ( = Manasseh and Ephraim). Tradition connected the name variously with the removing (rptt) of Rachel's childlessness (so E; cp Abiasaph, Eliasaph, Asaph), and with her longing for the addition (rg 'let him add' ) of another son (so J). 4 If 'Joseph' contains an utterance respecting God, the latter explanation approaches the truth. The multiplication will refer to all the blessings poetically described in Gen. 4925. Names like Joseph, however, are generally shortened from theophoric names. The analogy of Ishmael and Jerahmeel suggests that Joseph was originally Josiph-el (cp Josiphiah). There is a Palestinian place-name in the Karnak list of Thotmes III. (i6th cent. B.C.) which in Hebrew letters might stand as SKBB" (popularly, 'Joseph-el'), and which, if rightly so read (see JOSEPH i. , i ), may have been first of all a clan-name (see RP& 448). Pinches too has discovered on a very ancient Babylonian contract-tablet the personal name 'Yasup-ilu' (rather 'Yasup-ilu'), which has some resemblance to 'Joseph-el'. 1

As to Joseph-el, a final decision seems far off. See JOSEPH, i, 1, and note that Flinders Petrie reads 'Yeshephar', and identifies the place with es-Sawafir, SE. of Ashdod (see SAPHIR), while Tomkins (.Life of Joseph, 98) identifies Joseph-el with Yasuf, in a wady E. of Kefr Harith and Nebi Nun (see TIMNATH-SERAH). All most uncertain.

On the ethnic use of the name which in pre-exilic prose means the same as Ephraim in prophetic language i.e. , the tribes of N. Israel 2 (2 S. 19:20 [21] ; i K. 11:28), see JOSEPH i. , 2.

In Jos. c. Ap. 132 (290) Chaeremon, an Egyptian Greek writer, is said to have spoken of Joseph under the name IleTeoTj^, and it is plausible to hold that Manetho simply distorts the name Joseph when he speaks (Jos. c. Ap. 126 [238]) of the leader of the lepers (see u) as OffapfftiQos or Oo-a/wi^. 3 The name Osarsiph is properly a divine name (=Osar-sapi) ; it denotes Osiris as god of the underworld. 4 It is possible to interpret Peteseph 'he whom the god Seph has given', and to suppose another distortion of Joseph. Still it is very possible that IIere(r7j</> [peteseph] may be a mere clerical error for n.fT<t>pt)s [petephres], the Grascised form of the name of Joseph's father-in-law.

2. Traditions.[edit]

The traditional story of Joseph in Genesis (we omit the meagre post-exilic abstract of P) presents a very different aspect from that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The hero is no doubt idealised ; but the details of his life are such as, in a more recent biography, we might accept as to some extent an approach to truth ; even in such a point as the age of Joseph at his death (Gen. 50:26) the biographer does not overstep the bounds of possibility. How Joseph came to be regarded as the son of Jacob, and how it was that the stream of tradition flowed so much more abundantly for biographers of Joseph than for those of the first three patriarchs, we must consider later ( 4).

It is evident, however, that, though more credible in its details, the story of Joseph cannot be accepted as genuinely historical, since it comes to us in two forms which do not altogether agree, and neither of the two narratives can be presumed to be on the whole earlier than the ninth or eighth century B.C. It was the life of the founder of his people that the Israelite writer or writers called E had to relate ; how could we expect even a moderate degree of what moderns are pleased to call historical impartiality? It would be hardly less absurd to expect a narrative of well-sifted facts from the Judahite writer or writers known as J. The working of popular prejudices, and the plastic influence of the popular imagination, which delights to find anticipations of later historical facts, can readily be discerned, and who that has any sympathy with antique modes of thought could desire it to be otherwise?

1 Cp Sayce, Pat. Pal., Pref. : Hommel, AHTg6. Elsewhere (op. cit. 112) Hommel compares the name Yasup-ilu with the S. Arabian name Yasupu (from Yasupu-ilu), which he explains (p. 84) as He (God) regards.

- Cp Staerk, 5" tudien zti>- R el.- u. Spr.-gesc hickte, etc.,1 %T ff-

3 As if Joseph were a syncretistic name Yahwe-Seph.

4 Ebers, Durch Goscn zum Sinai(- , 561 ; Tomkins, Acati., Sept. i, 1883.

3. J and E.[edit]

In fitting the Joseph-traditions into the general narrative, it was necessary to give some idea of the relative ages of Joseph and his brethren. Two different views were taken.

It follows from E's account of the births that Joseph was born not long after the sons of Leah, and at most only twelve years after Reuben (Gen. 31:17 47). The fragments of J in Gen. 30, however, leave it open to us to suppose that the interval between the births of Joseph and Zebulun was longer than the fragments of E would incline us to suppose. At any rate, the extracts from the Joseph-section of J represent Joseph as born to Jacob in his old age (37:3 41:20). The notice that he was seventeen years old when he was sold into Egypt (37:2) comes from P, andis due to learned but not authoritative calculation.

This difference of view helps to explain the first chapter in Joseph s composite biography. The two narrators agree that Joseph s brethren conspired together to kill him ; but the reason for this step given by E (37:2b, 5-11) is the more intelligible the older we suppose Joseph to be. J simply states that the brethren of Joseph hated him because of the partiality for him shown by his father Israel, who had provided him with a long tunic with sleeves (see TUNIC), such as befitted one born to greatness and not to hard toil (37:3, J ) Thus the mischief is traced in J to an act of Jacob ; but in E we find it accounted for by an act of Joseph, viz. , his communication of ominous dreams. In neither case is the act blameworthy according to the writer ; it conduces to the accomplishment of Yahwe s great purpose, which is the exaltation of Joseph for the good of his whole family and for that of the country where the Israelites are to sojourn.

The other differences between the two narratives in chap. 37 need not long detain us. That according to J Joseph is sent from Jacob's abode to Shechem is merely a consequence l of the statement in Gen. 35:16-21 (J) that Jacob had settled in the neighbourhood of Ephrath (or perhaps Beeroth ; see EPHRATH) ; the vale of Hebron ("l0n) 37:14, should be the vale (or plain) of Beeroth. Of course, E's account is the more accurate ; but J does not alter the tradition that the brothers were at DOTHAN [q.v.], N. of Shechem, on the caravan-route from Gilead to Egypt, when they got rid of their ambitious brother. Nor is the discrepancy between J and E as to the ethnic designation of the merchants who convey Joseph to Egypt (Ishmaelites from Gilead, J ; Midianites, E) as important as two other differences: (i) that the spokesman of Joseph's brethren and the averter of Joseph's death is Reuben in E, but Judah in J ; 2 and (2) that, according to E, Joseph was stolen (by the Midianites) out of the waterless cistern into which he had been cast, whilst, according to J, he was sold to the merchants (Ishmaelites) by his brethren. The difference as to the spokesman is of interest as suggesting the N. Israelitish origin of the story as given by E ; J's version is, in its present form, not less distinctly of southern origin. The difference as to how the passing caravan obtained Joseph shows the superior skill of E as a narrator. It was important, he considered, to show that Joseph was not rightfully used as a slave.

Chap. 39 is mostly due to J.

Joseph is sold as a slave to an Egyptian, 3 who perceives his worth and places him over his household ; but his master's wife casts her eyes upon the young man, and makes proposals from which he can escape only by flight. Falsely accused to his master, he is cast into prison. Yahwe, however, gives him favour with the governor, who in his turn sets Joseph over his house.

This plain story, however, is complicated by being interwoven with passages from E. According to these, Joseph was bought by a saris (see EUNUCH) named Potiphar, the captain of Pharaoh's bodyguard, who entrusted him with the care of all that he had. A subsequent passage of E refers to Joseph as being in the prison, not for any real or supposed offence, but to attend on two high officers of the Pharaoh who had been confined for some fault in the prison in Potiphar's house.

1 Cp C. Niebuhr, Gesch. des Ebr. Zeit. 1 159.

2 In 37:21 [J] Reuben should of course be Judah. The alteration was made by the editor. See Oxf. Hex. 2 50.

3 The words 'Potiphar, a saris of Pharaoh, captain of the bodyguard' (39:1), are a harmonistic insertion of R.

Chaps. 40-42 are mainly from E. The chief butler and the chief baker in their imprisonment have strange dreams which only Joseph can interpret. Two years later the Pharaoh himself has dreams which, by divine favour, Joseph succeeds in explaining. (Dreams are frequently introduced by E, though it happens that a belief in the significance of dreams was particularly characteristic of Egypt. ) l Seven years of great plenty are at hand, which will be followed by seven years of famine. Joseph counsels that during the years of abundance a fifth part of the grain should be exacted from the agriculturists and laid up in storehouses. The Pharaoh perceives that a divine spirit is in Joseph, makes him high steward and grand vizier, 2 and, among other honours, introduces him by marriage into a grand sacerdotal family. Joseph also receives an Egyptian name (41:45, J). and we shall see later (11) that the three Egyptian names in 41:45 have an important bearing on criticism. To the two sons of Joseph, however, born before the famine, pure Hebrew names are given (Gen. 41:50-52).

Soon the evil years arrive. Joseph's counsel has been carried out, and the Egyptians come to the Semitic grand vizier to buy grain, till their money is exhausted (41:56 47:15, J). By a clever contrivance (the narrative is J's) Joseph obtains for the Pharaoh the proprietorship of the whole land of Egypt, except that which belongs to the priests. Of this, more hereafter (see 10). Suffice it to remark that though the story in 47:13-26 3 can be fitted fairly well into the general narrative (by making it the sequel of the description in 41:55-56 ), it shows a new side to Joseph's character which is not altogether pleasing, 4 and contrasts with the spirit of the fine passage, 'God sent me before you to preserve life' (45:5 , E).

Now comes the true turning-point in Joseph's life. His honours were not for himself alone ; they were to prepare the way for the friendly reception of his entire family in Egypt. Driven by hunger, all Joseph's brethren except Benjamin come to Egypt to buy corn, and do obeisance to the grand vizier (42:5-7 ; E, but J at end of v. 7).

Joseph recognizes them, and remembers the dreams of his youth. He affects to regard them as spies. To prove the truth of their story, they must fetch their youngest brother to see him, Simeon remaining in bonds as surety with Joseph. They return home sadly, admitting the justice of their fate (v. 21), and with additional anxiety because the corn and the purchase-money were both, unaccountably, in their sacks. They bring the bad news to their father, who querulously answers, Joseph is no more : Simeon is no more : it is I (not you) who suffer from these things (42:36, E). Reuben, however, who has already deserved well by admonishing his brethren (42:22, E), pledges his word that he will bring Benjamin back in safety (v. 37, E).

It is only from a few interwoven passages in chap. 42 that we gather that J also gave a version of the same events. Nothing was said in this of the captivity of Simeon, for, at the beginning of the next long passage from J (48:1-13), it is implied that the only fresh trouble of which Jacob is aware is the necessity for parting with his darling Benjamin.

From, 42:38-44 all but a few lines from E referring to Simeon belongs to J, whose dramatic presentation of facts attracted the editor. In a family council respecting the famine, Judah (as before) becomes the spokesman of the brothers. Like Reuben at an earlier point in E's account he pledges his word to his father Israel for the safety of Benjamin (43:8). Jacob gives way with an effort, and Benjamin accompanies the others to Egypt.

They bring double money, and a present for the grand vizier, who, frugally as he lived in general (see 43:16), ordered them to be received hospitably. So three tables are placed, one for Joseph, one for his brethren, and one for his Egyptian guests, who must not eat with Hebrews (v. 32). Joseph lavishes attentions on Benjamin, his mother's son. Then he deliberately subjects his brethren to a fresh trial, though it is as much as he can do to restrain his emotion. To some extent indeed he has prepared them for it. For the mysterious return of the corn money on their former visit, which so much perplexed and affrighted them, was due to an order of Joseph. Once more the astute Hebrew vizier causes the money to be replaced in the sacks, and in Benjamin's sack he has his own silver divining-cup 1 deposited ; by this means he seeks to awaken their con sciousness of guilt (44:1-2, J). Then he sends after them, and on their return accuses them by his steward of theft. The riddle has now become harder than ever. Not many hours ago they had been assured by the steward that the money restored on the former occasion was a gift ; indeed, even now no difficulty arises out of the replaced money, but only out of the cup. Judah, the chief of the brothers, makes no attempt at justification. God, he says, has found out the guilt of thy servants ; 2 but he tells Joseph how their father s life is bound up with Benjamin's, and how certainly he will die if his child does not return, and offers himself as a bondsman in place of Benjamin.

1 Cp especially the story of the Possessed Princess of Bakhtan (Maspero, Contes populaires de I Eg. anc. 209-224 ; cp RP 4 53-60 ; Brugsch, Gesch. Ag. 627-641 ; Erman, ZA , 83, pp. 54-60).

2 Gen. 41:40 (E) should certainly run, 'Thou shall be over my house, and unto thee shall all my people hearken' ( "","

ay 1 ?! a irp:).

3 On the analysis of the section see Holzinger, 251 f., who finds traces of both J and E, and holds that the passage has also received later interpolations.

4 It may of course be replied that Joseph felt as a Hebrew, and expended all his generosity on his brethren.

The recognition scene (45:1-15), to which E is a large contributor, need not be repeated here. Jacob is invited to come with his family and his flocks and herds to the province of GOSHEN [q.v.]. His sons, including Simeon and Benjamin, return to Canaan with rich presents, and Israel (J) at once resolves to accept the invitation. E, however, gives us a remarkable detail which is passed over by J. The road from S. Palestine to Egypt started from Beersheba, so closely connected with memories of Isaac. There, E tells us, Jacob offered sacrifices, not to Isaac himself, 3 but to the God (elohim) of his father Isaac (46:1). For the present nothing more is drawn from this writer.

1 Apparently J does not conceive divination to be inconsistent with the worship of Yahwe. B flJ, to divine, is used again by J in Gen. 30:27 (a speech of Laban). See DIVINATION, 3 [3].

2 We are not to compare Ps. 90:8 [9]. The early sin against Joseph presses on Judah's conscience.

3 In 31:53 we may perhaps trace the earlier form of the tradition, according to which the hero Isaac was himself worshipped (cp Holzinger, ad^ loc.). In 46:1 E carefully adjusts the tradition to later religious ideas.

  • MT has rMcfo V:B^> Klin 1 ? ]DvW VJB"? rhv mi,v-nNi ; but,

as Lagarde, Kautzsch, Socin, and Ball have seen, V3S7 min?, to point out before him, cannot be correct. Ball ( 96) would read V3B 1 ? rn^n ? (<5 a-uvav-rfia-ai. atiTco); but the sentence does not tell us whom Judah was to meet, nor does H3^3, to Goshen, follow naturally. Lagarde (GGN, go, p. 119) and, independently, the present writer (in 80) thought that instead of V3B 1 ? Tfffh reac j %i ?2(?) tin 1 ? or the like i.e., to Heroopolis. Heroopolis, as Naville has shown, is PITHOM [q.v.Y, Heroo may perhaps come from the Egyptian ar ( = ?p) storehouse (Store city of Pithom, 7). Lagarde accepts this as the true reading ; but too hastily. (S s version needs a more thorough inspection. It runs thus in A, rov &k lovSav an-eVTCiAff HfiTrpotrdev avT<oi> jrpbs Ico<rr)$ <ruva.vTr\(ra>. ai/rui Ka.6 Hpwiui TroAti/ cis yffv Pa/ueoxn). What is eis yf)V Pa^ecroT}? It represents nytf} i" MT. Jtyj, however, is nowhere else rendered yf) Pap. In spite of Naville s plausible theory (Goshen, 17) that yrj Pafi. may mean a larger district than Goshen, the present writer holds that <B must have read some thing rather different from MT, viz., nCTT? TYI^ V3p> Here nCT? is to be taken as a correction of nn 1 ? (a miswritten frag ment), the right reading and the wrong being preserved, as often, sidebyside. (B, however, supposed vin? to mean toEro t .e., to Heroopolis and nCT 1 ? to be miswritten for DDOjnS * to (the land of) Rameses. The true reading of v. 28 probably is WOT ns-iN IDV-^X ras^ nW rnirrvmi. ruth raw is a gloss (LXX{D} omits eis yrjt P. both in 46:28 and in 47:11). and jt> 3 at the end of v. 28 and in -v. 29 are also insertions. In 47:11 the 'land of Rameses' should be the 'land of Jarmuth'.

Naturally enough, it is J who tells that Judah was sent on in advance to give Joseph notice of the approach of his father. The Hebrew text of Gen. 46:28 is not, as it stands, quite intelligible ; but with the help of we can with some probability restore the text thus : And he sent Judah before him to Joseph to the land of Jarmuth. 4 Jarmuth (see n) is mentioned repeatedly in the Amarna letters ; it was apparently a district in Lower Egypt, either in the Fayyum or more probably in the E. part of the Delta, in the neighbourhood of Goshen. Here Judah found the grand vizier, who lost no time in preparing his chariot and going up to meet his father. The meeting is described in few but appropriate words (46:29-30, J), such as that colourless writer P could never have found. If we may. give way to the spell of the narrator, and treat the events narrated as historical, we may suppose the meeting to have taken place near one of the Egyptian fortresses on the border of the desert. 1 After this, according to J, the whole party went up to the court, and Jacob and five of his brethren were presented to the Pharaoh 2 (Gen. 47:2-4, J ). A remarkable honour, for we have just been told (46:34) that every shepherd isan abomination to the Egyptians. 3 The Priestly Writer, generally so concise, even gives us a conversation held by Jacob with the Pharaoh (Gen. 46:7-10). The patriarch speaks in the tone of Ps. 90:10 [11], 4 and as Jacob goes out, like a superior being, he blesses the Egyptian king.

Both J and E described the last meeting of Joseph and his father. It was specially important to record the blessing of Joseph's two sons (48:8-19, JE) and the oath exacted by Jacob from Joseph (cp STAFF) that he would bury him, not in Egypt, but in the grave which he (Jacob) had digged for himself in the land of Canaan 5 (50:5). Jacob on his side promised that Joseph should return to Canaan and occupy the finely-situated hill of SHECHEM (48:22, E). Upon Jacob's death his son per formed all the requisite funeral rites (see ABEL-MIZRAIM), both Egyptian and Hebrew, and then returned with his brethren, whom he continued to treat magnanimously till he died at the ideal age of 110 (see 10).

4. Common source.[edit]

We have seen that the pre-exilic story of Joseph is made up of portions of two distinct biographies which have been skilfully welded together by a redactor. This is a fact of much importance. Since there are two records, and these (as will appear) are equally accurate in their Egyptian colouring, we may assume that there was a still earlier document from which both J and E drew.

It may be asked, Can we fix the dates of J and E, looking simply at their respective lives of Joseph ? (By J and E we mean here members of the schools of writing denoted respectively by the letters J and E. ) We may presume that J (or better J 2 ) lived after the fall of Samaria (722 B.C.), for otherwise, being a Judahite writer, he would not have felt free to treat so elaborately a northern legend aiming at the glorification of Joseph. For the date of E (or E 2 ) we have perhaps a clue in the name Asenath, and at any rate in the name Potiphera in 41:45. Though a name of the type Potiphera has been shown to occur close upon the Hyksos period, 6 the name referred to ( Petu-baal, gift of Baal ) is only half Egyptian, and the type first becomes frequently represented in the 26th dynasty. 7 The name Asenath may also be explained as a specimen of a late type of name. It is generally held to be a Hebraised form of Egyptian ns-ni i.e. , 'belonging to [the Saite goddess] Neith' and if so may indicate that the editor lived in, or shortly before, the period of the 26th or Saite dynasty. 8 The name, however, is not doubly attested like that of Potiphera (cp Potiphar, 37:36, E), and may not be the form which E2 wrote. Let us not neglect to be warned by the wrongly read Egyptian names, Ano in LXX i K. 12:24* (Swete), and Tahpenes in MT of i K. 11:19 (see HADAD).

1 So Tomkins, Life of Joseph, 75.

2 On Gen. 47 ^f., where the text of (5 is clearly preferable, ree We. CH 53, and cp Bacon, Gen. 212 ; Ball, Gen. io$f.

  • Herdsmen are caricatured on the monuments as ugly and

deformed. A reference to Gen. 12 10-20 does not lighten the inconsistency, for that narrative has reached its present form by a misunderstanding (see MIZRAIM, 2 />).

4 Lady Duff Gordon (Letters from Egypt) thinks that Gen. 47 9 is just the hollow speech that a Fellah would make to-day to a Pasha. The remark does not at all hit the intention of P.

5 Not necessarily MACHTELAH [ff.z/.]; 47 30 seems to have been touched by R, to harmonise it with P (4929-32).

8 See Brugsch, Gcsch. 197, cp 239 ; and especially Tomkins, Acad., 3ist Jan. 1891 ; Life of Joseph, 183.

7 Steindorff, ZAWiif. ( So), 8850-52 ( 92); cp T.a.c. Mitt. 3 226-229 an d 282-286 ; Brugsch, Deutsche Rundschau, co, p. 245; Cornill, F.inl.$\ 41.

^ So Steindorff, I.e. Names of this type occur now and then earlier, aod are frequent in the 2ist (Theban) dynasty.

If so, we have nothing to depend upon but the name Potiphera, and this is a very weak basis for a theory. There were learned scribes before as well as after the exile, and such an one may possibly have changed the original name given to Joseph s father-in-law by E2 into a name of the type which in his own time was more fashionable in Egypt ; or perhaps the text may have become indistinct, and the scribe may have corrected the older name in accordance with the fashion of the time.

Next, assuming (as we must) that J and E drew from an earlier Hebrew story, can we form an opinion as to its probable period ? This Hebrew story was certainly no mere romance, the scene of which was laid in Egypt. The Egyptian colouring is too profuse, and the details too peculiar, to be altogether ascribed to a Hebrew narrator. We can imagine that a romantic story of the Egyptian sojourn of a Joseph who was merely the eponym of the Hebrew tribe of that name would have presented some Egyptian features. Such a story, how ever, being mainly a reflection of the fortunes of a tribe, could not have been so deeply infused with Egyptian elements as the existing Joseph-story. It is therefore a reasonable conjecture that that earlier Hebrew story of which we have spoken was based on a still more ancient Hebrew narrative which had no elements of tribal legend and related entirely to an individual, and that those elements in our existing Joseph-story which are most undeniably personal, and by which this story contrasts most strongly with the unhistorical tribal legends of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were present in a purer and of course a more complete form in that ancient Hebrew narrative.

To what extent this most ancient Hebrew tale may have suffered alteration in the course of centuries, it is impossible to say. We may conjecture, however, that it was really based upon facts which, however idealised, were yet truly historical, that it was written not many generations after the events to which it referred, and even that it was derived directly or indirectly from an Egyptian source. The number of Semites in the eastern provinces of Egypt was so large that this Egyptian origin is far from being an extravagant hypothesis. The upper limit of the period within which the Hebrew stories, which seem to have preceded J and E, have to be placed, depends on the date or dates of the events recorded idealistically by the earliest of them. 1

1 See, e.g., Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. 249-251 ; E. Meyer, GA 1 285 ; Sayce, Crit. Man. 209. For^translations, see Renouf, RP 2 137^ ; Maspero, Conies de I Kgypte anc. 3-32 ; Flinders Petrie, Anc. Eg. Tales, lTf>ff. ; cp Erman, 3787:

2 See A. Lang, Myth, Ritual, and Religion, 1 303-308.

5. Egyptian parallels.[edit]

Let us first consider some of the most remarkable phenomena in the Joseph-story (completeness cannot be aimed at) in connection with Egyptian parallels.

a. The close parallelism between Gen. 39:7-20 and the Egyptian 'tale of Two Brothers' has often been remarked. The Egyptian tale is extant in a copy which belonged to Seti II. (19th dynasty), and was probably written early in the 18th dynasty. That such a story could have arisen only in Egypt, it would be too much to assert ; in fact, similar stories have been found in perfectly unrelated literatures. 2 Still, considering that the scene of the tale of Joseph and Potiphar s wife is laid in Egypt, and that the rest of the story of Joseph in Egypt is strongly Egyptian in colouring, it is most plausible to hold that Gen. 39:7-20 is based upon a parallel Egyptian story, though hardly upon the tale of the Two Brothers, for that has to do with peasant life. Such a borrowing would certainly be less surprising than the undoubted fact that in early Christian times an Egyptian monk named Visa, in writing the life of his father Shniidi, twice imitates the story of the Two Brothers in some one of its forms.

b. The rise of Joseph the Hebrew from low estate to the second position in the kingdom has many parallels. Semitic slaves were common at all times in the Nile Valley. 1 Often, for their capacity and fidelity, they were raised to high positions, and became naturalised Egyptians. Meri-Re , the armour-bearer of Thotmes III., and his brother the priest User-Min, were the sons of an Amorite. We do not hear that they had been slaves ; but there is nothing to prohibit the idea ; and the chief point to notice in the rise of Joseph is not his having been a slave but his Hebrew origin. So, too, under the Pharaoh Merenptah the office of first speaker of His Majesty was held by a Canaanite named Ben Mat'ana, and in the Amarna Tablets we meet with two Egyptian officials who appear from their names Dudu (i2n) and Yanhamu (c34 ) to be of Semitic origin.

c. That the honours conferred upon Joseph (Gen. 41:42-43) are such as a newly appointed vizier might well have received, is undeniable. The royal seal-bearer was the chief government official ; he was the deputy of the Pharaoh. 2 The garments of linen (plural), if the story is of Egyptian origin, cannot be right ; the first narrator may have referred to the royal apron-garment (the so-called shendi-i] which was worn by others as well as by the king under the Middle and the New Empires. 3 Garments of byssus (\yy, see LINEN, 7) were not exceptional enough ; all Egyptians of rank had to wear them. The golden collar was a highly prized Egyptian decoration ; Ahmes, the conqueror of Avaris, won it seven times by special acts of valour. 4

In the Louvre there is a stele on which the investiture of a grandee with a golden collar is represented to the life. Seti I. presides over the ceremony, and while he makes a speech two officers put a magnificent collar round the neck of Hor-hem, who lifts his arms in token of joy (De Rouge, Notice sommaire, 49; cp Pierret, RP 2 105 /.). See also tirugsch, Gesch. Aeg. 426.

6. Joseph's viziership.[edit]

Still we cannot lay too much stress even upon this decoration ; at any Eastern court such an honour would have been prized (cp Dan. 5:7-29 and see NECKLACE ). What the meaning of 'he made him ride in the second chariot that he had' (Gen. 41:43) can be, no one has explained.

The text has been injured ; we may with some probability restore D pbriErt roD~IS3> i" a chariot drawn by choice young steeds". To both words in this phrase there may have been corresponding Egyptian terms ; to the first there certainly was (ina-ra-ka-bu-ti) , but both were originally Semitic (see CHARIOT, i, and cp HORSE, i [5]).

It is more important, however, to note the titles of Joseph's office. 'They cried before him, Abrech' (Gen. 41:43, J). He has made me an ab to Pharaoh, and adon of all his house (45:8, J). Abrech, if the reading is correct, is possibly the Ass. abarakku, a title of a very high dignitary, which like so many other Asiatic words may have passed into Egypt (see ABRECH). More probably, however, the first three letters represent an Egyptian title viz., friend (inn) and in 45:8 'an ab to Pharaoh' should probably be 'a friend of Pharaoh'. Brugsch, it is true, points out that the Egyptian ab meant a person who gave orders in the name of the Pharaoh. 5 A lower dignitary would be called adon, though Brugsch has once found the the title of 'an adon over the whole land' (in connection, with the early life of Haremhib, afterwards king). 6 In any case, however, we could not press this. Adon, if not also ab, is possibly a Semitic loan-word. Adon is the natural Hebrew word for lord ; so also, according to the lexicons, is ab for vizier. l

For the extent of Joseph s newly given authority we may refer to the descriptions of the two Egyptian feudal lords, Ptah-hotep and Rehmere .

If Rehmere does not, like Ptah-hotep, bear the title of royal prince, he was perhaps of even higher rank, since he is called the double of the Pharaoh, animated by his spirit, taking his place in his absence, governing all Egypt like him, addressed by the same titles, and saluted like him by the courtiers. We must not be surprised, therefore, at the royal title given to Ptah-hotep ; the prefect of the capital was next to the king the first person in the kingdom. 2

Not less remarkable is the abject servility of the letters addressed to Dudu, a high officer of Amen-hotep IV., by Aziri, prefect of the land of the Amorites ; it is not easy to decide which is greater, 'the king, my lord', or 'my lord, my father'. 3 Aziri even refers to the king and the grandees collectively as my gods (ildniya). Does not this remind us of Gen. 41:40, Only in the throne will I be greater than thou ? 4

1 Ebers, Aegypten u. die Biicher Mose s, 294 ; Erman, 105,

5 Z

  • Flinders Petrie, Tell Nebesheh, 16 ; Ten Years Digging,

66 ; Ebers, Smith s DB$] 1797 ; Tomkins, Life of Joseph, 47.

Erman, Anc. Eg. 62, 206, 210.

4 Renouf, RP^j-io; Petrie, Hist. 221-23.

5 Gesch. A eg. 207, 248, 592. Gesch. Aeg. 252.

7. Granaries.[edit]

d. With the viziership Joseph combined the office of director of the granaries (Gen. 41:48-49. ). This was usually distinct. It was held, e.g. , by Beka (19th or 20th dynasty), whose sepulchral stele is now preserved at Turin. 5 Kings sons did not disdain to hold it. 6 We know, how ever, that Rehmere (see c), who was a vizier, was superintendent of the storehouses, which from time to time he had inspected. This constant supervision is insisted upon by the real or imaginary princely sage, Ptah-hotep, in his famous collection of precepts. So, too, a chief overseer of the granaries, named Am-n-teh, tells us that he never took rest from his responsibilities. Such at least was the ideal. The magazines had to be carefully guarded and replenished, for on this the life of thousands might depend. 7 This duty, according to Gen. 41:48-49. , Joseph, as an ideal vizier, discharged in person. The scene of Joseph s brethren presenting themselves at the granaries may be illustrated by a wall-painting in the tomb of Rehmere already referred to. 8

8. Famine.[edit]

We now come to the seven years of famine (Gen. 41:54+). Famines were sometimes confined to Egypt. On one such occasion, as the decree of Canopus mentions, the reigning Ptolemy imported grain from Syria and Phoenicia. The story of Joseph, however, refers to one which extended to all the neighbouring lands, natives of which came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn (Gen. 41:57). It used to be thought that a pictorial record of this event was still extant. On the N. wall of the tomb of prince Chnemhotep on the steep height of Beni Hasan can still be seen depicted the meeting of thirty-seven Asiatics with the Egyptian prince-governor. It is not, how ever, a famine but trade that brings them to Egypt, and they are nomads from Arabia, headed by their prince Abesha (see ABISHAI, n. 2), bringing stibium or eye-paint (see PAINT). 9

In another of the Beni-Hasan caves is the tomb of Ameni, one of the feudal princes of the Middle Empire. This magnate is made to relate the chief events of his life, and speaks thus in, the conclusion:

'(When) there became years of famine ... I made to live its inhabitants, making its provision ; not became a hungry man in it. ... When thereafter great rises of the Nile took place, producing wheat and barley, . . . not did I exact the arrears of the farm'. 1

A similar statement is made by a governor named Baba in his sepulchral inscriptions at el-Kub (end of 17th dyn.); Baba speaks of a famine lasting many years, and Brugsch has recorded his conviction 2 that the inscription refers to the identical famine of the Joseph-story. Baba at el-Kab was under the native king Sakhnunri III., while Joseph lived and worked, as Brugsch thinks, under one of the Hyksos kings. Of a third famine which has been brought into connection with Joseph it is enough to say that the style of the monument proves it to be not earlier than the Ptolemies. See Wiedemann, Gtsch. des Alt. Aegyptens, 68.

1 But this is extremely doubtful. In Is. 9 6 [5] and 22 21 we should almost certainly read Y3N (strong one, protector). See Crit. Bib.

2 Virey, RPP\ 84; cp 4 3.

3 Am. Tab. 44/

  • Flinders Petrie (Tell Nebesheh, 16 ; Ten Years Digging,

66) suggests a further comparison with the chief of the chan cellors, or royal seal - bearer, who stood at the head of the bureaucracy under the Hyksos kings. We must not, however, base an argument upon this for placing Joseph in the Hyksos period, for the officials at that period were not Semites but chosen from among the native Egyptians.

5 Chabas, TSBA 6459-465.

6 Maspero, Daiun ofCiz: 286.

7 Virey, XPP) 3 ^ f. (see n. 2, p. 7).

8 RPV) 3 10.

9 See Bent-Hasan (Arcka-ol. Survey of Egypf), Part I., p. 69, and cp EGYPT, 50; Music, 8. The tombs are of the izth dynasty.

9. Joseph's policy.[edit]

We now pass on to the policy of Joseph (Gen. 47:13-26, composite). The statements in vv. 20-26 have some affinity to those of Herodotus (2:109) and Diodorus (l:73 ), and the probability is that all these stories are the attempts of later generations to account for the fact that the Egyptians handed over a fixed proportion of the harvest to the king. Erman writes thus :

Whatever the details may have been, we may accept as a general fact that Ta'a and Ahmose exterminated the old nobility very much as the Mamluks were exterminated by Mehemed Ali, and as the latter obtained the greater part of all the property in the kingdom by the confiscation of the estates of the Mamluks, so the former absorbed the property of the small princedoms. Thus arose those abnormal agrarian conditions found in later Egypt, by which all property, with the exception of the priests fields, belonged to the Pharaoh, and was rented from the crown by a payment of 20 per cent. In Gen. 47 these conditions are declared to be due to the clever policy of Joseph. 3

The narrator in Gen. 47 is certainly accurate in one part of his statement. The land of the priests was exempt from taxation ; no inspector of the palace could enter the sacred domains. 4 We do not hear, however, that the priests received special portions of provisions from the king ; this statement is not confirmed.

10. Joseph's age.[edit]

One small point alone remains the age ascribed to Joseph at his death. 'Joseph died, being 110 years old' (Gen. 50:26, J). No Hebrew tale-writer would have written thus. To reach the age of 110 years was every good Egyptian's prayer ; it was the favour desired by the high priest Bak-en-Honsu (19th dynasty) when he was 86 years of age. 8 Ptah-hotep, whose collection of maxims has been called (with doubtful justice) the most ancient of books, says that his virtue has brought him to this advanced age, which few were privileged to exceed, 6 and a strange reminiscence of this Egyptian belief meets us in the life of another Joseph (see JOSEPH iii. , 10).

1 It. 27.

2 Gesch. Aeg. i&ff. , cp Tomkins, Joseph, 56.

3 Life in Ancient Egypt, 103.

  • Naville, The Festrval Hall c/Osorkon II. ( 92), 8.

8 De Horrack, RP 12 118 122.

Cp also Flinders Petrie, Anc. Eg. Talcs, 1 25.

11. Historical elements.[edit]

What historical elements are there in the Joseph story ? We are prepared by the preceding inquiry to find that there are some, and it will be best to go at once into the heart of the question. Let us notice, then,

(1) that several names possibly of Egyptian origin occur in the families of Moses and Aaron and of Joseph. The name of Moses may possibly be analogous to Ramessu, child of Ra (Re ) ; the son of Eleazar, commonly called PHINEHAS (q.v. ), and a son of Eli bear, according to the prevalent opinion, the same well-known Egyptian name, of which HOPHNI (q.v. ) may be a corrupt variation. Eleazar s father, PUTIEL (q.v. ), and the Korahite clan called Osir (MT ASSIR) also have been thought to bear, the one a partly disfigured, the other a still completely Egyptian name. HUR, too, the companion of Moses and Aaron, may also possibly be added to the list. The present writer probably stands nearly alone in looking elsewhere for the true explanations of these names. But with such an eminent authority as W. Max Mtiller on the other side, he will not be so discourteous as to call the above explanations impossible. Certainly, if correct, they tend to justify the theory that the tribe of Joseph and some part of the tribe of Levi once sojourned in Egypt. Whether the story of the selling of Joseph for a slave may be best regarded as an antedating of the reported subsequent oppression, or as a feature of a once extant biography of a Hebrew vizier, is an open question. It should be noticed that from Am. Tab. 55 115 it appears that the sons and daughters of the Syrians were sometimes sent to Jarimuta to be sold for corn. 1 Not only Joseph, but in an earlier form of the story also Simeon and Benjamin seem to have been represented as sold into slavery in Egypt, and it has been already noted as perhaps significant that the name of a traditional grandson of Joseph means sold (see EPHRAIM i. , i ; cp, however, MACHIR).

Passing now to Joseph himself, we find that in Manetho's story of the expulsion of the lepers (Jos. c. A p. 128), the leader of the lepers is said to be a priest of Heliopolis named Osarsiph (see i). The kernel of this story, according to E. Meyer (GA 1270) and Marquart (Chronolog. Unters.), is the virtually monotheistic reform of Ahu-n-aten (Amen-hotep IV.). A similar story is given by Chaeremon (Jos. c. Ap. 132), who gives the names of the leaders of the unclean as Tisithen and Peteseph. The latter name, in one way or another, may fairly be brought into connection with Joseph (see i), and it should be added that Chaeremon too connects the story with Amenophis (Amen-hotep).

It becomes natural, therefore, to look for light to the Amarna tablets which are concerned with the period of Amen-hotep III. and Amen-hotep IV.; and we are not disappointed. We find there an important Egyp tian functionary, whose name is apparently Semitic, Yanhamu (i.e., according to Marq. cyy). He is a rabisu or general (?) who has the control of the magazines of grain in the land of Jarimuta (see 3), and superintends the affairs of the Egyptian dominion in Palestine.

When the Syrian chieftains and governors have a request to make of the Egyptian king they often add that he need only ask Yanhamu, who knows the circumstances well. When Rib-Addi of Gebal has grievances against Abd-Asirti of Amurru, he refers them to Yanhamu (as one of three, 84:34-35), and he asks the king to say to Yanhamu, 'Behold, Rib-Addi is in thy power, and anything which happens to him touches thee' (61:40-42). Another time Rib-Addi asks the king to bid Yanhamu take the field at once with troops (75:59-64 87:173).

These are by no means all the references. Notice too that Yabitiri, commandant of Gaza and Joppa, speaks of having been brought by Yanhamu to the Egyptian court while still small (214:24-26). Yabitiri seems to have been a countryman of Yanhamu ; but his name, which looks Egyptian (Ra-hotep?), may have been given to him in Egypt.

The latter circumstance is interesting because Joseph too is said to have received an Egyptian name in Egypt ; Marquart thinks (677) that the name intended is Zaphtan (jnsi), and that |n represents Aten, the name of the god of the solar disk, worshipped by Akhenaten. This is not the present writer's view (see ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH) ; but the theory from which it springs seems to him likely to be correct. Joseph (whose Egyptian name was perhaps Pa'ankh, or Pi-ankhi, 2 indicating that life - 'ankh' - centred in the bearer of the name) is probably an imaginative version of some Semitic courtier of the reforming king Amen-hotep IV. The untranslatable passage in Gen. 41:43, irix firm -pax, should perhaps be read priNM nan, 'friend of Khu-en-aten' (Che. OLZ, April 1900 ; cp 4), and the name of Joseph's wife may perhaps have been Ankh-nes-aten (so Marq. 677). A daughter of Akhu-n-aten, who had this name, was married to Tut-ankh-Amun, the next king but one after Khu-en-aten. Potiphera, too, should probably be corrected into Meri-Re ; this was the name of the high priest of Aten at the king's new capital of Akhetaten (el-Amarna). We have also found reason to suspect the occurrence of another ancient Egyptian name in Genesis, viz., Jarimuta (in Gen. 46:28, see 3). Marquart's theory that Jarimuta was in the province now called the Fayyum a natural depression in the Libyan hills, far more fertile anciently even than it is now seems not quite so natural as the view which places it nearer to Palestine, in the East of the Delta. 1

1 This is Marquart s pertinent observation (678). - Piankhi was a priestly name ; it was current in the family of the priest-king Heri-hor.

Some such conjectures as the above seem forced upon us in the light of Egyptian history. As to the names, we must not expect too great exactness. W. Max Muller {OLZ, Oct. 1900) objects to 3 as the representative of Kh. But the confusion of 3 and n is to common in Hebrew to surprise us. The inK after jin is but a scribe s second attempt to write Aten. As to the impoliteness of choosing the name Ahu-n-aten, the objection would have more force if an Egyptian story were in question.

The ordinary view that Joseph, if historical, is to be placed in the Hyksos period, is acquiesced in by Flinders Petrie. Ebers, however, who is in agreement with Lepsius, says, In the whole section there is nothing which does not exactly fit a Pharaonic court in the best periods of the kingdom, while there is much which can never be reconciled with a Hyksos court, however much Egyptianised. 2 A later date, too, makes it easier to believe in the existence of a true tradition as the kernel of the story. Following Marquart, whose brilliant research 3 has poured a flood of light on the Joseph-story, the present writer places the great Hebrew vizier now called Joseph in the reign of Akhenaten or Amen-hotep IV.

We may now perhaps venture on the statement that there are five distinct elements in our present Joseph-story :

  • (1) the transformed tradition of a sojourn of the tribe of Joseph in Egypt ;
  • (2) the tradition, true in essentials, of a Hebrew vizier under Akhenaten ;
  • (3) the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, etc. (an imaginative appendage) ;
  • (4) the narrative (not historical) connecting the changed agrarian law of Egypt with Akhenaten's vizier ;
  • (5) the narrative (also unhistorical) of the sojourn of the other sons of Israel in Egypt.

All these have been skilfully woven together by several Hebrew writers. There is something more, however, to be mentioned it is the ideality of the whole narrative. None of the Old Testament biographies attracts such universal admiration as the story of Joseph.

See, in addition to the books cited already, F. Vigouroux, La Bible et les decouvertes modernes$) , 1896, torn. ii. (for archaeology), and the vastly superior article of Driver in Hastings DB 2 767-775, the archaeological exactness of which is not less than its careful treatment of the Hebrew text. _ What has been omitted here for want of space will be found in this very useful article. That there is room for considerable difference of opinion on the difficult textual and historical questions in volved will be readily imagined. T. K. C.

2. In MT, father of IGAL (Nu. 187 [P]); but the real name seems to have dropped out : see JOSEPH i., i n.

3. One of the b ne Asaph (i Ch. 25 2 9).

4. One of the b ne Bani in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end) Ezra 1042 = 1 Esd. 834, JOSEPHUS

(<#>OOT)7TOS [B], ta)<7T)(j!>OS [A]).

5. A priest, head of the b ne Shebaniah, temp. Joiakim (see EZRA ii., 66 n), Neh. 12 14 [om. BN*A].

6. b. Zacharias, a Jewish officer defeated by GORGIAS (i Macc. 5:56+)

7. The Maccabee (2 Mace. 8 22 10 19 i<ooTjjroi> [A], -<j>ov [V], an ancient false reading for iiuarirji-) ; see MACCABEES i., 2, ad fin.

8. Ancestor of Judith (Jud. 81).

1 It depends on the reading and translation of an imperfect passage of one of the Amarna tablets (101 46). To place Jarimuta so far away as the Syrian Laodicea (Flinders Petrie, Syria and Egypt, 186) is hardly desirable. The view that it is in the Nile delta is due to the sagacity of C. Niebuhr (MVG 1 208-2 1 2 [ 96]).

2 Aegypten u. die Backer Moses, 295.

3 Chronologische Untersuchungen (1000), reprinted from the seventh supplementary volume of Philologvs, 637-720.

JOSEPH (in NT)[edit]

(icocHcb [Ti. \VH]).

i. Joseph of Arimathsea.[edit]

The passages relative to this Joseph should first be compared.

1. Description.[edit]

As to his description. Matthew says (27 57), a rich man of (airo, belonging to) Arimath;ea, named Joseph, who himself had become a disciple of Jesus (tfi.a8r]revdri T? Ir^ou). Mark (15 43), Joseph of Arimathaea (6 OTTO Ap.), a noble councillor MvjnfjMMi /Joi/Aeunk), who also himself was expecting the kingdom of God. Luke { 23:50), a man named Joseph, who was a councillor (/SovAevrjjs virdpxtav), a good and righteous man (he had not given his vote OVK jfv a-uvKaTaTi0f^evot for their counsel and deed) of Arimathaea a city of the Jews, who was expecting the kingdom of God. John (19:38), Joseph of Arimathaea (6 an-b Ap.), being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews. The Petrine Gospel (3), 'Joseph the friend of Pilate and of the Lord'. Tradition therefore is not entirely unanimous as to the description of Joseph.

In some respects the simplest accounts in our Gospels are those of Mt. and Jn. Both agree that Joseph belonged to the wider circle of Jesus disciples, and Peter probably means the same thing by the peculiar phrase quoted above ; and neither Mt. nor Jn. is aware that he belonged to any Jewish council. Mt. indeed says that he was a rich man, whilst Jn. is silent on this point ; but the fact that, ac cording to Jn. , Joseph in the first instance under took the whole of the arrangements for burial, and was afraid of the consequences to himself if he avowed his discipleship, proves that Jn., too, must have regarded Joseph as a rich man. The account in Jn. 19:41-42, however, presents one apparent dis crepancy from that in Mt. 27:60. Apparent we call it, because it only rests on an inference ; but that inference is certainly a very natural one. It appears from Jn. 19:41-42. that the body of Jesus was laid in the sepulchre adjoining the place of crucifixion only because it was nigh at hand ; that Joseph happened to be the owner, would be so remarkable a coincidence that the evangelist would surely have stated it. It is true, Mk. and Lk. , as well as Jn. , are silent as to Joseph s proprietorship of the tomb ; but the pre sumption is that Joseph, who was evidently, according to them, a man of social standing, and would there fore certainly have prepared his own long home, is to be supposed to have taken the body of Jesus to his own new tomb, which was somewhere near Jerusalem.

2. Discipleship.[edit]

Is there also a discrepancy between Mk. (and Lk. ) and Mt. as regards Joseph s discipleship? According to B. Weiss ( Das Leben Jesu, 2:592; Das Matthdusevang. 574) there is. Mk. 16:43 accurately, though indirectly, states that hitherto Joseph, who was a councillor, had kept aloof from the circle of the adherents of Jesus, whereas Mt. 27:57/ expressly affirms that he had become a disciple. Weiss also thinks that Mt.'s description of Joseph as a rich man was due to his desire for a fresh fulfilment of prophecy (Is. 539). Here, how ever, there appear to be several misunderstandings.

(1) Joseph was of course not a close adherent of Jesus ; but he belonged to that wider circle of disciples which Mt. , though less distinctly than Mk. and Lk. , presupposes (see Keim, Jesu von Naz. 2,222 f.).

(2) Joseph was scarcely a councillor in the sense supposed by Weiss. (3) Neither Mt. nor any other early Christian writer thought of Is. 53:9 as a prediction of Christ's burial.

3. Historicity.[edit]

Let us pause here and ask if thus far the accounts are historical. The statements that the person who arranged for the burial of the body of Jesus was a member of the wider circle of disciples, a rich man of Arimathaea (see below, 5), named Joseph, and that the tomb in which he placed the body of Jesus was his own, is questioned by few critics. These were points which tradition was not likely to have invented. The notion of Strauss that the story of the tomb was suggested by Is. 53:9 is refuted by the circumstance that none of the Gospels, nor any subsequent work of the early Christian period, refers to that passage, the obscurity of which evidently caused great difficulty to the ancient translators. We may at any rate accept as a historical certainty the ^ra.<jyrj ( he was buried ) of 1 Cor. 15:4.

4. Meaning of 'councillor'[edit]

We now pass on to the statement of Mk. and Lk. that Joseph was a councillor. If by 'councillor' they mean 'member of the Sanhedrin', we are involved in hopeless perplexity. That Joseph was not deficient in courage, is shown by his application to Pilate, for the notion of Evangelium Petrou 3 that he was a friend of Pilate is clearly a late fancy. If a member of the Sanhedrin, he must have attended on such an important occasion as the trial of Jesus, and must have spoken for him, and have trans mitted the knowledge of this fact and of much more important facts to subsequent generations of Christians. The inevitable inference from Mk. 14:64, however, is that no member of the council was absent, and certainly no one can say that the evangelical tradition of the trial of Jesus has the appearance of exactness. Does it not seem to follow from this that Mk. did not, any more than Mt. , suppose Joseph to have belonged to the Sanhedrin in short, that Lk. must have misunderstood the meaning of /3oiiXeurifc ? No one can say that the epithet evcrxrifj.(i>t> i.e., noble 2 as applied to a member of the Sanhedrin, is at all natural. If, how ever, we interpret etVx- /SouXetwiJj from a Greek or a Roman point of view, it becomes equivalent to a man of high social rank ( = a noble senator), and is quite in place in a work intended mainly for Gentile Christians. Lk. and Jn. , however, may easily have misunderstood it. 3 John shows special thoughtfulness in dealing with it. He considered, apparently, that he had before him a twofold tradition. According to one version, Joseph of Arimathaea, a rich disciple of Jesus, paid his Master s body the last sad honours ; according to another, it was a councillor named Joseph of Arimathaea who did this. He therefore combined the two traditions, only substituting Nicodemus for Joseph as the name of the councillor, for which he had prepared the way by the statement respecting a speech of Nicodemus in the council apparently suggested by the parenthetical remark about Joseph in Lk. 23:51. See NICODEMUS.

5. Arimathaea.[edit]

Opinions differ (see Keim, Jesus von Naz. 8513/1) as to the place intended by Arimathaea. Most probably it is the Ramathaim mentioned in 1 Macc. 11:34 beside Lydda. See OS 225:12 (ap/j-aOe/j, ffei<pa) and RAMAH, 2. From the fact that Joseph possessed a rock-tomb near Jerusalem, we may assume that he had taken up his abode at any rate for a time in the Holy City, and the fact that nothing is heard of him afterwards justifies the supposition that he may afterwards have left Palestine ; possibly he was a merchant. It is a weakness, however, in our position, that we are compelled to speculate.

1 On the text see SBOT, Isa. Heb., 150, and cp 201, Addenda ; cp also Marti, ad loc.

2 See Acts 13:50 17:12. 'Of noble bearing' (Edersheirr.) is surely impossible.

3 So Brandt, Evang. Gesch. 79.

4 H. v. Schubert, Die Contp. ties J-s. Petr. Evang. 62.

6. Joseph's deed.[edit]

As to the deed of Joseph. As far as regards the entombment itself, not much need be added to what has incidentally been said already. The simplest statement is that of Mt. ; it is difficult to think that the earliest tradition referred to Joseph's purchase of linen (dyopdeas ffiv86va ; see LINEN) for the purpose of enwrapping the body. The mention of a garden in Jn. 19:41 may also be mere amplification ; the Petrine Gospel (24) says that Joseph's own tomb was called 'Joseph's garden' apparently the name of a well-known locality in the time of the writer. 4 The story of Joseph's interview with Pilate is given very simply by Mt. , Lk. , and Jn. Mk. , in his graphic way, lays stress on the courage required for Joseph s act (roX/^Vas), and adds that Pilate marvelled if he were already dead, and calling the centurion, he asked if he had been any while dead ; and when he knew it, he gave the body to Joseph (Mk. 15:44-45). None of the Synoptics makes any reference to the fact stated in Jn. 19:31 that the Jews had already asked Pilate that the crurifragium might be performed (see CROSS, 4, 6), and that the bodies of the crucified might then be removed. Yet this certainly makes the whole occurrence more intel ligible (cp Evang. Petr. 5). It was not usual, according to Roman law, to grant burial for the bodies of the crucified ; hence the need of courage on Joseph s part. That Pilate first of all asked Herod for the body (Evang. Petr. 3-5) is an unplausible fancy ; and the elaborate tale of the imprisonment of Joseph, of his miraculous release and of his baptism by Jesus, after which he is taken by the Lord to Arimathsea, are specimens of the inventions of the Acts of Pilate (12 15). For the English legends on which the abbey of Glastonbury is founded, see William of Malmesbury, De Antiq. Glastom- ensis Ecclesiie in Rev. Angl, Script. Vet. 1 ( 84), and elsewhere ; and cp Nutt, Studies on the Legend of the Holy Grail with Especial Reference to the Hypothesis of its Celtic Origin, 1888.

2. Husband of Mary[edit]

7. References.[edit]

The references in the Gospels l must be carefully considered,

(a) Mk. nowhere, directly or indirectly, refers to Joseph.

(b) Seven occur in Mt., but all in chaps. 1-2, a section which stands apart from the rest of Mt.'s Gospel, and has nothing answering to it in Mk. or Jn. The most important is that in 1:16, because it refers to Joseph as a person well known by name to the reader as the husband of Mary. In 12:46 ( = Mk. 3:31) Mt. mentions the mother of Jesus, but not his father.

(c) Lk. also mentions Joseph seven times, but only in chaps. 1-4. It is true that one of these references is outside chaps. 1-3, a section which (if we put aside 2:21-38 and 40-52, which are unique, and 3:1-22, which corresponds to Mt. 3, and is properly speaking outside the prelude of the fuller traditional Gospel) is in the main parallel to Mt. 1-2. In the two narratives which are here called unique, however, the father of Jesus is twice referred to, without being named (2:33, 6 irarrip avrov, and 2:43 ol yoveis avrov [WH, followed by RV]). The last reference (Lk. 4:22) occurs in a narrative which has evidently been expanded and is less accurate than the tradition given in Mk. 6:1-6 Mt. 13:54-58, and may perhaps be ascribed to the influence of chaps. 1-3 in which Joseph is referred to by name. 'Is not this the son of Joseph' in Lk. corresponds to 'Is not this the carpenter' in Mk. , and 'Is not this the carpenter's son' in Mt.

(d) In Jn. , Jesus is twice referred to as the 'son of Joseph' (1:45, 6:42), in the latter case with the addition, 'whose father and mother we know'.

Thus the evidence that primitive Christian tradition knew anything about the father of Jesus is very slight, and considering the high probability that the narratives respecting the birth of Jesus in Mt. If Lk. 1:21-39, 3:23-38 are partly Haggadic or edifying tales like those in the Protevangelium Jacobi (upon which, indeed, L. Conrady thinks that the infancy narratives are based), partly the offspring of the keen interest which post-exilic Judaism displayed in real and imaginary genealogies (this applies to Mt. 1:1-17, Lk. 3:23-38), it becomes the historical student to confess that the name of the father of Jesus is, to say the least, extremely uncertain.

1 Cp. GOSPELS, 22.

2 The Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, however, gives Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin." Cp. GOSPELS, 22.

8. Meaning of Joseph.[edit]

It would, however, be hasty to assert that there was no element of truth in the expression, 'Joseph the faithful husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ' (Mt 1:l6 ) 2 A hint may perhaps be gained from the two references in Jn. The writer of this Gospel says nothing of the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem-Judah, and apparently does not accept this particular tradition. He cannot, however (if we regard the gospel as a whole), have been indifferent to the earthly origin of Jesus. Though Jesus was fj.ovoytvf)s (God s only be gotten one), yet he abode among us, and the evangelist makes Jesus invite inquirers to come and see where he dwelt (Jn. 1:38-39). One of these inquirers (Philip of Bethsaida) seeks out (tbplfKtl, i.e., finds after seeking) Nathanael, and says, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. Elsewhere (6:41-42) a Galilaean multitude is represented as murmuring at the great Rabbi (v. 25) because he said that he had come down from heaven, and gave life to the world (vv. 33-35), although he was Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know (v. 42). Both these passages suggest that Jesus bar Joseph was a common phrase in some forms of the primitive Christian tradition, and the latter passage suggests the inquiry whether there is not a sense in which Jesus could have been the son of Joseph, although the name of the husband of Mary was unknown. The phrase the sons of Jacob and Joseph ( Ps. 77:15 [16]) does not mean the men called Reuben, Simeon, Manasseh, Ephraim, etc., nor does Shallum the son of Jabesh (2 K. 15:10) probably mean Shallum, whose father, in the strictest sense, was called Jabesh. On the analogy of such passages Jesus the son of Joseph may mean Jesus a member of the house of Joseph (Zech. 10:6). It is true that the Jewish belief in a Messiah ben- Joseph, the forerunner of the Messiah ben-David, did not exist as a developed scholastic doctrine in the time of Jesus (see MESSIAH), but some of the germs of it may have appeared even then. The primitive Christians certainly seem to have traced Christ s origin to Galilee (see NAZARETH), and to have quoted Is. 9:1 [8:23] as a prophecy of his Galilaean birth (Mt. 2:23, 4:14+). Even in the latest of our Gospels we seem to find traces of a division among the Jews in this respect, some affirming that the holy one and the prophet (par excellence] could not proceed from Galilee (Jn. 1:46 7:52) 1 ; others that Jesus -was the Holy One, and was spoken of in the law and the prophets, although he was w6s TOV Iw<rr7<, 6 dirc> Nafaper (Jn. 145, and cp 7:52).

9. A carpenter?[edit]

According to Mt. 13:55 Jesus, when on a visit to his irarpis or fatherland (but Syr. Cur. and Lewis, 'his city' was called & * KTOVO<! vl6 *> 'the carpenter's son'. It is true that this was early understood to mean the son of Joseph. Not only does Lk. substitute this phrase in 4:22, but the Sinaitic Palimpsest does the same in Mt. 13:55. The phrase 135 13, however (Baba Bathra, 73b), simply means a carpenter = pna: na, and, as Mr. N. Herz has already suggested, the phrase, as used in the tradition, may have meant no more than this (cp SON). In this case, Jesus himself is the carpenter, a result which agrees with the statement in Mk. 6:3, and is in accordance with what we should expect and desire. The possibility must be admitted, however, that there has been a confusion between two Semitic roots is: and ID:. Elsewhere (see GENNESARET, NAZARETH) it has been shown that a name for Galilee, or for a district in Galilee, was IKJ or rm:, but that this was also written no: or moa- Now the Aram, no: n sar (Heb. ibj* I cp nibD, 'a saw' ) means to 'saw', so that Jesus the Nazarene (Nasarene?) might be taken to mean 'Jesus, the carpenter'." Possibly, or probably, there was a play upon words. A mere carpenter, said the Jews ; yes, a carpenter - one of ourselves, said Christ's poor.

1 In Jn. 1 46, for SvvaraC TI ayadov read SVVO.TO.I 6 ayioy, and in Jn. 752, for jrpo^ijn)? read 6 jrpo^nis. See NAZARETH; GALILEE, 5, n. 2.

10. Later views.[edit]

The usual opinion that Joseph died before Jesus' ministry began seems to be based on Mk. 6:3 ; cp 3:31 and parallels.

The accounts in the Apocryphal Gospels and similar writings (e.g., the Death of Joseph; see Forbes Robinson's Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, 1896) are not historical traditions at all. See (for dates) Lipsius, Diet. Christ. Biog. 2700. In the Sahidic apocryphal Life of Joseph, which is strongly impregnated with Egyptian ideas, the age of Joseph at his death is fixed at in years. The ideal age for the close of life in Egypt was no years (see JOSEPH ii., g 10). T. K. C.


3-6. Lk. 3:30 Lk. 3:26 RV JOSECH [y.v.], and Lk. 824, names of individuals in the genealogy of Jesus ; see GENEALOGIES ii., 3-4

7. Joseph (Jos. Ant. x%iii. 22 4 3) called CAIAPHAS [g.v.].

8. Joseph (Acts 123) called BARSABAS [f.v.].

9. Joseph whose mother was Mary ; brother of James (Mt. 13 55, AV JOSES, Mk. 63, EV /*.) The reading Joseph is supported by N*BC in Mt., and by n in Mk. See CLOPAS, 4.

10. Acts 436, RV ; see BARNABAS.


( i o>CH(}>OC [A]}, i Esd. 9 3 4 = Ezra 1042, JOSEPH, 4.



(1)Mt.l8s5(ittCH<|>[Ti.WH]), Mk. 6:3 (IWOTJTOS [Ti. WH]); see CLOPAS 4, JOSEPH iii., 9.

(2) Acts 4:36 (iu><7T)<j> [Ti.WH]); see BARNABAS.


(ilCJT, 31 ; probably a corruption of JOSHIBIAH), a Simeonite prince, i Ch. 4 34! (ia)C[e]lA [B], -CIAC [A], ICOAC [L]).