Encyclopaedia Biblica/Uriah-Ward

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

Contents

URIAH[edit]

and in Mt. 1:6 AV, Urias (n>"VlN. but no. 3 inn-IN ; oyp[e]|A.C [BSAL]).

The name might mean 'Yahwe is a fire', 35 ; cp ARIEL, 1. It is strange, however, that a Yahwistic name should be borne by a Hittite. The difficulty disappears if we accept Jastrow's theory (JBL 13:101+; see NAMES, 109, n. 3) that the element rv [YH] is often only an emphatic afformative. It is equally non-existent on the theory that this element has generally arisen out of '[Y], the common termination of gentilics. miN, like TW7iIK, URIEL, llN, URI, is in fact [not] most probably a corruption either of SNDrtTi Jerahmeeli, or of <3"iy> 'Arabi. Cp also UZU in the Phoenician Urumilki (KAT (2), 185). The amount of evidence for such corruptions is too great to be disregarded.

i. A 'Hittite', one of David's heroes (2 S. 23:39 [oipet [ourei] L], 1 Ch. 11:41 [ovpa [ourei] BX]), who took part in the war against the Ammonites under Joab, and was got rid of by David in a most cowardly way to cover over his adultery with BATHSHEBA (q.v.), Uriah's wife (2 S. 11, 12:9+, 1 K. 15:5). {2}

1 See AOF, 2:250-252.

2 The qualification in v. 5 (end) is wanting in LXX{B}, and is no doubt a gloss. The redactor himself elsewhere gives David an absolute eulogy (11:34, 11:38). So Benr., Kittel.

Our view of the notices of Uriah in 2 S. 11-12, however, needs revision in the light of the facts ;

  • (1) that the list of David's heroes, which includes Uriah the Hittite, makes no allusion to the reported treachery of David;
  • (2) that the story of this treachery has undoubtedly been manipulated (see BATHSHEBA, JEDIDIAH, SOLOMON, 2), out of a regard for edification; and
  • (3) that, 4Tin being most probably a mutilated form of riiirn, 'Rehobothite', and 'Rabbah of the b'ne Ammon' being not less probably a corruption of 'Rehoboth of the b'ne Jerahmeel' (cp REHOBOTH), it is not conceivable that 'Jerahme'el the Rehobothite' (misread in the traditional text, 'Uriah the Hittite') should have fought in the ranks of the Israelites on the

occasion referred to. Obviously Uriah's true designation had been forgotten when the story of the siege received its present expanded form.

To this we must add that stories similar to that of the baleful letter to Joab are familiar to students of primitive folklore. 1 Even apart from this, it is plausible to hold, on grounds of literary criticism, that 2 S. 11:1 was originally followed by 12:26 (S. A. Cook, AJSL 16156 [April 1900]; so, independently, Winckler). Cp, however, Budde in KHC, 'Sam.' 250.

It is not difficult to see how Uriah may have come into the story of Bathsheba. BATHSHEBA (y.v.) was apparently a 'Jerahmeelite' by origin. ^NDnV, when broken up by the carelessness of scribes, furnishes material for the two words DyXx (Eliam) and n llN (Uriah). Errors like this often have strange results in the production of legends.

2. A priest, temp. Ahaz, who acted as a witness for Isaiah (Is. 8;2). He is presumably the Uriah (AV URIJAH) who built an altar for Ahaz after a Damascene pattern, 2 K. 16:10-11

3. b. Shemaiah of Kirjath-jearim, slain at the command of Jehoiakim for prophesying against Jerusalem (Jer. 26:20 AV Urijah).

4. Father of MEREMOTH (1), a priest temp. Nehemiah, Ezra 8:33 (apetou [L]), 1 Esd. 8:52 (IRI, RV Urlas ; oup[e]ia [B], oupi [A], oupiou [L]), cp Neh. 3:4, 3:21 (AV Urijah, trovpia [souria] [X]), possibly the Uriah present at the reading of the law under Ezra (Neh. 8:4 AV Urijah ; ovpeia. [BN c a - A] = 1 Esd. 9:43 E V URIAS).

T. K. C.

URIEL[edit]

(Vrie.), 'the angel that was sent to Ezra', according to 4 Esd. 4:1, 4:36 (?), 5:20, 10:28.

In 4:36 he is called an archangel, but RV prefers the reading JEREMIEL. (q.v.), a name which occurs nowhere else in this literature, but is most probably, like 'Jeremiah', one of the many distorted forms of 'Jerahmeel' {2} (cp LXX{BA}; Jer. 36:26). Possibly 'Jeremiel' (SttDT) is a variant to 'Raphael' (^Nn) ; Raphael, according to Enoch 20:2, is the 'angel of the spirits of men'. Uriel, under the corrupt form 'Adoil', occurs in Tg. Jon., and in the Slavonic Enoch 25:2, not, however, as an angel. This passage presupposes the explanation 'flame of God', which is hardly the original meaning. The Jerahmeelite connection of some of the chief angelic names in -el is noteworthy. See MICHAEL, and, in illustration, note the facts which point to Jerahmeelite influence, both healthy and the reverse, on the religion of Israel (MOSES, 14, PROPHET, 6-7).

T. K. C.

URIEL[edit]

(?N > "V1N ; oypmA)- A plausible explanation of the name is 'flame of God', section 35, or, 'God is a light', cp ?3~)1X Nurbel, a Palmyrene name, de Vogue, Syr. Centr. 124; Baeth. Beitr. 86. But

  • (1) the analogy (contested, no doubt) of many similar names,
  • (2) the occurrence of the regularly formed ethnic Uri, and
  • (3) the connections of the bearers of the name, may be held to favour an explanation similar to that given above of URIAH- i.e., it is a Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian name [Che.].

1. The father of Michaiah, the mother of Abijah, king of Judah (2 Ch. 13:2). (For ouptrjA a-n-b yapauii d5 [ouriel apo gabaoon] LXX{L} has a/3ecrcraAu)jii [abessaloom]) But see MAACAH, 3.

2. Chief of the Kohathites, mentioned at the bringing up of the ark to Jerusalem under David (1 Ch. 16:5, 16:11; apnq\ [ariel] [B]).

3. A name in the Kohathite genealogy of ELKANAH (q.v.) (1 Ch. 6:24 [6:9]: opirjA. [oriel] [B]).

4 and 5. Perhaps a collateral form of ARIEL, 1 ( = ARELI) and ARIEL, 2.

URIJAH[edit]

), Jer. 26:20 AV, RV URIAH (3).

1 Mucke (Vom Euphrat nach Tiber, p. 75, n. 1) refers to the stories of Bellerophon, Pausanias, and Otto von Wittelsbach.

2 Similarly Gunkel, in Kau. Apokr. 357.

3 Urim alone, Nu. 27:21, 1 S. 28:6 ; Thummim and Urim, Dt. 33:8. On the derivation and meaning see below.

URIM AND THUMMIM[edit]

(AH/\ {3} LXX OOCIC [deloosis], or AnAoi, KM &AH9ei& [deloi, kai aletheia] [1 S. 14:41 OCIOTHC [osiotes]]; Aq. Sym. Theod. cJxJOTiCMOl [Sym. 1 S. 286 AnAoi [deloi], Dt. 33:8 jeAeiOTHC KAI AiA&xn. [teleiotes kai didache] cp Jerome] and reAeioTHTec [teleiotetes], TeAeicoceic [teleiooseis]. reAeioi [teleioi]; Vg. doctrina and veritas or perfectio], the apparatus of the priestly oracle (Dt. 33:8, cp 33:10 ; Nu.27:21, Ezra 26:3 [LXX{BA} TOIC (J)U)TIZOYCIN K&l TOIC TeAeiOIC [tois phootizousin kai tois teleiois], LXX{L} TeAeio)ceciN [.... teleioosesin]] = Neh. 7:65 [LXX{BXA} C}>COTICOON [phootisoon], LXX{L}TOIC 4>CGTICMOIC KAI TAIC T6A6ICOC6CI N [tois phootismois kai tais teleioosesin]]). The only passage which throws any light upon the nature and use of the Urim and Thummim is 1 S. 14:41-42.

Emending after LXX, we read:

'And Saul said, "O Yahwe, God of Israel, why dost thou not answer thy servant to-day? If this fault be in me or in Jonathan my son, give Urim, and if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim." Thereupon Saul and Jonathan were taken and the people went free. Then Saul said "Cast between me and Jonathan my son; he whom Yahwe takes shall die"... So they cast between him and Jonathan his son, and Jonathan was taken'.

It is evident from v. 41 that the question, which in both cases is put as a simple alternative (cp v. 39), was decided by casting lots; and from v. 40 that Urim and Thummim were the names respectively of two objects with which the cast was made.

Comparing 1 S. 14:41-42 with 14:36 LXX (cp 3:18 LXX) we see that the casting of lots with the Urim and Thummim was part of the method of divination by the ephod ; in other places where the ephod is employed (23:6, 23:9, 30:7) the procedure is so exactly the same as in 1 S. 14:36b that there is hardly room for doubt that in these cases also the decision was by the same sacred lots (see EPHOD) ; and in many others, though neither the ephod nor the Urim and Thummim is named, the same inference may confidently be drawn (see 1 S. 10:20+, 2 S. 2:1, 5:19+, Josh. 7:16+, Judg. 20:27-28). 1 In the article EPHOD ( 4) it has been surmised that the Urim and Thummim were kept in the ephod, and with certain manipulations secundum artem drawn or thrown from it. Moslem writers describe a similar mode of divination among the Arabs before Islam. Two arrow-shafts (without heads or feathers), on one of which was written 'Command', on the other 'Prohibition', or words of similar purport, were placed in a receptacle, and according as one or the other of them was drawn out it was known whether the proposed enterprise was in accordance with the will of the god and destined to succeed, or not (cp Prov. 16:33, Acts 126). At Mecca, it is said, these lots were in the keeping of the guardians of the Holy House, one of whom drew an arrow when a man wished to decide whether to go on a journey, to marry, etc. Sometimes three arrows were used, one of which was blank; if this was drawn the god refused a response (cp 1 S. 14:37, 28:6). Other objects, such as white pebbles, similarly marked, were also used; and the interrogatory could be framed in other and more complex ways. 2 That the divination by Urim and Thummim was of this kind is the opinion of J. D. Michaelis (Mos. Recht, 1, 52 - three pebbles), Ewald (Alt. 390+), and many others. The form of the Urim and Thummim is unknown ; that they were little images (De Castro, Spencer, Gesen., and others) is a conjecture which rests solely upon an erroneous identification with the teraphim. If it were safe to draw an inference from the size and shape of the receptacle provided for them in P's description of the high priest's vestments, we should imagine them as small flat objects, perhaps tablets of wood or bone ; but it may be doubtful whether P, who, strangely enough, gives no directions for the making of the Urim and Thummim, had any definite notion what they were.

1 It is, of course, not imagined that in all cases in which lots are used the Urim and Thummim are meant.

2 See Ibn Hisham, 1:97+; Lane, Arab.-Engl. Lex. col. 1247; cp Tac. Germ. 10, and in general Van Dale, De divinationibus idolatricis in VT memoratis, chap. 4; We. Heid. (1) 126-127, (2) 133-134. An example of belomancy in the OT, Ezek. 21:21 [21:26]; see Jerome ad loc., and cp DIVINATION, 2 (ii.).

In P the Urim and Thummim are in the keeping of the high priest (Ex. 28:30, Lev. 8:8, Nu. 27:21); they are preserved in a square pouch which is worn upon his breast, the Bs"e34o jrn, hoshen mishpat (EV 'breastplate of judgment'; rather 'of [divine] decision, oracle' ; {1} see BREASTPLATE). This pouch was permanently attached by chains and cords through rings at its corners to the ephod ; the association of the Urim and Thummim with the ephod which we found in the historical books is thus preserved in P ( EPHOD, 3). Whether this form of consulting Yahwe was actually practised in the post-exilic period is doubtful. There is no mention of it in the historical books after the time of David and Solomon (1 K. 2:26 read 'the ephod'); but Hos. 3:4 shows that in the prophet's day the ephod-oracle was one of the things which the popular religion could not be thought of as existing without. In Neh. 7:65 (Ezra 2:63, 1 Esd. 5:40), however, an important question affecting the rights of certain priestly families is reserved for decision 'when a Urim and Thummim priest shall arise', proving that this mode of divination was then disused - the art seemingly lost. A reference like Ecclus. 33:3 [Si/ccu wc [dikaioon] (B), dri\wv [deloon] (A) ; cp 45:10 5rj\ois d\i]9eias [delois aletheias], where, moreover, \oyiti) Kpifffus [logioo kriseoos] also corresponds to aat D JBTI] does not prove that it was practised in the writer's day. Josephus says that the breastplate had ceased to light up (\O./J.TTLV [lampein], his understanding of the Urim) two hundred years before his time (Ant. 3:8:9 [section 218]); while according to the Mishna (Sotah 9:12) {2} the Urim and Thummim ceased with the death of the pre-exilic prophets ; but this is apparently only an inference from Ezra 2:63.

The names Urim and Thummim as vocalised in MT mean 'Lights' and 'Perfection'. This pronunciation is, however, unknown to the translators of LXX, who read the former 'Orim, and derived it from min [HVRH], 'to give decision, torah' (cp Dt. 33:8, 33:10) - an interpretation to which Sym. adheres (diScix^ [didache])- Modern scholars have not succeeded in giving a satisfactory explanation of the words. If Urim and Thummim were the names respectively of two lots which were of opposite presage, it is natural to infer that the names had a corresponding significance; and this presumption is still stronger if, as seems not unlikely, the words were actually written upon the objects used for casting or drawing the lot. If, then, D Dn is derived, as there is no need to question, from the root can 'be without fault', its opposite might well be a derivative of TIN 'curse', 3 the one signifying that a proposed action was satisfactory to God, the other that it provoked his wrath. This contrast would be still more natural if we might suppose that the Urim and Thummim were originally employed in a kind of ordeal such as is described in 1 S. 14:36=, where the real question was one of guilt or innocence ; and it is perhaps not without significance that Saul asks that if the fault be in himself or in Jonathan the lot Urim may come out. If this view is sound, the words should probably be pronounced 'orim and tamim. But all such conjectures are subject to the greatest reserve.

Literature. - For the older literature see J. G. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus antiquitatum, 1748, p. 75-76; for the history of opinion esp. Kautzsch in PRE (2), s.v. 16:226-233. The most important of the earlier monographs are Joh. Huxtorf, 'Historia Urim et Thummim', in his Exercitationes, 267+, reprinted in Ugolini Thes. 12:375+; and Spencer, 'De Urim et Thummim', in De leg. rit., lib. 8 diss. 7 (and in Ugolini, 12:453+); see also Braun, De vestitu sacerdotum, p. 593+. See also the literature under EPHOD ; [also Haupt, 'Bab. elements in the Levit. Ritual', JBL 19:58-59, 19:72-73 (1900); W. Muss-Arnolt, 'The Urim and Thummim', reprinted from AJSL, July 1900] ; T. C. Foote, JBL 21:27+ (1902).

G. F. M.

1 The meaning of the word jjyn [hoshen] is not known ; something like 'receptacle' best suits the context.

2 See also the Talmud, Sotah 48b, Joma 21b (Urim and Thummim lacking in second temple), and Maimonides, Kele ha-mikdash, 10, section 10.

3 That Q"ix [urim] is perhaps to be connected with TIN [ARR] was suggested by Wellhausen, Prol. (2) 419 n.

USURY[edit]

See LAW AND JUSTICE, 16 ; PLEDGE ; TRADE AND COMMERCE, 83 (e) 4 (2).

i. The commonest word is 7JE>J, neshek, -v/lt?], lit. 'something bitten off': TOKOS [tokos], usura (Ex. 22:25, Lev. 25:36-37, Dt. 23:19-20, Ps. 15:5, Prov. 28:8, Ezek. 18:8, 18:13, 18:17, 22:12).

2. The verb HC>3, nasha, awaire iv [apaitein], cx}>ti\tiv [opheilein] (Neh. 5:7 (Kt.), Is. 24:2), gives the substantive NtfC, mashsha, djrouYrjo-is [apaitesis] (Neh. 5:7, 6:10).

3. The verb W3, nashah, airaneiv [apaitein] (Kr.) (Neh. 5:7, ci^eAelx [oophelein], Jer. 15:10, etc), gives ntr:, nosheh, Karentiytav [katepeigoon], Ex. 22:25, AV 'usurer', RV 'creditor', and &}< neshi (Kr.), 2 K. 4:7, EV 'debt' (LXX{BA} airoTt o-eis TOVS TOKOUS o-ov [apotiseis tous tokous sou], LXX{L} avona-ov TO San/dov [apotison to daneion]).

4. TOKOS [tokos] in Mt. 25:27, Lk. 19:23, RV 'interest'.

UTA[edit]

(OYT<\ [BA]), a post-exilic family of Nethinim (1 Esd. 5:30), unmentioned in || Ezra (2:45), or Nehemiah (7:48).

UTHAI[edit]

C-rVU? {1} ; oyGi [BAL]).

1. 1 Ch. 9:4 (yio6i[e]t [gooth[e]i] [BA]) = Neh. 11:4, ATHAIAH.

2. One of the b'ne BIGVAI (q.v.); Ezra 8:14 (ovdai [A], wflat [L]) = 1 Esd. 8:40-41, Uthi (OVTOV IB], wflcu [L]), son of Istalcurus, on which see ZABUD, 2.

UZ[edit]

(pi; ; with art. I -Wil, Jer. 25:20-21; on origin of name, see GEOGRAPHY, 20, and note suggestion below that 'Uz' may be due to an early transcriber's error). According to the traditional view, the name is connected both with a region to the N. and with a region to the S. of Palestine. The facts of MT are as follows:

  • (1) Eldest son of Aram, Gen. 10:23 (us [oos], AEL), cp 1 Ch. 1:17 (ws [oos], A [17-23, om. B], oi>f [ouz], L), where Uz, Hul, etc., are among the sons of Shem, but LXX{A} agrees with MT of Gen. 10:23 (so Cappellus, Houb. , Ki. ).
  • (2) Eldest son of Nahor, Abraham's brother, Gen. 22:21 (<a% [oox] [A], wf [ooz] [L]).
  • (3) Grandson of Seir the Horite, Gen. 36:28 (ws [oos] [ADL], ovs [ous] [E]), 1 Ch. 1:42 (wj [ooz] [BA], our [ous] [L]).
  • (4) A land between c lSD (Egypt? Musri in N. Arabia?) and Philistia, Jer. 25:20 (not in LXX).
  • (5) An Edomite land, Lam. 4:21 (not in LXX). {2}
  • (6) A land of uncertain situation, where Job dwelt, Job 1:1 (<?i> x^Pf rri AiV[e]m5i [en choora te Aus[e]itidi]; and in LXX's addition to 42:17). See, further, GEOGRAPHY, 20.

Let us consider these data in the following order:- (4), (5), (3). (6), (i), (2). Not much need be said on (4). The clause relative to Uz (?) is omitted by Graf, Cornill, Giesebrecht, and Duhm as a gloss. It seems more probable, however, that pjM is a corruption of pun, which a thoughtless scribe wrote instead f DTIB ^D, which follows in the list of peoples. As to (5) it is plain from metrical considerations that py is superfluous ; most probably it is a corruption of a dittographed px (LXX, en-i y>)s [epi ges]); the first px seems to have come from I^Q (see LAMENTATIONS, BOOK OF, 8; MIZRAIM). As to (3), for 'Dishon' LXX appears to have read 'Rishon', which suggests Ashshuran 3 as the original. Now the first-mentioned son of Dishan (a mere double of Dishon) is Hemdan - i.e., probably [not] Jerahmeel. The corresponding place in the list of Dishon's children ought to be occupied by some not less important ethnic. Ozem (ci x), 1 Ch. 2:25, appears therefore to be excluded. Mitstsur is what we expect, and if pj; is a name of purely literary origin, and has come by an early transcriber s error from l^C! 4 our expectation is justified.

We now come to (6), and ask, Where was the land of Uz, where Job dwelt? The data appear at first sight to be conflicting. Job was one of the pip *:a- It seems therefore as if he ought to be placed in the E. or NE. of Palestine, and this can be supported by the mention of the Kasdim in Job 1:17, and possibly by the ethnics 'Shuhite' (?) in 2:11, and 'Buzite' in 32:2, also by the references to Uz in (1) and (2), according to the ordinary view. No stress, however, can be laid on the tradition connecting Job with the district of Hauran called the Nukra (see Wetzstein's valuable excursus in Del. Hiob (2), 551-604), since it can only be traced back to the fourth century A.D. On the other hand, the names Eliphaz, BILDAD (q.v.), and ZOPHAR (q.v.), and the ethnic 'Temanite' in 2:11, suggest placing the home of Job in a region S. of Palestine, and 'Kasdim' in 1:17 should probably rather be 'Kushim' (Cushites of N. Arabia), while the representation of Job and his friends as cultivators of 'wisdom' indicates that this was really the view of the writers of our present Book of Job (cp JOB, BOOK OF, 4, 9). This latter view is also confirmed by the apocryphal appendix to Job in LXX (see GEOGRAPHY, 20), and, according to the present writer's theory, by the phrase bene kedem in Job 1:3, which is a corruption of bene rekem - i.e., sons of Jerahmeel (see REKEM). As to (1) and (2),. we have [not] seen elsewhere (see, e.g., MIZRAIM) that Gen. 10 has been largely recast, so that 'Aram' originally meant the N. Arabian tribes known collectively as 'Jerahmeel', and it is possible that the names 'Nahor' and 'Haran' were originally attached to the Negeb.

To sum up. The two sets of data do not really conflict, if Aram and Nahor are primarily names of clans and districts in the Negeb, and not where later writers placed them in the NE. of Palestine. This is not a mere struggling hypothesis, but accords with a large series of parallel phenomena. If, however, we hesitate to admit this view (which implies that 'Aram' comes from 'Jerahmeel'), we may still find a plausible reconciliation of the data (see JOB, BOOK OF, 4). At any rate, a new critical treatment of the name may not be altogether unwelcome. Theories that are simple frequently prove to be erroneous. Cp Budde, Hiob, Vorwort, pp. 9-11

T. K. C.

1 For n mj? cp de Vogue, j. As. 1897, 10:202 (no. 355).

2 Unless )/)? [ges] represent not only pn but also a transliteration of pj>. See next paragraph.

3 So c XT in Ezek. 38:2 probably comes from llC tf, Asshur 1 (the southern Asshur). See ROSH.

4 In Lam. 4:21 JHN seems to have come from IX - i.e., 15fS ; see above, on (5).

UZAI[edit]

H-1X, eyei [BK], eyz<M [A], oyz. [L]), father of Palal (Neh. 3:25).

UZAL[edit]

(tylS ; Sam. hr5 ; AIZHA), son of Joktan, Gen. 10:27 (om. E), 1 Ch. 1:21 (om. B, AJ^HN [aizen] [A], oyz&A [L]), and, by a necessary correction, Ezek. 27:19, where ironwork (i.e., sword-blades?), cassia, and calamus (spice) appear among the articles of trade from Uzal. The name is obscure. Ar. tradition makes Azal the ancient name of the capital of Yemen, later known as Tsan'a (see Di. ad loc. and reff. ). The connection of the two names is disputed by Glaser (Skizze, 2:77, 2:310, 2:427, 2:434), who prefers to seek for Uzal near Medina. 1

On the text of the whole verse see Cornill (Ez., ad loc.). VjINa for SHNO is supported by some MSS, LXX, Pesh., and nearly all moderns. AV renders 'going to and fro'; RV strangely relegates the above reading ('from Uzal') to the margin, and translates 'yarn', based apparently on a passive formation of SjN = Aram. Sjy, 'to spin'. This weakening of y [A] to x ['] does occur in Heb., but not often enough to warrant such a rendering (cp W. Wright, Comp. Gr. Sem. 48;247). [See also Crit. Bib. on Gen. 10:27, Ezek. 27:19.]

F. B.

1 Ashur-bani-pal speaks of a city called Azalla, in the far-off land of Mas (see MESHA i.); see Del. Par. 243, 298-299

UZZA, THE GARDEN OF[edit]

(NW \\, . . . KHTTOC OZA [HAL]; Pesh. g'nth gzza; hortus Aza), the spot where Manasseh and Amon, and according to LXX{B} (see below) Jehoiakim were buried (2 K. 21:18, 21:26). The most important passage is 2 K. 21:18, because the Chronicler, too, refers to the spot where Manasseh was buried; he makes no such statement in the case of Amon. Manasseh was buried 'in the garden of his house, in the garden of Uzza' (2 K. 21:18): the || passage, 2 Ch. 33:20, simply says, 'in his own house', or (LXX) 'in the garden of his house'. Most scholars suppose that near Manasseh's palace was a plantation named after Uzza (Uzziah?) where Manasseh had made a family grave, but this is not quite satisfactory.

In 2 K. 21:18 pa is written twice over in parallel phrases. Omit the second j:3, and read "IIS JV3 J33, 'in the plantation of the mausoleum' (lit. 'rock-house' - i.e., grave in the rock, cp Is. 14:18, 22:16b). IV in the Psalter is repeatedly miswritten for IS. Note also that in 2 Ch. 36:8 LXX{B} has . . . K<X! KOI^^) liaaxeifj. . . . KCU eTct</>?) ei/ yavo^ar] [... kai ekoimethe Iooakeim ... kai etaphe en ganozae] (yavo^av [ganozan][A], Tav Oa [Gan Oza] [L]) juera ran rraTepwi/ aiirov [meta toon pateroon autou].

T. K. C.

UZZAH[edit]

(OZA [BAT,]),

1. (4W, 2 S. 6:6-8, section 51; A.ZZA[N] [A]) or UZZA (N32, 2 S. 6:3 [z<v A] 1 Ch. 13:7, 13;9-11), one of the sons of Abinadab who took part in the bringing up of the ark from Kirjath-jearim under David (see ARK, 5 ; KIRJATH-JEARIM). He and his brother (rnx; cp AHIO) were driving the cart upon which the ark was placed, when, upon reaching a certain threshing-floor (see NACHON), the oxen 'stumbled' (see below), whereupon Uzzah put forth his hand to steady the ark (emend 2 S. 6:7 after 1 Ch. 13:10 with We., Dr., Bu. , and others). For this 'God smote him', and the place received the name PEREZ-UZZAH (q.v.). The Chronicler, however, accounts differently for the calamity; 'none ought to bear the ark of God but the Levites (1 Ch. 15:2 ; cp v. 12-13, and col. 3463, n. i). The narrative can hardly be understood by itself ; it must be taken in connection with 2 S. 5:17-25. It would [not] appear (see REHOBOTH, ZAREPHATH) that, according to the story which underlies this passage and 2 S. 21:15-22 and 23:8+, David and his gibborim won a great victory over the Zarephathites and the Rehobothites, and by textual corruption Zarephath-azzah (the name in the original text) became Perez-uzzah, and so an imaginary person was produced, called Uzzah. The corrupt word Perez naturally suggested a divine judgment (cp Ex. 19:22, Ps. 60:3 [60:1]). The story is recognised as historical by Wade (Old Test. hist. 248), but it is perhaps wiser to regard it as artificial. See PEREZ.

'Stumbled' is evidently the sense required in 2 S. 6:6, though AV gives 'shook' (RV 'stumbled'; with margins). mptf, however, is not the right word ; perhaps it is the residuum of BECnn, 'wavered violently'. For other views see Dr. and Bu. (KHC).

2. AV UZZA (.IT}, ), a Merarite (1 Ch. 6:29 [6:14]: ax [aza] [A], oa [ozia] [L]). Cp GENEALOGIES 1, 7 (ii. d).

T. K. C.

1 That 'Uzza' in 2 K. 21:18, 21:26 has anything to do with 'Uzziah', as Wellhausen once suggested, is far from probable (see UZZA). Nor has the name Azriya'u of Ya udi anything to do with our Uzziah or Azariah. With regard to the authentication of the names in the OT, 'Azariah' has on the whole the support of Kings, Uzziah of Chronicles. More particularly, the form ,-ny (Uzziah) occurs in 2 K. 15:13 (?), 15:30, Hos. 1:1, Am. 1:1, Zech. 14:5, but in 2 K. 15:32, 15:34, Is. 1:1, 6:1, 7:1, 2 Ch. 26:1+, 27:2 in tj? (Uzziahu); rriTj; (Azariah) in 2 K. 14:21, 15:1, 15:7, 15:17, 23:27, perhaps 1:13 (see Ginsb.), 1 Ch. 3:12, but irmij? (Azariahu) in 2 K. 15:6, 15:8. From the point of view of the study of clan-names Azariah is the most to be preferred of these forms. An examination of the occurrences of Eleazar, Eliezer, Azariah, Azarel, Ezri, shows indisputably that there was till quite late times [not] a consciousness that Azar or Ezer represented a clan of the Negeb. It is noteworthy that by their mothers the kings of Judah were much connected with the Negeb. Very [im] possibly the mothers of Amaziah and Uzziah came, not from 'Jerusalem', but from 'Ishmael' (cSeTV an d SxyCC" being liable to confusion). When a queen-mother was of Jerusalem, it was possibly not stated ; take, c.f., the cases of the mothers of Hezeki.ih and Manasseh. In 2 K. 15:13, LXX's readings are oxoftou [ochoziou] [A] (cp o\o(eiav [ochozeian], B, 2 Ch. 26:1); 30 axa? [achas] [B], afapiou [azariou] [A] (om. L) ; 2 K. 15:32 afa/nat [azarias] [BAL] ; 15:34 (of[e]tas [oz[e]ias] [B], a^apta? [azarias] [AL]).

UZZEN-SHEERAH, UZZEN-SHERAH.[edit]

See SHERAH.

UZZI[edit]

CW, a perfectly regular abbreviated form of 1!"I* T1? [for Cheyne's view see UZZIAH], cp Palm. nrYozfcll [BAL] generally).

1. b. Bukki, in the genealogical list connecting Eleazar and Zadok (1 Ch. 6:5 [5:31], cp v. 51 [v. 36], ofr-rjX [oziel] [L]). This list is given also in Ezra 7:2+ (craovia [saouia] [B], ofti/t [oziui] [A], ofioi [oziou] [L]), but with the omission of all names between Meraioth and Azariah (the father of Amariah). In 1 Esd. 8:2 the name appears as SAVIAS (om. B, ffaovia [saouia] [A], ofiou [oziou] [L]); for OZIAS (AV EZIAS) here represents Azariah (of[e]toi> [oz[e]iou] [B], cfiou [eziou] [A], fapcuov [zaraiou] [L]), and LXX{B} by further omitting Uzzi and his son Zerahiah makes Azariah the son of Bukki - a proceeding which is based on a confusion between inmy [azariah] and vy [uzi]. Jos. (Ant. 8:1:3) replaces Uzzi and Zerahiah by to>[a]#a/xos [ioo[a]thamos]. See GENEALOGIES 1, 7 [iv.].

2. b. Tola, a chief of ISSACHAR (7, end), 1 Ch. 7:2-3 (eipp [zeirrei] [B v. 3]).

3. b. Bela b. BENJAMIN ( 9, ii. a), 1 Ch. 7:7 ; cp UZZA (1 Ch. 8:7).

4. b. Michri of BENJAMIN ( 9, iii.), 1 Ch. 9:8 (oou [oziou] [L]).

5. b. Bani, an overseer, temp. Nehemiah (Neh. 11:22, om. Xc.a).

6. A chief of a father's house of Jedaiah (Neh. 12:19, 12:42 om. BX*A in both places, oi [ozei] [L], [ozi] [Xc.a mg.]).

S. A. C.

UZZIA[edit]

(JOU? ; oz[e]iA[c] [BXAL]), the Ashterathite (very possibly Og's city of Ashtaroth [Dt. 1:4 etc.] was [not] really Zarephath, a city on the N. Arabian border probably conquered by David, see ZAREPHATH; but for the received view see ASHTAROTH), one of David's heroes (DAVID, 11, i.); 1 Ch. 11:44-45.

T. K. C.

UZZIAH[edit]

(ITU? [-in in 2 K. 15:32, 15:34, Is. 1:1, {1] etc., 2 Ch. 26:1+, 27:2 ; see also 5, below], either an expansion of the clan-name Uzzi (see Crit. Bib. on 1 Ch. 5:31) or a religious utterance = 'Yahwe is strength', or 'my strength' (sectio 29); there is the same difference of opinion as to Uzziel. The question is hardly decided by the existence of the Phuen. pr. names ^yny, -fooiy, or the Palm, iy and Nab. vty, or by the name found on old Heb. seals - rjy, uzziya'u, for which see Wright, Camp. Sem. Gr. 72-73. - [Che.]).

1. Earlier criticism.[edit]

1. Son of Amaziah, king of Judah, whom he succeeded at the age of sixteen (2 K. 14:21 = 2 Ch. 26:1). That the name Uzziah was changed to Azariah at his accession is highly improbable. Both names are equally religious or rather perhaps equally non-religious, and from 1 Ch. 6:24 [6:9] and 6:36 [6:21] we see how easy it was for my [AZYH] to become mt; [AZRYH], or for rimy [AZRYH] to become my [AZYH]. The form Azariah is the more accurate, but Uzziah may have been a popular corruption ; it is hardly worth while therefore to disturb the modern usage, and substitute Azariah for Uzziah. According to Stade {1} in 1887, there is very little information respecting Uzziah at the disposal of the historian. After stating that Aznriah or Uzziah was proclaimed king by a popular assembly, he adds that 'the Book of Kings knows nothing of any warlike achievements of Uzziah. The king had the misfortune to become a leper, so that in functions like that of pronouncing judgment, the discharge of which would have brought him into contact with the people, he had to be represented by his son Jotham, who was invested with the office of a prefect of the palace. Where the leper-king resided (see LXX) did indeed originally form a part of the tradition ; but the word in question (15:5) has become disfigured beyond recognition'.

In further explanation Stade adds, 'bet hachophschit [n5w Bnri], 2 K. 15:5, chopschut [T33na snri]) 2 Ch. 26:21, cannot possibly mean an infirmary |RVmg, 'a lazar house']. The aphphusoth [a</><|>ou<rnj0 [apphousooth]; but in 2 Ch. aufyfyovmiav [aphousioon] B, antftovcrwd [apphousooth] A] of LXX seems to suggest that it is not the original reading. It is, however, equally obscure what is the Hebrew word underlying it. Probably some building in the royal fortress is meant'. 2

Stade concludes with the remark that 'the sixteen years which the Book of Kings gives to Jotham, include the period during which Jotham was the regent for his father'. Elsewhere (567) Stade further mentions that Uzziah rebuilt Elath, which his father had probably recovered. It is clear, however, that fresh investiga tions of the Book of Chronicles and of the Hebrew text both of Kings and of Chronicles do not favour this extreme historical sobriety. Considering that the Book of Kings gives Uzziah a (nominal) reign of not less than fifty-two years, an augmentation of our scanty material is of importance. Let us consider our situation.

2. Circumstances of Uzziah's accession.[edit]

As to the accession of Uzziah, and the assumed conquest of Elath, we can hardly rest satisfied with the ordinary view of the circumstances of the time. As Kittel has pointed out, these are contained in portions of two different documents, viz., 2 K. 14:7-14 and vv. 19-22; {3} each source, in a carefully revised text, must be separately studied. From the former we infer (cp JOKTHEEL), that the contest between Jehoash and Amaziah was [not] for the possession of the NEGEB (q. v. ), a part of which Jehoash had [not] recovered for Israel, 4 but which Amaziah wanted [not] for Judah. A decisive battle took place [not] 'at Beth-cusham which belongs to Jerahmeel', and Amaziah was worsted and (according to this stratum of the narrative) taken captive. We now have to turn to our second fragment of narrative, remembering (this we learn from v. 7, where read 'Arammites', and for the rest see JOKTHEEL, SELA) that Amaziah had excited the bitter animosity of the Arammites or Jerahmeelites by his cruelty at the rock of Kadesh.

1 GVI 1:569-570

2 For Stade's fuller expression of opinion, see ZATW 6:156-159 (1886), where, inter alia, it is suggested that the true reading may have been f]inri JV3, Jer. 36:22, (Am. 3:15) - i.e., the winter palace.

3 Kittel wrongly detaches v. 22, and assigns it to the same document as vv. 7-14. The text, in its true form, does not appear to allow this.

4 In 2 K. 13:25 the reference is [not] to cities in the Negeb ; the present text of 10:33 is [not] full of distortions of names of districts and places in that region. See Crit. Bib.

The notice (vv. 19-22) is very meagre, and the text is imperfect. We can, however, venture to infer from v. 19 that, according to this document, Amaziah had not been carried away by Jehoash, but had sought refuge at some place in the independent, non-Israelitish portion of the Negeb. 1 Thirsting, as it would appear, for vengeance, some of the inhabitants conspired against the fallen king. He tied to Eshcol- or Halusah (?), an important city in the Negeb, but the dagger of the assassin found him there. The actors in the following scene (vv. 20-22) are the non-Israelites of the Negeb.

'And all the Cushites bore him [to Jerusalem], and he was buried in Jerusalem. . . . And the Jerahmeelites took Azariah (16 years of age) and made him king instead of Amaziah his father, and imposed paths upon him. And they returned to Jerahmeel, after the king had lain down with his fathers'. 3

The humiliation of Judah was now complete. First Israel, and then Jerahmeel, had treated it as a subject state. The only comfort was that Israel and Jerahmeel were foes, and in a struggle between the two the wishes of Judah would naturally accompany Israel. (It will be seen that the statement of the conquest of Elath has arisen out of a corruption of the text. 4 )

3. Wars of Uzziah?[edit]

As to the wars of Uzziah. According to the Chronicler, the king warred successfully against the Philistines, the Arabians, and the Meunim, and strengthened the fortifications of Jerusalem, which must have suffered greatly at the capture of the city by Jehoash (2 Ch. 26:6-9). The Book of Kings (as we have seen) is entirely silent as to this national aggrandisement ; but elsewhere valuable information has been found underlying the statements of Chronicles. Still, great exaggeration there must at any rate be, as Guthe (GVI 186) remarks. Unless we could bring ourselves to identify Azariah of Judah with Azriya'u of Ya'udi, we could not possibly imagine the sudden and unexpected revival of the martial prowess of Judah. McCurdy, it is true, assumes this ; 5 he also thinks that the relation of Hezekiah to the Philistine city of Ekron in the time of Sennacherib, and the statement of Sennacherib that the cities which he had cut off from Judah he gave to the kings of Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza, imply a period of Judahite expansion which we can only place in the reign of Uzziah. Winckler, on the other hand, remarks, 'Such successes as those which are described would be possible only if Azariah acted as the vassal of a more powerful prince. Mutsri could not be such, for it is certain that the Philistine cities would have enjoyed its special protection. There was Assyria, no doubt ; but Azariah could have taken part in the Assyrian campaign of 773 [the last year of Shalmaneser III.] only as a feudatory of Jeroboam II'. (KAT (3), 262).

There is no difficulty in supposing that either the Chronicler has misread his authority, or the text of Chronicles itself has suffered corruption. There is no difficulty in supposing that Uzziah after a time broke his 'oaths' and made war on the Jerahmeelites - i.e. , on that section of the Jerahmeelites which neither Jehoash nor (2 K. 14:28, explained in col. 3861, n. i) Jeroboam II. had subdued. That he 'broke down the wall' of Rehoboth and Ashhur, 6 is improbable, but he may have made successful incursions into the Jerahmeelite land', 1 and have inflicted a check on his enemies. More than this we cannot say, and underlying the account of Uzziah s leprosy there is probably a record of a great humiliation sustained by the king.

1 In v. 19 we read, 'And they conspired against him in Ishmael' (^N> CC"i as elsewhere, for o^BTl )-

2 Reading ^;c X for V"^>- The same change may be required in Mic. 1:13.

3 For the corrections see Crit. Bib.

4 The emendation in 2 K. 14:22a (nl^N3 1HN KTl : cp Ezek. 17:13) has already been suggested by Klostermann, who, however, makes Jeroboam II. the subject of the verb. To connect v. 22, either in whole or in part, with v. 7 (as most propose), is very difficult.

5 Hist. Proph. Mon. 1:312, n. i; 'Uzziah and the Philistines' Expos. 1891 b, pp. 388-396.

6 So read for 'Gath' (as often) and 'Ashdod' (as Am. 3:9). A region in or near the Negeb was called Ashhur, and there must also have been a city bearing the same name (cp the place-name Jerahmeel).

4. Reported leprosy.[edit]

As to Uzziah's leprosy (cp LEPROSY, 5, iv. ). In 2 Ch. 26:16-21 he is said to have been struck with leprosy as a punishment for attempting to usurp the office of the priesthood by burning incense in the temple, in spite of the well-established fact that the ancient kings from time to time exercised sacerdotal functions. But in 2 K. 15:5 all that is said is, 'And Yahwe smote the king, so that he became a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in the house * *' (the last word appears untranslatable). Has something been omitted by the compiler of Kings, and if so, did it agree with Chronicles? To answer the latter question in the affirmative is difficult, the story in Chronicles being so clearly post-exilic. The case is parallel to that of 2 K. 14:22. The true text probably [not] runs nearly as follows : 'And Jerahmeel led the king away to Missur to the day of his death, and he dwelt in Beth-zarephath of Missur'. 2

The mother of Jeroboam I. was called in error 'a leper', whereas really she was a Misrite (col. 2404, n. 2) ; Naaman in the earlier form of his story was called, not a leper (2 K. 5:1), but a Misrite. 3 And Uzziah, too, in the narrative from which the compiler of Kings drew, must have been brought into connection with the Misrites. Like Manasseh (probably), Uzziah was carried into captivity by the Misrites or Jerahmeelites of N. Arabia ; but unlike Manasseh he did not return. Meantime, his son Jotham was necessarily regent at Jerusalem.

5. Earthquake.[edit]

As to the earthquake, a detail so romantically used by Josephus (Ant. 9:10:4). In Zech. 14:5, Am. 1:1 (title) we find obscure references to an earthquake in Uzziah's reign, and the suggestion has been hazarded that this earthquake may have suggested the imagery of Is. 2:19-21 and Am. 4:11. It is true, the available evidence for the fact is very late, and Wellhausen throws doubt on its historical character (cp AMOS, 4). In Zech. 14:5 we should probably [not] read, 'as ye fled before Ashhur' (iinB N)i and in Am. 1:1, 'two years before Ashhur was rooted out'. The Zech. passage alludes to the frequent raids of Jerahmeelites or Ashhurites from N. Arabia, and the Am. passage probably to the events attending the successes of Jeroboam II. in the Negeb (see 2).

6. Uzziah in Isaiah.[edit]

As to references to Uzziah in Isaiah. That there is such a reference in Is. 61, is unquestionable. In Is. 2:6-8, 2:12-16, however, it is only to Jotham, first as regent and then as king, that the prophetic writer's descriptions can be safely held to apply. Exegesis, of course, is unaffected by this result.

T. K. C.

1 The 'Philistines' are [not] our old friends the 'Zarephathites' (see ZAREPHATH), and the 'Arabians of Gur-baal' are the 'Arabians of Jerahmeel'. The 'Maonites' should be the 'Ammonites', which, as often, is a corruption (which obtained an independent existence) of 'Jerahmeelites'.

2 lisa nsijrrrnn atri iro cviy lisa iferrnn ^XDm :nrv The final word is restored from 2 Ch. 26:21. The strange word JVt Enn [HChPShYTh = hachophschit] comes from niSE Nit) [H'ShPVCh or H'ShPVH or H'ShPVTh] 'the dung-hill', and niEX N ( as in the phrase rtSe NJ IJWi Neh. 2:13, etc.) is a corruption of "ES = nE-is-

3 The rendering of 2 K. 5:1b and accompanying note in the OT of Kautzsch should open the eyes of some readers. 'But the man was . . . leprous'. The two omitted words mean elsewhere, " an able (or valiant) man " ; either they have arisen from a mutilation of the text or they have got in here by mistake." "1SS> however, if we restore this word, is in apposition to S4rTI 11:33.

7. Azriya'u is he Uzziah?[edit]

We have no further information respecting Uzziah, unless we may venture to identify Azariah of Judah with an important personage in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III. This monarch informs us that in his reign (738 B.C.) nineteen districts situated in the neighbourhood of Hamath banded themselves against him under Az-(or Iz-)ri-ya-u of Ya-u-di, but were eventually overcome (see KAT (2) 217+, KB 2:25+, Tiele, BAG 229-230). The identification of Azriyau of Ya'udi with Azariah ( = Uzziah) of Judah proposed by the late George Smith the Assyriologist, and after him by Schrader (KGF 399+), who ably supported it against A. von Gutschmid, was accepted by Winckler in 1892, and is even now defended by McCurdy (HPM 1:348-349), C. F. Kent (Hist. Heb. People, (2) 126), and Rogers (HRA 2:119-120). A strong opposition has, however, been raised to it (see, e.g. , Wellh. JDT 20632 ; Klo. Sa.-Ko. 496; Wi. AOF 1:1+; KAT (3) 54, and, following Winckler, Che. Intr. Is. 4). Ahaz, it has been urged, was reigning four years later (734 B.C., see AHAZ), and the deaths of Uzziah and Jotham must therefore have been almost contemporaneous. The assertion that Jotham himself may have possibly taken the field, and not Uzziah (McCurdy, Hist. Proph. Mon. 1:414), on the theory that qui facit per alium facit per se, is scarcely borne out by the precise wording of the cuneiform text. But a far greater objection is the difficulty of supposing that Uzziah of Judah should ever have wished to interfere with Tiglath-pileser, that he should ever have been in a position to undertake such an expedition, and that he should have been the leader of a band of tribes representing a district extending from the Orontes to the sea, and from the northern flanks of Lebanon and Anti-libanus to the sea of Antioch ; 1 for whatever his relations with Jeroboam II. may have been, it is at all events clear that the statement in 2 K. 14:28 cannot be called in to support the identification (see JEROBOAM 2).

These objections are urged with great force by Winckler (AOF 1:10+), who, dismissing the old identification, would explain Ya-u-di as the well-known -IN [Y'DY] of the Zenjirli inscriptions mentioned in the steles of Panammu and Hadad, a view which is favourably quoted by Kittel (Konige, 263), and unreservedly accepted by Hommel (art. 'Assyria', Hastings BD). 2

S. A. C.

2. One of the b'ne Kohath, in the genealogy of HEMAN, 1 Ch. 6:24, [6:9] = 6:36 [6:21] AZARIAH, T~]>.

3. One of the b'ne HARIM, Ezra 10:21 = 1 Esd. 9:21 AZARIAS (but ofios [ozias] [L]).

4. Father of Athaiah in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (EZRA, ii., 5b, 15, 1a) (Neh. 11:4, a&& [azed] [B], a&Sva [azedna] [X]).

5. Father of JONATHAN, 9 (1 Ch. 27:25, %n'!y)

T. K. C., 1-6; S. A. C., 7.

UZZIEL[edit]

(yN -Tr, 29 ; either a clan name [cp UZZIAH], the -el being only formative, or = 'God is my strength', section 29; oz[e]mA [BAFL]), a name found only in post-exilic writings, and in connection with names capable of being regarded as clan-names of the Negeb (Che.).

1. b. Kohath (cp JAHAZIEL, 3) ; mostly mentioned last in the list of sons (Ex. 6:18, Nu. 3:19, 1 Ch. 6:2 [5:28], 6:18 [6:3]). According to Lev. 10:4 he was the uncle (-n) of Aaron (afiTjX [aziel] [B]). Of his sons who are mentioned in Ex. 6:22 (see also 1 Ch. 23:20 [LXX{B} identifies Uzziel with Jahaziel of 5:19] 24:24) the most important was Elzaphan (cp ZAPHON), who was the chief of all the Kohathites (Nu. 3:30).

The b'ne Uzziel are mentioned in 1 Ch. 15:10 with Amminadab their chief as amounting to 112; and it is noteworthy that Elzaphan appears in v. 8 as a separate clan. From Uzziel come the UZZIELITES Oty iyn, Nu. 3:27 6 offujAeis [B], 6 ofirjA eis [A], ofiTjA eis [F], ofirjA els [L] ; 1 Ch. 26:23). See GENEALOGIES i., 7.

2. b. Ishi, a captain of SIMEON (5) in the raid against the Amalekites and Meunim (1 Ch. 4:42).

3. b. Bela, in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., 9, ii. a) (1 Ch. 7:7).

4. A Hemanite musician (1 Ch. 25:4 <xapar)A [azarael] [B], who in v. 18 is called AZAREL (L, however, o<Jir)A [oziel]).

5. In 2 Ch. 29:14 Uzziel figures as a son of Jeduthun, not of Heman (as above). It is also noteworthy that the name occurs here in close connection with that of Elzaphan (v. 13).

6. 'Uzziel, the son of HARHAIAH (q.v.) goldsmiths', in list of wall-builders (see NEHEMIAH, 1-2; EZRA ii., 16 [1], 15d), Neh. 3:8 (LXX{BXA} omits). See Ryle-Be.-Ry., Siegfr. ad loc.

[Various explanations have been given of this strange phrase. Apart from the 'Jerahmeelite theory', we may be grateful for S. A. Cook's ingenious suggestion (Exp. T 10:280, and HARHAIAH). But in the light of many [few] other passages in which 'Jerahmeel' and 'Zarephath' put on strange disguises, and, in particular, of vv. 31-32 (on which see Amer. Journ. of Theol. 5:440 [1901], and PERFUMERS), it is difficult not to decide somewhat positively in favour of the following restoration, 'Next to him repaired Uzziel, son of Jerahmeel, a Zarephathite. And next to him repaired Hananiah, son of Jerahmeel'. The historical inference of Meyer (Entst. 153) that artisans with no landed estate had nog-ens, the guild taking the place of the gens, is therefore hardly justified. - T. K. C.]

1 Among the districts named are Hatarikka, Arka, Tsiattna (see HADKACH, ARKITE, SINITE).

2 See, on the other hand, McCurdy, Hist. Proph. Men. 1:413+. It has also been plausibly suggested that -IK- [Y'DY] may be meant in the famous title of Sargon at the opening of the Nimrud inscription (KB 2:37), 'the subduer of Ya'udu whose situation is far off'. Elsewhere, Sargon calls Canaan 'bit Humri' (cp KAT (2) 189, and see OMRI). See SARGON, 17.

VAHEB[edit]

(SHI mXl ; but MSS and Gr. Ven. apparently a locality in the Amorite country, towards Moab, described as being 'in Suphah' (HD-ID?) ; Nu. 21:14 RV.

A V (following Onkelos) gives the indefensible rendering, 'What he did in the Red Sea'; Vg. 'sicut fecit in mari rubro'; 1 Gr. Ven. Te(3ae/3T/ iv Aai Aan-i [etebaebe en lailapi]. The rendering of LXX{BA}] however - Tffv fwo/3 [ten zooob] (oo/3 [zoob] [FL]) e<^Aoyicre [ephlogise] 2 - presupposes the reading nnt DN rpjj, and studying this in the light of suggestions elsewhere made with regard to the 'stations' of the Israelites and the place-names in Dt. 1:1, Gen. 36:31-39, we see that 'Vaheb' is probably [not] a corruption of 'Mitstsur' and 'Suphah' of 'Sarephath' (see DI-ZAHAB, Suph). It the quotation really comes from a poetical record of the ancient wars we may further suppose that a verb has dropped out, and render '(he conquered) Missur and Sarephath' (two places in N. Arabia on the border of S. Palestine; see MIZRAIM, 2b, ZAREPHATH). It is much more [less] probable, however, that instead of 'the book of the wars of Yahwe' (mn nan/3 ISO) we should read 'the list of Jerahmeel'(^N^nT H2a), and suppose that the Priestly Writer here introduces us to one of his chief sources of information for N. Arabian place-names.

The passage then becomes, 'Wherefore it is said in the list of Jerahmeel, The land of Mitstsur and Sarephath ; the land of Jerahmeel which stretches towards the city of Zarephath, and is adjacent to the border of Mitstsur' (S^anT "IBD3 1Sr [3"Vy nxa). 1 See Crit. Bib.

T. K. C.

VAJEZATHA[edit]

RV Vaizatha (SHPI; ZABOYOAION [zabouthaion] [BL8], z&BoyAeeA [zaboudetha] [N], zABoYr^e* [zabougatha] [A], lZAOOYO [izathouth] [La]), a son of HAMAN, Esth. 9;9. The names of Haman's sons put a heavy strain on the traditional theory respecting the Book of Esther. In the case of Vaizatha the form itself is not certain, the i being exceptionally long and the T exceptionally short (a trace of an early corrector's work?). Benfey conjectures as the Persian original Wahyaz-data.

If, however, the story has been remodelled, and in its original form the names were such as a Hebrew writer might regard as Jerahmeelite (see PURIM, 7), one might venture to restore -|JVT (cp inT, 1:10), behind which may lie flSTSi 'Zarephathite'. Haman, being an Agagite, was an Amalekite (i.e., Jerahmeelite).

T. K. C.

1 Vg. continues 'sic faciet in torrentibus Arnon. Scopuli torrentium inclinati sunt, ut requiescerent in Ar, et recumberent in finibus Moabitarum'.

2 LXX continues KO.\ TOUS xei/aappovs \pvtav ical roiis X ei f-- ""t <7- T>7<ri< (caroiKiVat [kai tous cheimarrous Arnoon kai tous cheim. katestesen katoikisai] Hp. <cal Trpocnceirai TOIS opi ot? Mu>a [kai proskeitai tois ariois Mooab].

VALE, VALLEY[edit]

occurs in AV as the rendering of the following Heb. words :

1. p34%y, 'emek (etym. 'depth'; OlA*.C [koilas], ()Ap&r5 [tharagx], TreAlON [pedion], etc.), for which, in geographical designations, RV, followed by G. A. Smith, gives 'vale', is the most natural antithesis to 7n, har, 'mountain' (cp Mic. 1:4, 1 K. 20:28, -r4iz"a, mishor, v. 23, cp PLAIN, 5). It is applied to wide level spaces opening out of a mountain ous country. About the names of most of these vales considerable controversy has gathered (see ACHOR, ELAH, ESDRAELON, MULBERRY-TREE, REPHAIM, SIDDIM, SUCCOTH). The vales of Hebron and Aijalon, however, are well-known, and may be taken as typical. Emek is also applied to parts of the Jordan valley (Josh. 13:27 [cp LXX], 17:16, and, if the text is correct, Ps. 60:6 [60:8], but see SUCCOTH), and to the lateral valleys of the Jordan (1 Ch. 12:15 [avXwv [auloon]], Cant. 2:1). In Ps. 66:14, Job 39:10 'vales' are apparently referred to, not as the antithesis of mountains, but as containing fertile arable land. But the text of these passages is disputed. AV has VALE in Gen. 14:3, 14:8, 14:10, 37:14, and DALE in Gen. 14:17 (RV 'vale'), 2 S. 18:18 (EV). On the difference between the 'emek and the bik'a (see 2), see ESDRAELON.

2. nyi7a, bik'ah (etym. 'split', 'cleft'; irtdiov [pedion]) is also used in contrast to 'mountain' (e.g. , Dt. 8:7, 11:11, [we5<.vf) [pedine]], cp Ps. 1048). The etymological meaning explains Is. 40:4, 'Every bik'ah (EV 'valley'; LXX <f>dpa.y [pharagx]; Di. 'ravine') shall be exalted' - i.e. , filled up. The modern Arabic equivalent el-Buka is the name given to the valley situated between the Lebanons. The same word is rendered PLAIN (q.v.) by AV in Am. 1:5 (RV 'valley'), Ezek. 37:1-2. (AVmg 'champaign'), and by EV in Neh. 6:2, Dan. 3:1 (Aram, n7ypa), Gen. 11:2, Ezek. 3:22-23 (RVmg. 'valley'), 8:4, etc. On Dt. 34:3 (EV inaccurately, 'the plain of the valley of Jericho') see JORDAN, 2.

3. N<3 (also x-j, tr;;, a ; see the Lexicons), gai, ge, etc. (etym. perhaps 'depression'; tf>dpa.y^ [pharagx], also vawrj [nape], KOI\CLS [koilas], etc., once (3ovv6s [bounos], 2 K. 2:16 [om. A]). A frequently occurring word for a somewhat narrow opening in the mountains, gorge, ravine; see (e.g. } JIPHTHAH-EL, HARASHIM. SAMARIA, ZEBOIM, ZEPHATHAH, HAMONGOG, and especially HINNOM. In 1 S. 17:3 (av\(bv [auloon] [LXX{AL}]) it apparently designates the deep channel, dug by the turbid water torrents in the middle of the vale ('emek) of Elah. Relatively to the gai, or lower valley, the 'emek might be called har, 'mountain', unless we suppose in 1 S. 17 the combination of elements from two sources. See ELAH, EPHES-DAMMIM.

4. 7i"U, nahal, denotes both a winter torrent and the valley it flows through. It occurs in both senses 1 K. 18:5. See BROOK.

5. rt7SB n, the shephelah, AV 'vale', 'valley', 'low plain', RV 'lowland'. See JUDAEA, SHEPHELAH.

6. av\<av [auloon], Judith 4;4 (see SALEM, VALLEY OF), 7:3, 7:17, 10:10-11 (see BETHULIA).

7. <t>dpay [pharagx], Judith 2:8 (<apayyas . . . x f ipappovs [pharaggas ... cheimarrous], 'ravines . . . wadys') 7:4, 11:17, 12:7, 13:10, Lk. 3:5 (= Is. 40:4).

VAMPIRE[edit]

(Hi^i;), Prov. 30:15 RVmg.; see LILITH (2).

VANIAH[edit]

(rVOl), of the b'ne BANI (q.v.}, in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA 1, 5, end); Ezra 10:36 (ouiex wa [ouiechooa] [B], -tpf\<a [-erechoo] [X], ovovvia [ououvia] [A], OVOLI> [ouan] [L]), apparently the ANOS (cu/ws [anos] [BA], ? om. L) of || 1 Esd. 9:34.

VASHNI[edit]

(^1), 1 Ch. 6:28. See JOEL 1, 2.

VASHTI[edit]

(nCM; ACTIN [astin] [BXALb], oy<v [ouastin] [La], en [eti] [? BXc.a AL in 1:19]), the name of the consort of Ahasuerus, who was divorced on account of her refusal to present herself before the guests of the king on the seventh and last day of his great banquet (Esth. 19-22). According to Herodotus (5:18; cp 9:110) it was the custom of the Persians to have their wives and concubines present at great feasts. This, however, hardly illustrates the story of Vashti, for it was evidently by an arbitrary command of the king, whose heart was 'merry with wine', that Vashti was summoned to the banquet. Indeed, Vashti had made a feast of her own for the women of the palace (v. 9).

Vashti's name used to be connected with the Persian vahista, 'optimus', but, according to a very clever hypothesis of Jensen, Vashti, Haman, and Zeresh are pale reflections of Elamite divinities, named respectively Mashti (or Vashti?), Humman, and Kerisha (see ESTHER, 7; Jensen, WZKM, 6:70 ; Wildeboer, 'Esther' in KHC 17:173). This view, however, is not very probable.

Ahasuerus (?) and Vashti (?) are as much a couple as Haman and Zeresh, and both ought to be explained on the same principles. Moreover, the text of Esther ought to be not less care fully criticised than that of Samuel before any hypothesis as to the origin of the story is formed. There is no issue out of the perplexities caused by the book as it has come down to us. But revising the text on the same principles as we revise the text of Samuel we see that (as in parts of Samuel) a story under lies the present story of Esther and Mordecai which has a different geographical and historical setting. The Jewish people, doubly represented by Esther ( = Israelith) and by Mordecai (Carmeli = the Jerahmeelite Jews), are in captivity in the land of the hostile Jerahmeelites (see OHADIAH, 7 ; LAMENTATIONS, BOOK OF, 7-8; PSALMS, 28+) - i.e., the Edomites and other Arabians, whose king is described as 'Ashhur, king of Jerahmeel and Cush' (for enjijfl nno "pOn nx Nin C lllCTIN read &131 ^XOnT rj^O flne N). Vashti, therefore, ought to be a representative of the Asshurite, Jerahmeelite. and Cushite people, that the nation of the oppressors may, like the nation of the oppressed, have double and therefore complete representa tion. That the name Vashti is corrupt is plain ; cp VANIAH, VOPHSI. Most probably it comes from Asshurith, 'Asshur' being often used as a synonym for 'Jerahmeel' Cp MORDECAI, PURIM.

T. K. C.

VAULT[edit]

0-1V3), Is. 65:4 RVmg.; see TOMB.

VAULTED CHAMBER[edit]

(33 ; OIKHM*. TTORNIKON [oikema pornikon]; lupanar], Ezek. 16:24, etc., RVmg.; see HIGH PLACE, 6. A mound or shrine for illicit worship is obviously intended; but the rendering of LXX and Vg. (after analogy of fornix) is without sufficient proof, and needless (BDB).

VEDAN[edit]

(pi), Ezek. 27:19 RV. See JAVAN, 1g.

VEIL (VAIL)[edit]

It is not easy to distinguish between the veil and the mantle in the OT. As in the East at the present day, the Hebrew veils were mostly ample wraps which protected the head and shoulders against exposure, and sometimes reached the feet. Though veils were part of the ordinary attire of Hebrew women, unmarried girls did not muffle their faces, nor did married Jewesses usually wear veils even out of doors (1 Cor. 11:5-6). In the Talmud we find that only Jewesses of Arabia wore veils (Shabbath, 65a) to cover their whole face, the eyes excepted. The bride, however, veiled herself (cp nubere viro) in presence of the bridegroom, both before marriage and at the wedding ceremony (Gen. 29:25); see MARRIAGE, 3. {1} The modern Oriental yashmak, which hangs in a narrow strip from below the eyes to the feet, was not used by the Hebrews.

The terms rendered 'veil' are :

1. tsa'ph, fpyx, Gen. 24:65, 38:14, 38:19-20, which, as Lagarde (Sem. 24) has shown, was not a veil (EV), but an ample wrap square in shape. LXX(ADEL) renders Bepicrrpov [theristron], a light summer garment ; cp MANTLE, 2 [12].

2. tsammah, HS3", Is. 47:2 RV (xaTaicaAuiu/xa [katakalumma] [BXAQ] ; AV 'locks'), Cant. 4:1, 4:3, 6:7-8, RV (cri<o7n<Tcs [sioopesis] [BXA] ; AV, RVmg. 'locks'). {2}

3. redid, TT1, Bipio-rpov [theristron] [BXAQr], EV Is. 3:23 ; AV, RVmg. Cant. 5:7-8 (RV mantle) ; and

4. mitpahath, nns3"rj, Ruth 3:15 AV (irepiu>pa [perizooma] [BAL], <ruSOI LOV [sudonion] [Sym.] ; AVmg. 'apron', 'sheet', RV 'mantle') were all ample wraps; cp Is. 3:22 and see MANTLE, 2 [3].

5. massekah, nDBO, EV Is. 25:7 (perhaps the reading should be nSDD, a covering, as in Ezek. 28:13); most moderns render 'covering' (cp Is. 28:20, EV).

1 On the tsa'ph of Gen. 24:65, see the first of the Hebrew terms.

2 According to Delitzsch from A/QSSi [root TsMM or TsSS] constringere. <& s reading seems to rest upon a confusion with riDSi be silent (cp in Syr.).

6. The term lot, ci^ [LVT], {1} in Is. 257 (EV 'covering') is usually explained as a veil. The figure in this passage is derived from the custom of covering the face as a token of grief (see MOURNING).

7. re'alah, ^/V^ Is. 3:19-20, is either a soft shawl (EV 'muffler', AVmg. 'spangled ornaments'), or a fine veil (so Che.). The root jyi [RAL] is cognate to -jyi [RAR] (tremble), and the form of veil was so called from its loose, clinging material.

8. jrept/SoAcuoi/ [peribolaion], 1 Cor. 11:15 AVmg., EV preferably 'covering'; cp MANTLE, 2 [19].

The face of the king or other chief was sometimes covered to hide the divine halo ; thus Moses wore a masweh, ni234ps, Ex. 34:33+. (/cciXi;/x/u.a [kalumma] [BAFL], cp 2 Cor. 3:13), with which Dillmann compares suth, rnD. Gen. 49:11. {2} It will, however, be noted that, according to MT, Moses seems to have worn his veil only in private, and to have removed it not only when seeking an oracle but also when addressing the people.

I. A.

VEIL (OF THE TEMPLE)[edit]

See TABERNACLE, 5, and cp TEMPLE, 33.

The words are paroketh, ri3"!S, Ex. 26:31 etc. ; KO.ro.Tr^Taoyta [katapetasma], Mt. 27:51, Lk. 23:45. Jerome (in Mt. 27:51; also Epist. 18:9; and again Epist. 1208) affirms that in Matthew's Hebrew Gospel he read, not 'veil', but 'lintel' - superliminare templi infinite magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum (also coruisse, also sublatum}. Nestle infers that Jerome found, not ro is, 'veil', but "IBM, 'capital' (of the column supporting the roof; see CHAPITER, 4), though Jerome less accurately gives superliminare (Expos. 1895 , 310+). Cp TEXT, 65 n. 2.

VENISON[edit]

(Fr. venaison, Lat. venatio, 'a hunting'; Heb. TV, tsayid, vT1 [root TsVD], 'to hunt', cp Ar. tsaydun , Syr. tsaida}. The Hebrews, as described by the OT writers, had already reached the stage of pastoral nomads when 'the hunting which is the subsistence of the ruder wanderer, has come to be only an extra means of life' (to quote Tylor, Anthropology, 220). ESAU (q.v. ) is probably meant to represent nothing more than this ('a man acquainted with hunting', TS J?T r x, Gen. 25:27; cp 25:28, 27:3), since later he seems to be himself possessed of flocks and herds (Gen. 33:9; for Nimrod see the special article).

As weapons used for this purpose or for driving off wild animals, mention is made of the bow and arrow (Gen. 27:3, Is. 7:24; see WEAPONS, 2) and the SLING (q.v., 1 S. 17:40). Dt. 14:5 enumerates amongst the animals that might be eaten several belonging to the venison class. These are some species of fallow deer ('ayyal, tsebi, yahmur; see HART, ROEBUCK), two kinds of wild goat (see GOAT, 2, CHAMOIS), the PYGARG (q.v., the Addax?), and the ANTELOPE (q.v. ; so RV).

One of the Hebrew terms for provision is actually reminiscent of the hunting stage (nix, tsedah. Gen. 42:25, 45:21, Ps. 132:15 [|| cnV], Josh. 9:5 [ s en 1 ?] ; cp the use of the verb in Josh. 9:12, 'this our bread we provisioned ourselves [4£r%es"n!] with it hot from our houses'). 3 But, although both as a necessity and as a pastime the pursuit has in general played an important part in the education and evolution of mankind, 4 the Hebrews, hampered 5 again (see COLOURS, 1) perhaps by certain peculiarities in their religion, after they had passed through the stage were not often induced 'to revert for amusement to what their ancestors had been compelled to practise from necessity' (to quote M. G. Watkins, Gleanings from the Natural History of the Ancients, chap. 10).

1 The expression jji^n 33 shows that the outside of the veil differed from the inside. Cp 7inaS % 32> Job 41:5 [41:13].

2 In the Talmud XIBS> nj1DS > is both 'covering' and 'veil'.

3 Elsewhere we find the verb SsSj), kilkel, used (1 K. 4:7), and the noun Dn?, lehem (1 K. 4:22 [5:2]).

4 As to its value in this respect Charles Kingsley's Glaucus is suggestive in parts.

5 In view, that is to say, of the struggle of the nations.

Assyrian, 1 Egyptian, 2 Chaldaean, 3 and Persian monarchs, on the other hand, boasted of their exploits in hunting ; the Assyrians and Persians even maintained private hunting-grounds, called TrapdSewot [paradeisoi]. 4 The Greeks and Romans pursued the pastime vigorously. 5 Their writers describe it frequently ( Homer, Horace, Caesar), and in some cases whole treatises were written on the subject (Xenophon, Appian).

Solomon's table, it is true, was, we are told, supplied with species of fallow-deer ('ayyal, tssebi, yahmur ; see HART, ROEBUCK) ; but there is nothing to indicate that they were taken in the hunt. We know that in other cases traps were used for the purpose (see NET, SNARE). In 1 S. 26:20, too, according to EV we have a figure of hunting a partridge, but the Hebrew term is radaph, 'pursue', and in any case the meaning of the context is not clear (see PARTRIDGE ; and for the methods of capturing birds see FOWLING).

M. A. C.

VENUS, TEMPLE OF[edit]

(TO <vrepr<vriON [to atergation] [AV]), 2 Macc. 12:26, AVmg. See ATARGATIS.

VERMILION[edit]

pW), Jer. 22:14, Ezek. 23:14-15. See COLOURS, 14.

VERSIONS[edit]

See TEXT AND VERSIONS.

VESTMENTS[edit]

(p\&, etc.), 2 K. 10:22, etc. See DRESS.

VESTRY[edit]

(nnr6n ; Tw eni TOY OIKOY MecGA&A [too epi oikou mesthaal] [BL], TOIC erri TOY MICGA&A [tois epi tou misthaal] [A]; . . . TOY CTO- AlCMOY [... tou stolismou] [Aq. Sym. ]), in the phrase 'him that was over the vestry' (2 K. 10:22-23), is generally supposed to mean the place where the holy vestments supplied to the worshippers of Baal were kept ; see DRESS, 8 ; JEHU. The ancient versions differ; there was no fixed traditional interpretation. The moderns have defended vestry or wardrobe by a far-fetched comparison of Ethiopic e'ltah, 'tunic, coat'. The text must be corrupt.

Read probably n3O ?rr?y IffX, 'him that was over the hall' (Exp.T, Nov. 1899). That there were several halls or 'chambers' (ni3:?7) attached to the Jerusalem temple we know (Jer. 35:2, 35:4, Ezra 10:5, Neh. 13:5, etc.) ; and from 1 S. 9:22 (cp 1:18 LXX) we gather that close to the altar on a bamah, or 'high place', there was a lishkah, or 'hall', in which those who partook of the sacrificial meal assembled. It was in such a lishkah that the Baal-worshippers assembled in expectation of a sacrificial feast {6} (v. 19). Cp TEMPLE, 24, 32.

This view does justice to the context, and accounts for LXX's rep en-l TOU OIKOU [too epi tou oikou] (fj.e(r9aa\ [mesthaal] = fjif\0aa [melthaa] is a correction from the later [?] Hebrew text) ; that LXX did not fully understand n3if^ is plain from 1 S. (see above). & and 3 are liable to be confounded with n and n > D may come from n, repeated in error. To correct nnplp, 'the composition of the (sacred) perfumes', or n2i\ ?p ) 'the ceremonial' (cp Klo.), gives a less suitable sense. On the guesses of the other versions see commentators.

T. K. C.

1 See Ball, Light from the East, 161+

2 See Maspero, The Dawn of Civilisation, 61+.

3 Ibid., 766+.

4 See Warre-Cornish, Dict, of Gk. and Rom. Antiq. s.v. ITapaSeTos [paradeisos].

5 Ibid., s.v. 'Venatio'.

6 Moore (Judges, 361) suspects that the 'house' which Samson pulled down by leaning against its two pillars was the banqueting hall of the temple of Dagon.

VESTURE[edit]

(IM&TION), Rev. 19:13, 19:16 AV, RV 'garment'. See MANTLE, 2 [17].

VETCHES, WILD[edit]

(^-VYI), Job 30:7 RV mg, EV NETTLES (q.v. }.

VIAL[edit]

i. ^3, pak, 1 S. 10:1; also 2 K. 9:1, 9:3 RV (where AV has Box [q.v.]; <J>ac<k [phakos]). Cp also CRUSE.

2. i/uaAr) [phiale], Rev. 5:8, 15:7, etc., where RV always BOWL (q.v., 9).

VILLAGE[edit]

1. A 'village' as distinguished from a town or city (~W, ir) is properly ~lS3i kaphar (Cant. 7:11 [7:12], 1 Ch. 27:25), or "133, kopher (1 S. 6:18 in combination with l| T"l3n, happerazi, 'village of the peasantry', EV 'country village'), or T33 kephir (Neh. 6:2, plur. , if MT is correct; see CHEPHIRAH). Like the Arabic kefr, the word enters into compound place-names e.g. , Chephar-ha-ammonai ; cp Capernaum.

2. D"isn, hatserim, is the name given to villages which grew out of the early settlements of nomads, Gen. 25:16 (|| niYB, tiroth; cp CASTLE, 4), Lev. 25:31 ('villages [enclosures] which have no wall around them'), Josh. 19:8 ('villages which lay around their cities'; see CITY), Neh. 12:28-29. See HAZOR, HEZRON, HAZERIM. HAZEROTH.

3. In AV 'villages' is now and then given for nua, banoth, 'daughters' - i.e., the dependent towns of a city; Nu. 21:25, 21:32 (RV 'towns'), 1 Ch. 2:23 (so too RV). Cp DAUGHTER.

4. On n nn, hawwoth, a less distinctly Hebrew term than 2, and properly synonymous with it, see HAVOTH-JAIR, HIVITES.

5- nins, perazoth, properly 'level country'. RV renders 'villages' (AV 'towns') 'without walls' in Zech. 2:4 [2:8], and in Ezek. 38:11, Esth. 9:19 EV gives 'unwalled villages', 'unwalled towns'. ni7s should possibly be restored for rrsnn in 2 Ch. 27:4 (see FOREST), unless we hold that it was in conquered portions of the Negeb (read nn^wa, 'in the Ashhurite') that Jotham, like REHOBOAM (q.v.), built 'castles and towers'. In Esth. (l.c.) the noun perazim is rendered in EV 'of the villages'; cp EV of Dt. 3:5, 1 S. 6:18. Some connect PEKIZZITES (q.v.) with this word.

6. j7nSi perazon, too, is conjecturally rendered 'villages', 'villagers' by AV and some recent scholars (cp Moore and Budde) in Judg. 5:7, 5:11, but by RV, not less conjecturally, 'rulers', 'rule'. For Judg. on Robertson Smith in 1892 suggested 'in the redemption of Israel' (see Black, Judges, 42) ; but more probably the true reading in Judg. 5:7, 5:11, and Hab. 4:14 is c*3n (o JjVl) ; cp LXX SvvoLToL [dynatoi] [B], (ppafav [phazoon] [AL], duvacrTuiv [dynastoon] (but in Judg. 5:11 av^rjffov [auxeson] [B], ivlax v(rat [enischusan] [AL]). So Cheyne, and (in Hab. l.c.) Vollers.

7- C TIB Hab. 3:14 AV, 'the head of his villages' (RV 'of his warriors'; mg. 'hordes' : or, 'villages'). But see 6.

8. Kio/iT) [koome] in NT is uniformly rendered 'village' in RV (Mk. 8:27 - the villages of Caesarea Philippi; Jn. 7:42 - the village of Bethlehem). In LXX it sometimes represents not only H3, 8u7", nsn, !TYB, 133, TD3, and 123, but also even TJ," and n ljp.

It is given as a Rabbinical view that a city, as distinguished from a village, was a community with ten learned men in it - i.e., a sufficient number to entitle it to have a synagogue. According to Furrer (Schenkel, BL 2:12) the modern criterion in Palestine is the possession of a separate market. In Esth. 9;19 oi Karoc. KoGvTe? ei/ THIS /ur;TpO7roAe<Tii [katoikountes en tais metropolesin] (cm. B*), and oi SifcTTrap/iieVot ev TraaT) X">P? [oi diesparmenoi an pase choora] constitute the two categories to one or other of which every Jew is assumed to belong.

VINDICATOR[edit]

(^N3), Job 19:25 RVmg. See GOEL, and JOB ii.

VINE[edit]

(|35, more fully j^H |2| Nu. 6:4, Judg. 13:14).

1. Hebrew terms.[edit]

Like the name of the grape (3d35;) the word is common to Heb. Aram. Arab, and Ass. - from which Guidi infers (Delia Sede primitive, etc. 40-41) that the vine was known to the people who formed the original Semitic stock. But from the names for pruning, vintage, winepress, and wine being distinct in the different languages he concludes that the primitive Semites were unacquainted with the making of wine, their original 'strong drink' (7sr, a word common to the four languages and Ethiopic) being probably made from barley.

Gophen (jsa) denotes the grape-vine everywhere but in 2 K. 4:39, where gephen shadeh (nib- JB3.) is used of some plant resembling the vine in form, but bearing poisonous or bitter gourds ; see WILD GOURDS. Another word shorek (pn-r, Is. 5:2, Jer. 2:21-22) or sorekah (npnr, Gen. 49:11-12) seems to denote a superior sort of vine. Probably it derives its name from the rich dark hue of the grapes (cp Ar. shakira or shakura ; Lag. Uebers. 31-32 explains differently). Its grapes were called sheruklm (D pnb, Is. 16:8, though RV's 'choice plants' is a possible rendering). According to Jewish tradition, they were very sweet, with almost invisible kernels hartsannim (c Jsin ; see GRAPE, 7). The vine branch or shoot is called zemorah (mici). from n4t 'to prune'; or sharig (rjy, Gen. 40:10, 40:12, Joel 1:7-8), from nt? to 'interweave'. Zalzallim (D Vl^J. {1} Is. 18:5) seems to denote low branches or clusters that lie on the ground. The gathering of grapes is expressed by the verb -i$a (Lev. 25:5, etc.), the vintage or vintage-season being batsir (TSS, Lev. 26:5, Judg. 8:2-3); to prune the vine is nDl (Lev. 25:3-4, Is. 5:6-6); the pruning-hook is mazmerah (main). The 'pruning of vines' (Budde, Siegfried) is a more likely interpretation of zamir (TOT) in Cant. 2:12 than the 'singing of birds' (Del., Konig). The obscure word zimrath (rnpi) in Gen. 43:11 is by Frd. Delitzsch connected with this root, and interpreted as 'fruits cut' (from the plants that bear them) ; but Dillmann rightly objects that -at is used only of pruning away that which is useless : probably the word must be traced to some other source; LXX renders rCiv Kapirwv [toon karpoon]. In Talm. zemer (7et) = dessert-fruit (grapes, etc.).

2. Biblical references.[edit]

The Israelites traced the planting of the vine to Noah (Gen. 9:20; see Budde, Bibl. Urgesch. 306+, 407, and cp NOAH) ; and Budde thinks that the 'comfort' spoken of in Gen 5:29 refers to the invention of wine. Noah was not a dweller in Palestine ; thus the Israelites preserved the tradition of the introduction of the vine from another land. Palestine, as described in the OT, was a great wine-producing country. Joseph ( Ephraim ) in Gen. 49:22 and Israel in Ps. 80:8 [80:9] (cp Is. 5:2, Hos. 10:1, etc.) are compared to a vine. Delitzsch, in his charming essay 'The Bible and Wine' (Iris, 1888, essay 9), sees in the fact that Jesus compares himself to a vine (Jn. 15:1), an allusion to his being the Messiah, the Second David - which illustrates a passage in the early Christian Didache. The phrase to 'sit under one's own vine and one's own fig-tree' occurs constantly in descriptions of a time of peace (1 K. 4:25,[5:5], Mic. 4:4, Zech. 3:10). Passages like Judg. 9:13, Ps. 104:13 show with what simplicity men thanked God for the gift of wine. But the vine supplied another figure. There were wild vines - not of a 'genuine' stock (Jer. 2;21). Israel, when unfaithful, is compared to these (Jer. l.c., cp Is. 5:2), and the enemies of Israel are even likened (Dt. 32:32) to a 'vine of Sodom' - i.e. , one whose juices and fruit were tainted by the corruption typified by Sodom (Driver). Cp SODOM, 3, n. 2.

3. Natural history.[edit]

The vine ( Vitis vinifera, L. ) 'grows spontaneously' 2 (according to de Candolle, L'Origine, 151+) in W. temperate Asia, S. Europe, Algeria, and Morocco ; but its spontaneous growth is most marked in the region S. of the Caspian, and between that and the Black Sea. Its original home was most probably in Transcaucasia, though traces of it have been found in deposits of prehistoric and probably prehuman age in other quarters - as in N. Italy, Switzerland, and S. France. It has been cultivated from the most ancient times in W. Asia and in Egypt ; in the latter country there is evidence reaching back five or six thousand years. The 'soma' of the Vedas appears to have denoted primarily a beer made from grain, but subsequently wine: and it is probable that wine was one of the earliest discoveries of the Aryan race and that they carried the vine with them as they migrated westward. Of the condition of vine-growing in modern Syria an account is given by Anderlind in ZDPV 11:160+. Cp also Tristram, NHB 407+, and see WINE.

N. M. - W. T. T.-D.

1 Possibly nWrVp in Jer. 6:9-10 has a similar meaning.

2 This phrase does not necessarily imply that it is a native of these districts.

VINEGAR[edit]

O Dh v/ [root] 'be sour', 'leavened', Nu. 6:3 ; Oloc [oxos], Jn. 19:29). Cp cols. 959 n. 3, 2752, 5309.

VINEYARDS, PLAIN OF THE[edit]

(D p->3 Judg. 11:33 AV, RV ABEL-CHERAMIM (q.v.)

VIOL[edit]

(^J), Is. 5:12 AV. See Music, 2, 6-9.

VIOLET[edit]

(rtafl), Esth. 1:6 AVmg; EV blue. See PURPLE and COLOURS, 13.

VIPER[edit]

(nrBN. Is. 30:6; exiANA [echidna], Acts 28:3). See SERPENT, 1 [1].

VIRGIN[edit]

(TT<\p6eNOc [parthenos]). There is no clear trace of an Order of Virgins in the Apostolic Church. The four daughters of Philip the Evangelist [cp PHILIP], who exercised the gift of prophecy, were virgins (Acts 21:9). In 1 Cor. 7:25-38 Paul declares that he has 'no commandment of the Lord' respecting virgins : they may marry, or not marry, without sin. On the whole he is inclined to recommend for them and for all the unmarried state, 'on account of the present necessity', which should make all Christians sit loosely to the world.

A later age, which valued virginity as a superior virtue, peopled the Apostolic age with virgins living in community and presided over by the Virgin Mary : see, for example Dormitio Mariae (Tischendorf, Apocal. Apocr. 1861) pp. 96+; Coptic Apocr. Gospels, F. Robinson, 1896. But this picture has no historical authorisation, and is simply the reflex of a subsequent institution. On the difficult passage in Ignatius, Smyrn. 13, 'I salute . . . the Virgins, who are called Widows', see Lightfoot's note ad loc. : he is probably right in interpreting it as 'I salute the Widows, whom I prefer to call Virgins, for such in God's sight they are by their purity and devotion'. [Cp MINISTRY, 41 end.]

J. A. R.

VISION[edit]

(iirnpetc. ), Gen. 15:1, etc. See PROPHECY.

VISION, VALLEY OF[edit]

(|V-Tn "3 or &O3, THC 4>Ap<\rr~oc [tes pharaggos], [U>N [oon] X* in v. 5 ] eN d>&p&rn c[e]iooN [en pharaggi s[e]ioon]), a place called Valley of Hizzaion, from which the Assyrians were expected to make an assault on the fortifications of Jerusalem, Is. 22:1 (late heading), 22:5-6. That Hizzaion is a proper name, and that the phrase does not mean 'valley of vision' (or, prophetic revelation) is generally admitted. According to Dillmann, some part of Jerusalem is referred to, perhaps the Tyropoeon, where the fortification may have been specially weak. This implies the Massoretic division of the verse, which, however, must surely be wrong (see Duhm ; Marti; SBOT}. No such name as Hizzaion being known, it has been proposed to read - Disn a 'the valley of Hinnom', comparing Zech. 14:5, where nn N-J ('valley of my mountains') and c % in K j ('valley of mountains') may be miswritten for cisrt N 3 'valley of Hinnom' (see 'Isaiah', SBOT [Heb.], 112 ; Marti).

It is, however, by no [all] means improbable that Is. 22:1-14, in its original form, referred to an expected blockade of Jerusalem by the Jerahmeelites (cp SENNACHERIB, 5), and that p TH "33 should be |C ?D 32 'the sons of Cushan'. The next metrical line begins with cS*yi> where cS J, (Elam), as also probably in 11:11, 21:2, Jer. 25:25, 40:34, Ezek. 32:24, is a misunderstood corruption of 3usnT (Jerahmeel). Such is the position of the undecided question respecting the reference of Is. 22, and the meaning of 'Valley of Hizzaion'.

T. K. C.

VOPHSI[edit]

CpQI; iAB[e]i [iab[e]i] [BAFL]; Vapsi\Vg.]), father of Nahbi (Nii l Sirf).

VOWS, VOTIVE OFFERINGS[edit]

1. Definition.[edit]

A vow is a voluntary obligation solemnly assumed toward God to do something not otherwise required, but believed to be acceptable or influential with him. The promise may be either simple or conditional. In the former case it is usually a pledge to perform at a future date - for example, at the next recurrence of a feast - an act of worship which is less convenient or suitable at the time the vow is made ; and the motR-e may be any which would prompt man to the act itself, such as gratitude to God, the desire to secure his favour, etc. A conditional vow is commonly made in circumstances in which the urgent need of God s protection or help is felt, as in illness, an attack by the enemy, or for the obtaining of a greatly desired end, such as the birth of a child, the increase of Mocks and herds, victory in battle, and the like. In such a case a man solemnly binds himself, if God does for him what he wishes, to do such and such a specified thing for God.

Vows of the latter kind were in ancient religions the common accompaniment of prayer, and were believed to contribute greatly to its efficacy. The transaction seems to us commercial in even a higher degree than the familiar motive of sacrifice, Do ut des [latin] ; this may be formulated, Dabo si dederis. We have to remember, however, that man's gift was not conceived as an equivalent by which the service of God was purchased, but as a present, just as in similar transactions among men when an inferior sought the aid of a great man. The thing vowed might be anything with which it was conceived that God would be pleased - a sacrifice, a service, a dotation of gold and silver, houses and lands, cattle, or persons to God, that is, to the temple. It might also be an interdict imposed by the maker upon himself for a time or for life in the use of things otherwise lawful; thus fasting, abstinence from particular kinds of food - as the grape and its products in the Nazirite's vow - from the wearing of ornaments, sexual intercourse, etc. , were often vowed. Such arbitrary self-denial was thought, like the scrupulous observance of the similar restrictions imposed by religion itself, to be a proof of devotion.

The general word for vow is "113, neder, LXX fux1?- [euche]. For a vow of abstinence specifically, Nu. 30 employs "1BX, "ON, issar, esar (LXX optoTxos [orismos]), from ~DN ['SR], 'bind'. The meaning of this word is especially clear in Dan. 6:7, 6:12-13, 6:15, where RV well renders 'interdict'; cp also the rabbinical use of the verb in the sense of prohibit, and Mt. 16:19, 18:18.

The vow, being a solemn promise freely made, was a most binding obligation ; it had the force of an oath, with which, indeed, it was frequently associated (see Nu. 30:2, Acts 23:21 ). liven a rash vow or one which entailed unforeseen and terrible consequences, like Jephthah's (Judg. 11), must be fulfilled to the letter. To break faith with God in such a matter was to invite destruction. Men, nevertheless, often tried to slip out of their obligation by subterfuges, or practised deceit in paying their vows. Malachi (1:14) pronounces accursed the fraudulent man who had vowed a male victim and had one in his flock, but sacrificed a blemished beast. {1} The Deuteronomic law enjoins the prompt payment of vows according to their tenor, for God will strictly exact it ; it is no sin not to make a vow, but being voluntarily made it must be fulfilled (Dt. 23:21-23 [23:22-24] ; cp Prov. 20:25, Eccles. 5:4-5 [5:3-4], Ecclus. 18:22).

Examples of vows in the OT history are those of Jacob at Bethel (Gen. 28:20-22, cp 31:13, 35:2-7), Jephthah (Judg. 11:30-31, 11:34-39), Hannah (1 S. 1:11-12, 1:24-28), Absalom (2 S. 15:7-8). Frequent references in other connections show how important a place vows had in all periods of religion : see Dt. 12:6, 12:11, 12:17, 12:26, Ps. 22:25, 50:14, 56:12, 61:5, 61:8, 65:1, 66:13, 76:11, 116:14, 116:18, Prov. 7:14, Is. 19:21, Nah. 1:15, Jon. 1:16, 2:9, Judith 4:14, 1 Esd. 2:7, 2 Macc. 3:35, 9:13+, Acts 21:23, 23:21.

2. Laws.[edit]

The only laws in the Pentateuch on the subject of vows in general, {2} Lev. 27:1-29 and Nu. 30, are both late. Nu. 30 determines wno can make a binding vow, with especial reference to the vows of women (see M. Nedarim). If a man makes a vow or imposes upon himself by an oath some abstinence, he must not 'profane his word', but strictly fulfil his obligation. The vow of a widow or a divorced woman is similarly binding (v. 10) ; but the vow of an unmarried woman in her father's house, or of a married woman in her husband's, is null without his consent, which, however, is assumed to be tacitly given, if, being cognisant of the vow, he did not oppose her. If a woman marries while under a vow made in her father s house, the subsequent consent of her husband is necessary ; if he annuls it she is free. If the husband lets the vow pass in silence when he first learns of it, but afterwards prevents its fulfilment, he makes himself guilty of the breach of obligation. The law does not say how it is with the vow of a minor son in his father s house, or with that of an Israelite slave.

1 Cp the Arab substitution of gazelles for sheep in payment of a vow, SACRIFICE, 8.

2 On the Nazirite's vow, see NAZIRITE.

Lev. 27 treats of the conditions under which persons or property that have been given to God in fulfilment of a vow may be redeemed. An animal of the kinds from which sacrifices are made to Yahwe is made 'holy' by the vow; no redemption, substitution, or exchange is allowed; if such a thing is attempted both animals become 'holy' (v. 9-10). On an unclean animal a value is set by the priest, and it may be redeemed by the payment of this sum with one-fifth added (vv. 11-13). Human beings are redeemed at a price fixed by the law in accordance with their age and sex (cp Jos. Ant. 4:4:4) ; a boy between one month and five years old, five shekels, a girl, three ; from five years to twenty, twenty shekels and ten respectively ; from twenty to sixty a man is valued at fifty shekels, a woman at thirty ; after sixty this value fell to fifteen and ten. If a man was too poor to pay the price on this scale, the priest fixed a sum within his means. If a man consecrates a house to Yahwe by a vow, the priest estimates its value, and the owner may redeem it on payment of six-fifths of the sum. In the case of hereditary lands which revert to the family in the Jubilee year, the value depends on how far off this term is. The basis is, on an acreage seeded with one homer of barley, fifty shekels for the whole period, that is, one shekel for each year the tenure has to run. The surtax for redemption is, as in all other cases, one-fifth. If not redeemed, or if sold to another man, the reversion is cut off, and the land ceded to the priests. 1 Purchased land, in which the buyer has really only a leasehold till the next Jubilee year, is estimated by the priest.

Some things cannot be consecrated to God by a vow, either because they already belong to him, like the firstlings of animals fit for sacrifice (Lev. 27:26), or because they are abominable to him, as the hire of a religious prostitute of either sex (Dt. 23:18) - a kind of votive-offering frequent in that world.

A vow of abstinence of a pecyiliar kind is that of the NAZIRITE (q.v.), for which there are special laws in Nu. 6:1-21.

A man might not only vow to 'hallow' some object to God (tr npri, hikdish), he might devote it (Q inn, heherim) by his vow so that it became herem (see BAN, and cp Nu. 21:2). What was so devoted became intensely 'holy', that is, God guarded his rights in it most jealously; it could neither be sold nor redeemed. Lands or animals so dedicated belonged irrevocably to the sanctuary, that is to the priests (Nu. 18:14, Ezek. 44:29) ; men thus devoted must be put to death (Lev. 27:28-29). The last provision can hardly be an actual provision for a private ban.

Vows, like oaths, were frequently made rashly and about trivial matters ; indeed, they often became a mere form of speech to fortify an asseveration or a declaration of purpose, as 'I vow. if I didn t see a snake as big as the beam of a wine-press' (M. Nedarim, 3:2). With a lurking scruple such as among us gives rise to minced oaths, men in NT times said konam, konah, or the like, instead of korban. The rabbis discouraged the practice by requiring the fulfilment of unadvised vows, and declaring the clipped formula equivalent in force to the proper word. They had to distinguish, however, between vows the fulfilment of which, though inconvenient, was a proper punishment for the rash undertaking, and such as ought not to be kept, and to provide some way of absolution for the latter (M. Nedarim, 3:1, 9:1+). In this endeavour they were led into a casuistry not always accordant with sound ethics. The example given by Jesus in Mk. 7:10-11, Mt. 15:4-5 of the way in which they nullified the law of God by their traditions has been discussed under CORBAN (q.v.).

The commonest vow in all ages was doubtless a sacrifice, and votive offerings were probably the commonest of private sacrifices. The votive sacrifice might, according to the terms of the vow, be a burnt-offering or a peace-otTering, or both combined, and consist of any kind or number of sacrificable animals, or simply of an oblation. The rites were those appropriate to the species of sacrifice and the victim (see SACRIFICE), a votive peace-offering was subject to the ordinary rule that the flesh should be eaten on the day of the offering or the next, not to the narrower restriction of the thank-offering (todah), and to the general requirement of ceremonial purity in those who partook of the feast (Lev. 7:16+). Nu. 15:3+ prescribes an oblation with every victim in the case of votive as of other sacrifices. Offerings of wine and oil were also made in the fulfilment of vows (see SACRIFICE, 31a).

1 The provisions of the law are not clear ; see the commentaries,. For the rabbinical elaboration of these rules see M. 'Arakin.

3. Bibliography.[edit]

M. Nedarim, 'Arakln, cp also Shekalim, 4, 6-8; the works on biblical archaeology, especially Saalschutz, Mosaischei Recht, 1:358+; Nowack, Hebr. Arch.; Benzinger, Hebr. Arch.; articles 'Gelubde' in PRE (3), Riehm, HBA, Schenkel, BL, 'Vow', Hastings', DB.

G. F. M.

VULGATE[edit]

See TEXT AND VERSIONS, 21, 59.

VULTURE[edit]

Of the four species of Vulturidae described by Tristram from Palestine, three (Gyps fulvus, Neophron perenopterus, and Gypaetus barbatus) are treated under the headings

  • (1) EAGLE [RVmg 'Great Vulture'],
  • (2) GIER-EAGLE and
  • (3) OSSIFRAGE.

The fourth species is the black vulture, Vultur monachus, the only living representative of its genus. This bird inhabits the countries surrounding the Mediterranean and extends eastward to China. It is not common in Palestine, and does not seem to be mentioned in Or or NT.

4. The 'vulture' (.IKJ, da'ah) in AV of Lev. 11:14-15 is in RV rendered 'kite'. Its identification can only be conjectural ; but see KITE.

5. The 'vulture' (!V^ dayyah, 43in, dayyoth, another form of ntn above) of Dt. 14:13 (om. Di. after Sam. LXX), Is. 34:15-16 (eAcu^os [elaphos]) is also rendered KITE in RV. See above.

6. rXr 'ayyah, Job 28:7, AV (RV 'falcon'), but elsewhere KITE (q.v.).

A. E. S.

WAFERS[edit]

i. p8pn, rakik, Ex. 29:2, EV, etc., 1 Ch. 23:29 RV. See BREAD, 2(c).

2. nrrss, sappihath, Ex. 16:31-32, eyxpi s [egkris]; see BAKEMEATS, 3 (3), where, however, nrPSs [sappihath] is to be read for 'p pT... BREAD'.

WAGES[edit]

See, generally, TRADE AND COMMERCE, 83 (e) 4. The words are :-

1. "I^T sakar, /J.i<r06s [misthos], merces, of the hire of a servant (Gen. 30:32, Ex. 2:9, Dt. 24:15, 1 K. 5:20 [5:6] [LX{B} om. /uio-flop [misthon]], etc.), the 'reward' of priests (Nu. 18:31), passage-money (Jon. 1:3, vaJvKov [naulon]), etc.

2. 15;: , sheker, Prov. 11:18, Is. 19:10 ; on the latter passage see SLUICES.

3. rnbt B, mashkoreth, /aio-flds [misthos], merces, Gen. 29:15, 31:7, 31:41, Ruth 2:12-13

4. n^J/ B, pe'ullah, jiicrfJds [misthos], opus, Lev. 19:13, etc.

5. jiAnrSos [misthos], merces, Jn. 4:36, etc. See above, 1.

6. 01//UJ1/IOI [opsoonion], stipendium, stipendia, 1 Esd. 4:56, 1 Macc. 3:28, 14:32, Lk. 3:14, Rom. 6:23, 1 Cor. 9:7, 2 Cor. 11:8 (cp o\fiov [opson] 'meat' Tob. 2:2 [6i//aptoi [opsarion] X[aleph]], 7:8, [om. X] oi/rt>iroti}jtia [opsopoiema] Judith 12:1, 61/^05 [opsos] = j-l Nu. 11:22).

WAGON[edit]

1. Pl^i;, 'agalah; see CHARIOT, 2.

2. D^V. tsabbim. Is. 66:20, EV 'litters', but better, following LXX (ev \a/uLTrrivai5 [en lampenais] [rifubvuv [emionoon]]), 'cars' such as are drawn, for swiftness, by mules (cp Find. Pyth. 4:94-95 airrivri [apene]); cp Ass. tsumbu (from tsubbu), a car drawn by mules, as distinguished from narkabtu, a wagon drawn by horses. At the same time, the 'cars', like the 'chariots and horses', in Is. (c.c. ) are very possibly due to an editor ; the original text gave the names of the peoples whence the Jews were to be brought ; see Crit. Bib. 49.

In Nu. 7:3, 3Sn 7.U , EV 'covered wagons'; but this is merely a syn. for c SS 'cars'. Cp NTS Tg. Is. 49:22, Nab. 2:8 (the queen sitting in a jo2.s).

3 . -Dn, rekeb, Ezek. 23:24 AV, RV CHARIOT (q.v.).

4. ^3, galgal, Ezek. 23;24 RV, Ezek. 26:10 RV, AV RVmg. 'wheel', cp WHEEL.

On the 'place of the wagons' 1 S. 17:20 etc. RV, AV 'trench', see CAMP, 1.

WAIN, THRESHING[edit]

^TlPI), Job 41:30 [41:22] RV. See AGRICULTURE, 8B.

WALL[edit]

1. On nl"!, homah, see FORTRESS, passim.

2. 7 n, hel (v/Vin [root HVL]), a surrounding wall, defined by Jews as DCin ja - i.e., 'a little wall' (see BDB), a glacis ; see FORTRESS, 5, end.

3- TP) gader, is rendered 'wall' by AV in Nu. 22:24, Ezra 9:9, Is. 5:5, Ezek. 42:7, 42:12, Hos 2:6, where in each case RV or RVmg prefers 'fence'. See HEDGE, 2, and cp the place-names Geder, Gederah, Gederoth, Gederothaim, Gedor. RVmg. suggests 'walls' for 'hedges', fliTIS, in Nah. 3:17.

4. VJ5, kir, of a town-wall in Josh. 2:15, etc.; of a house-wall in 1 K. 6:5-6, etc., of a room-wall in 1 S. 18:11, 20:25, etc., cp HOUSE, 1.

5- "\W, shur; Gen. 49:22, Ps. 18:30-31 [18:29-30], 2 S. 22:30; in Jer. 5:10 for ml:?, nil!? is suggested - i.e., rows of vine-plants ; see Ges.-Bu. s.v. , mi!?, and cp Duhm, ad loc.

6. . n3, kothel, Cant. 2:9-10 of a house-wall.

7. KJIU N, 'ushsharna, Ezra 5:3, 5:9-10. Word of uncertain meaning; see Ges.-Bu. who suggest 'Gebalk' - i.e., 'timberwork'. LXX{BAL} has \ofi^i.av [choregian]; || 1 Esd. 6:4 has -n\v <nifr\v ra.\>Tt\v [ten stegen tauten]. See Marti, KHC, ad loc.

WALLET[edit]

(nHRA), Mt. 10:10 RV, AV SCRIP (q.v.).


WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF[edit]

1. Term 'wilderness'.[edit]

'The Wilderness' (ham-midbar, ~Q"n2n) was, in all periods, the standing phrase among the Hebrews for the scene of that epoch in their history which immediately preceded the settlement in Canaan ; in addition to the Hexateuchal narratives see, e.g. , Am. 2:10, Hos. 13:5, Jer. 2:6, Ezek. 20:10, Neh. 9:21, 2 Ch. 24:9, Ps. 107:4. Undefined by reference to particular places, the Hebrew term is a wide one. Agreeably to its etymological signification, 'the place where (cattle) are driven', it denotes country inhabited by nomads, and in actual OT usage includes the country stretching SW. of Canaan to Egypt, together with the Sinaitic peninsula, SE. to Arabia and E. to the Euphrates. (See CATTLE, 5, DESERT, 2 [3]. )

2. Topographical problem.[edit]

The topographical problem, with which alone the present article is concerned, is to discover the limited district within this larger area of wilderness to which the nomadic life of the early Hebrews was referred in the memory or imagination of the various biblical writers. The difficulties and uncertainties attending the solution, which probably will never be wholly overcome, are due mainly to the uncertainty in many ports (but chiefly in the case of J and E) of the analysis of the sources, our insufficient acquaintance with the actual historical conditions (cp SINAI), and the paucity of trustworthy identifications of particular sites. The literature of the subject, which is extensive, needs to be used with extreme caution on account of the general neglect of a critical employment of the sources and the utter insufficiency - in some cases also, the thoroughly unphilological character - of the reasons for the identifications. [Textual criticism, too, may have to be applied more methodically.]

3. Site of Kadesh.[edit]

The sites of the Egyptian starting-point of the Exodus, of Sinai, and of the intervening stages, are discussed elsewhere ( EXODUS, SINAI). We are here more immediately concerned with the district in which the people are said to have wandered for forty years between the first abortive attempt on Canaan from the S. and the final successful attack from the E. For this the most important site is KADESH (q.v.); long a matter of almost hopeless dispute, it is now, by general consent, identified with 'Ain-Kadis (50 mi. S. of Beersheba), which was visited by Seetzen in 1807 (Reisen durch Syrien, 3:48 [1859]), and then by Rowlands, who first identified it with Kadesh (Williams, Holy City, 1:464+), and by Clay Trumbull (Kadesh Barnea [1881]), who has elaborately and successfully vindicated the identification.

4. Kadesh in P.[edit]

Now, what relation does Kadesh bear to the wilderness of Wanderings? In P, where the case is simplest, Kadesh is the stage reached immediately before Mt. Hor (Nu. 20:22 {1}, 27:14, Dt. 32:51, and P in Nu. 20:1-13). Apparently, therefore, it was not visited before the fortieth year - i.e., the end of the nomadic period. For, according to P, the sentence of forty years wandering was given in the wilderness of Paran and was to be carried into effect in the same wilderness (Nu. 12:16b, 13:1-3, 14:26a, 14:35), whereas Kadesh is in the wilderness of Zin (Nu. 20:1, 20:22, cp 33:36), which is distinct from the wilderness of Paran (Nu. 13:3, 13:21). Doubtless, the fortieth year was originally mentioned in Nu. 20:1 (cp 33:38), and was subsequently omitted for obvious harmonistic reasons. In P the whole people in the fortieth year moved as the spies had done a generation earlier out of the wilderness of Paran into the wilderness of Zin to Kadesh.

From the foregoing representations all the remaining narratives differ ; for all these, in spite of other differences among themselves, agree in associating Kadesh with the beginning of the 'forty years' wanderings.

5. In JE.[edit]

In the combined narratives of JE - and probably also in both of the originally separate narratives J and E - Kadesh is the place whence the spies were despatched (Nu. 13:26, from 'to Kadesh'; cp 32:8+) and, presumably, where the condemnation to the forty years wandering was pronounced (Nu. 14:33), where the people abode (cyn 3B"i), and where Miriam died and was buried (Nu. 20:1b), and whence, at the close of the period, they made their request to pass through Edom (Nu. 20:14+). {2} In brief, Kadesh was the goal of the people after the Exodus and their visit to Sinai, their headquarters while they were shepherds (c jn) for 'forty years', and their point of departure for the final attack on Canaan. Cp also Judg. 11:16.

1 Nu. 20:22 has been generally assigned to P in its entirety. Carpenter, in the Oxford Hexateuch, assigns clause 20:22a to E. If this were certain, which it is not (see Gray in Internat. Crit. Com.), it would still be clear that 20:22b-29 in P, as in the present compilation, was preceded by P's story of the sin of Moses and Aaron at Kadesh ; cp 20:24 with v. 23.

2 It must suffice merely to draw attention to the theory recently advanced by Steuernagel (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stammen, 1901) that in J one section of the people (the 'Leah' tribes, according to his denomination) actually made their way into Canaan from Kadesh, whereas in E the 'Jacob' tribes, leaving Kadesh at the beginning of the nomadic period, spent their years of wandering in the deserts East of the Jordan and the Arabah. [Cp EXODUS i., 6, TRIBES, 13-14]

6. In D.[edit]

In D Kadesh is the goal of the people after leaving Horeb (Dt. 1:19, cp 9:23, Josh. 14:6-17), the place whence the spies were despatched (Dt. 1:20-24, Josh. 14:7), and the scene of their condemnation to a prolongation of the nomadic life (Dt. 1:34+). There they abode for an indefinite period, not, however, exceeding a few months (Dt. 2:1, cp 7:14) ; but the main part of the period - thirty-eight years - was spent in compassing Mt. Seir (Dt. 21:14). Moreover, according to the only natural interpretation of Dt. 2:14, Kadesh, once left, was never revisited; there is no suggestion here (nor anywhere else) of a second visit to Kadesh after absence.

Thus in JE Kadesh is the (apparently) permanent centre, in D the starting-point, and in P the final stage of the nomadic wanderings which intervened between the defeat of the Hebrews on their first attempt to conquer Canaan from the S. and the commencement of that definite march which led to the actual conquest from the E. a generation later.

Route In JE.[edit]

We must now consider what hints the various narratives contain for the closer definition of the district in question. JE contains no reference to places which directly serve to define the district; for Hormah is not mentioned as a place in the wilderness of Wandering, but as a point connected with a definite attempt to gain an entrance into Canaan from the S. , and all the other places referred to in JE are stages in the movements

  • (1) from Egypt to Sinai,
  • (2) from Sinai to Kadesh, which preceded the nomadic period proper, and
  • (3) from Kadesh to the E. of Canaan, which succeeded it.

For the first series, see EXODUS, 1, 10+.

7. Sinai to Kadesh.[edit]

The second consists of

  • Taberah (Nu. 11:3),
  • Kibroth-hattaavah, and
  • Hazeroth
(Nu. 11:35).

The identifications which have been offered of these sites have little more to recommend them than that they agree with a particular theory of a route from the spot identified as Sinai. In the only case where the similarity of the modern name ('Ain el-Hadra = msn [HTsRTh] ; so Robinson, Palmer) appears to furnish an independent reason for the identification, this circumstance is far from conclusive, for names like Hazeroth were frequent (cp NAMES, 105).

8. To E. of Canaan.[edit]

The third series concludes with places which are obviously on the E. of the Arabah -

  • 'the wilderness before Moab toward the sun-rising' (Nu. 21:10),
  • the valley of Zered (Nu. 21:12),
  • 'the other side of Arnon' (Nu. 21:13),
  • Beer,
  • Mattanah,
  • Nahaliel,
  • Bamoth,
  • 'the valley that is in the field of Moab'
- Nu. 21:16-20, cp further 21:21+;

for details reference must be made to the several articles. An isolated fragment, apparently of E, in Dt. 10:6-8 preserves the names of four places -

  • Beeroth-Bene-Jaakan,
  • Moserah,
  • Gudgodah and
  • Jothathah

which were probably stages in the earlier part of the march down the W. of the Arabah ; but in the absence of identification, we cannot speak with certainty.

9. Result for JE.[edit]

Indirectly and negatively, however, the district of the nomadic period is, within broad limits, thus defined in JE. The country to the N. of Kadesh is implied to have been effectually held by other peoples {1} (Nu. 14:39-45 ; cp v. 25, 13:29 - to the NE. by Edom - cp Nu. 20:16; see more fully Buhl, Gesch. der Edomiter, 22-26, and EDOM). The wanderings, therefore, in JE are conceived as taking place from Kadesh as a permanent centre over an indefinite part of the wilderness stretching to the S. and W. of that place - in other words, over the desert of et-Tih, and more immediately over that part now held by the Azazimeh.

1 Thus much it seems safer to affirm of JE. It is unnecessary here to discuss at length the analysis of the several sources as between J, E and editors, for which the Commentaries must be consulted.

10. D's narrative.[edit]

In D, as in JE, Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah are stages on the journey from Horeb to Kadesh (9:22); Hazeroth in Dt. 1:1 is either different from the Hazeroth of JE, or else the passage in question has ceased to be intelligible (cp Dr. ad loc.). D chiefly differs from JE in making the scene of the wanderings for the greater part of the period (thirty-eight years) distant from Kadesh, but immediately bordering on Edom. The command in Dt. 2:3 appears to be referred to the close of the period, and to have immediate reference to the final attack on Canaan ; consequently, although the punitive wanderings extended up to the brook Zered (Dt. 2:14b) on the E. of Edom, we must conceive the greater part of the period to have been spent on the W. borders of Edom. Removing from Kadesh at the beginning, the people are found at the close of the period at the SE. end of the Arabah (Dt. 23). (In attempting to arrive at D's view, Dt. 10:6-7 must be disregarded; the verses form an isolated fragment out of relation to D's other statements ; cp Dr. ad loc. )

11. P's narrative.[edit]

When we turn to P we have to distinguish between the general narrative and the summarising chapter, Nu. 33.

In the narrative, the Hebrews journeyed from Sinai to the wilderness of Paran. Here they encamped, hence the spies were despatched, and hither they returned ; and 'in this wilderness' (Nu. 14:35) the punitive wanderings took place. On the boundaries of the wilderness of Paran, see GEOGRAPHY, 7. The remaining places in P s narrative appear to be referred to the final year. These occur in this order : wilderness of Zin (Nu. 20:1), Kadesh, Mt. Hor (20:22), Oboth, Iye-abarim (21:10), plains of Moab (22:1), pointing to a northward movement (Paran to Kadesh) followed by an eastward (to the plains of Moab); and the latter movement was in all probability regarded as being direct across the N. territory of Edom (cp We. CH 110, Buhl, Gesch. 23, Gray on Nu. 21:11), not, as in JE (e.g., Nu. 21:4), or D (Dt. 2:3, 2:8), by means of a march round the S. end of Edom ; for although the site of Oboth is uncertain, and Iye-abarim unidentified, yet the latter certainly lay, as its name indicates, on the E. of the Arabah (cp ABARIM). Thus, the main narrative of P, like JE and D, contains no topographical details of the scene of the wanderings proper. The district suggested by P is more southerly than in JE, less easterly - i.e., less definitely associated with the borders of Edom - than in D.

12. P's list.[edit]

In Nu. 33 the point of view is different. We have here a succession of forty places at which the children of Israel encamped, between the time when they left Rameses and the time when they arrived at the Fields of Moab. Probably the number has been fixed at forty by artificial selection, to equal the number of the years of wandering ; although the compiler clearly does not intend us to suppose that the people tarried at each place just a year, for seven of the stages clearly belong to the fortieth year (cp v. 38). The interpretation of the chapter must, to some extent, vary with our estimate of its historical value, and that, in turn, will depend on our general view of the antiquity of the priestly strata of the Hexateuch. One at any rate - and the chief - of Dillmann's arguments in favour of the antiquity of the itinerary is quite inconclusive (see below). Starting from the view that the chapter is a late compilation, the following points must be noted:

  • (1) It is compiled from more than one of the literary strata of the Hexateuch; for it contains some names (e.g. , Pi-hahiroth, wilderness of Zin) peculiar to P, others unknown to him, but occurring elsewhere e.g. , Kibroth-hattaavah (JE, D), Ezion-geber (D);
  • (2) it also draws on an otherwise unknown source, for seventeen of the places are mentioned nowhere else;
  • (3) it is dominated in its representation by P, for, like the main narrative of P, it makes Mt. Hor the death-place of Aaron (contrast Dt. 10:6-7) and places the wilderness of Zin = Kadesh immediately before Mt. Hor ; on the other hand, between Hazeroth and Kadesh, which are immediately connected in JE, this list inserts eighteen stages.

13. Its relation to P's narrative.[edit]

This being the case, the one striking divergence from P (claimed by Dillmann in favour of the high antiquity of the list) is all the more remarkable, and probably contains the true clue to the view of the period underlying the chapter. The wilderness of Paran, so prominent in P, is not mentioned in the list. This will be entirely accounted for, in complete accordance with the evident purpose of the list, which is to name, not large districts, but definite camping-grounds, if we assume that the stations mentioned between Sinai and Kadesh are conceived to have lain in the wilderness of Paran. Thus, the compiler derives from the other sources such places as are there naturally referred to the forty years between Sinai and Kadesh - viz., from JE Hazeroth, Kibroth-hattaavah, and the four places mentioned in the fragment Dt. 10:6-7; Ezion-geber from D, and thirteen places mentioned only in this list from some sources unknown to us. Granted this single assumption, the view of the compiler is found to be in complete accord with P - thus vv. 3-15 contain the stages in the straightforward march from Egypt to Sinai ; vv. 16-36 give the names of the camping-grounds during the forty years of punishment, the names of the individual places being substituted for that of the general district - Paran ; vv. 37-49 describe the march from Kadesh to the plains of Moab, and this, as in the main narrative of P, is apparently across the N. end of Edom, not round Ezion-geber on the S. border. With a recognition of a double tradition as to the route of the final march, the old difficulty occasioned by a comparison of Dt. 2:8, 10:6+, with Nu. 33:30, 33:37, which was met by various unsatisfactory hypotheses (such as that there was a second Ezion-geber near Kadesh, or a backward and forward movement from Ezion-geber to Kadesh, or that Nu. 33:3b^-41a originally followed immediately on 30a) falls to the ground. Ezion-geber was considered by the compiler of the itinerary to have been merely a camping-ground during the nomadic period, not a stage in the final march from Kadesh to the E. of Canaan.

14. Its origin.[edit]

The question whence the compiler of this chapter derived the otherwise unknown names can only be met by conjecture. Possibly it was from a now lost written source ; but it is, perhaps, more probable that they are names of places known in his own day as belonging to that region. That the names (or at least the great majority of them) are genuine names of places, there seems no reason to question ; and if, as is far from unlikely, they are names of caravan stations (Masp. Hist. Ancienne, 2:475, n. i) given by travellers, but never used by the inhabitants of the district, the failure to identify the sites would be accounted for (cp Doughty, Arabia Deserta, 1:49). It is, further, quite possible that Alush and Dophkah (v. 13), stages in the movement from Egypt to Sinai, and Zalmonah and Punon (v. 42), stages in the movement from Kadesh to the E. of Canaan, are only accidentally absent from some of our present sources in which they originally stood. That the eastern traditions had little or nothing to say of the places connected with the wanderings, is merely one side of the more general silence as to the period. In Nu. between the incident of the spies (13-14) at the beginning and the events at Kadesh (20:1-21) at the end of the period, but five chapters intervene. Two of these (15, 19) contain miscellaneous laws wholly unrelated to the period, and the remaining three (16-18) relate the revolt of Korah (Dathan, and Abiram) and the laws which were the outcome of it. But whether even this incident was referred to this period in the sources, or only by the editor, it is impossible to decide.

15. JE's tradition.[edit]

In conclusion, some of the general features of the country may be mentioned. In JE, as we have seen, Kadesh is the permanent centre. This harmonises with JE's view of the punishment as a postponement of the possession of the richer country of Canaan rather than the infliction of positive hardship. The people, for their unbelief, are to remain as they had been - nomads (c jri). That is all; the punishment is not aggravated by their being condemned to a peculiarly barren tract of country. For Kadesh ('Ain Kadis) is a singularly fertile and attractive oasis; cereal crops even, in small quantities, can be raised in the neighbourhood. The Wady 'Ain el-Kudeirat, to the W. , with its important well, is also fertile; less valuable, but also worthy of mention, are the thema'il or shallow pits of water in the Wady Kasaimeh, situated still farther W. Southwards and westwards, whither according to JE the Hebrews must have wandered, stretches the desert of et-Tih ; this, according to the description of Palmer (Desert of Exodus, 286-288), is an 'arid featureless waste' marked by scanty lines of vegetation along the shallow wadies, but for the most part waterless. The ground is hard and unyielding and covered with small Hints, and only in spring, after the rains, becomes covered with grass; cp also Seetzen, Reisen, 3:48+.

16. Conclusion.[edit]

Thus, the discovery of the true site of Kadesh and the literary analysis of the Hexateuch have brought to light a very noticeable difference of general representation. In the earlier traditions embodied in JE, the Hebrew nomads had as their common centre a large and fertile oasis in the neighbourhood of two other fertile valleys and a vast roaming ground southwards and westwards, barren for most of the year, but, as is usual in these deserts, abounding with grass in spring. On the other hand, the greater part of the time in D, the whole of it in P, is spent away from this fertile centre on the arid and barren plateau described above.

17. Literature.[edit]

Guthe in ZDPV, 1885, pp. 182+; Lagrange, 'L'itineraire des Israelites du pays de Gessen aux bords du Jourdain', Rev. biblique, 9 (1900) 273-287. On the literary analysis, the relevant works of Dillmann, Wellhausen, Kuenen, and Driver, should be consulted; Bacon's Triple Tradition of the Exodus is especially worthy of attention for his careful attempt to discriminate J and E; the frequent uncertainty in the analysis of these two sources may be seen by consulting the analytical tables in Holzinger's Einl. in den Hex. On the site of 'Ain Kadis (Kadesh) and on the character of this and the neighbouring valleys, see Clay Trumbull, Kadesh Barnea (which also contains a very full index of the literature), Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, 3:43-48, and on the character of the desert of et-Tih, E. H. Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, pt. ii. chaps. 1-5.

[Cp, among other illustrative articles, KADESH 1; MAKHELOTH ; MOSES, 14 ; MOSERAH ; NAHALIEL, ; NEBO [MOUNT], 2; PARAN ; REPHIDIM ; RIMMON-PAREZ ; SIN; SINAI ; ZIN.]

G. B. G.

WAR[edit]

The ordinary word in Hebrew for 'war' is rWl^p, milhamah ; to 'fight' or 'carry on war' is Dn?3, nilham (nif'al), X3\ , tsaba , 2"1|?, karab (lit. 'advance to war', followed by ?X [AL] or 7>1? ['L] of the object), HDnPSp iTJ l , 'asah milhamah, etc. , 'to advance to war' is also expressed by i"P^ (with ?!? [AL], ? [L], or 3). The ordinary Greek equivalent is TroXe/uos [polemos], troXe/j.fiv [polemein].

1. Palestine as a theatre of war.[edit]

Palestine and all its adjacent land bordering on the Mediterranean, including Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus (Gebal), was called by the Babylono-Assyrians (mat) Martu or Amurri, or, in its northern portions mat Haiti, and by the Egyptians Rtnu (see WMM As. u. Eur. 147). All this country stood in a position of great strategic importance in the mutual relations that subsisted between the Euphrates and Tigris lands on the one hand, and the Nile territory on the other. For Palestine possessed a fairly well-watered and fertile belt of hills and plains extending from the Lebanon mountains on the N. to the el-'Arish stream on the S. Consequently Canaan became the natural highway for the trading caravans (Gen. 37:28, 1 K. 10:15) that passed from N. to S. or from SW. to NE. (see TRADE). It would also be the most fertile route for the Egyptian army as it moved to the NE. , or for the Assyrian army as it advanced to the SW. to attack Egypt along its short vulnerable frontier defended by frontier fortresses, N. of the Gulf of Suez. For the empire on the Nile, on the one hand, and the empire on the Tigris or on the Euphrates, on the other, were, to adopt the language of modern politics, the two first-class powers, protagonists in the drama of Western-Asian history, whose mutual relations overshadowed and dominated all other political interests and combinations among the minor Western-Asian states. Unless this controlling factor be kept clearly in view during the larger part of the regal period, the history of Israel in its external aspects can be but imperfectly understood. For a time - e.g. , in the days of David and Solomon - the power of Egypt or of Assyria may suffer decline, or lapse into quiescence, and the Hittite states or Syria (e.g., in the 9th cent.), or Israel itself, may come into temporary prominence, but this is only a passing phase. The more permanent and dominating factor, to which we have referred, is nevertheless ever present and reasserts itself.

No land, therefore, felt the pulses and tremors of war more acutely than the plains and mountains inhabited by Israel. Of this the prophetic oracles bear abundant witness. The prophet of Israel - which geographically stood so central to western-Asiatic movements - could not but be deeply interested in foreign politics. Hence the earliest prophet of Judah whose oracles have come down to us in separate collections (Amos), as well as the latest of the closing years of the monarchy (Jeremiah), uttered his Mashsha on foreign peoples. No other land was better situated as a watch-tower for the inspired seer. Probably no other country on the earth's surface has been more frequently traversed by armies or has oftener resounded to the shock of battle or suffered greater hardships from the ravages of war. Belgium has been called the 'cock-pit of Europe' from the days of Louis XIV. and Marlborough to those of Napoleon and Wellington. But in a far truer sense, during the millenniums that separate Thotmes III. from the age of the Saracens, Palestine has been the cock-pit of Western Asia.

It was at Eltekeh (Altaku), not far from Ekron, that the power of SENNACHERIB (q. v.) recoiled from the onset of his southern enemies, and it was on the fatal field of Megiddo that Pharaoh Necho slew JOSIAH (q.v. ) who resisted the endeavours of the Egyptian monarch to capture the spoils of the defunct Assyrian empire. The Palestinian towns, Samaria, Jerusalem, Ekron, Ashdod, and Lachish, were regarded by the Assyrian kings as outposts on the path of the invader of Egypt, whilst the empire on the Nile, on the other hand, would naturally regard with apprehension their possession by a foreign foe. It is difficult to over-estimate the strategic importance of Palestine.

2. Religious significance of war.[edit]

The close vital bond that existed between the clan or tribe and the clan or tribal deity profoundly affected the ancient Semitic conception of war. 'Religion', as Wellhausen says, 'was patriotism'. Thus war against a foreign nation, like other national acts, was only undertaken under the favour or sanction of the patron deity or deities.

Thus the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs preface the annals of a campaign with phraseology like this:

'In my fourth campaign Ashur inspired me with confidence; then I summoned my mighty forces. . . .' (Sennacherib's prism inscription [Taylor cyl.] col. 3, 42. Cp Judg. 11:29. )

Kings in all their public functions, whether of building temples or conducting wars, like to describe themselves as under divine favour and guidance. Sargon opens his cylinder inscription by describing himself as shaknu Bel ishakku na'id Ashur nishit ina Anim u Dagan, 'Bel's officer, exalted priest of Ashur, favourite of Anu and Dagan'. Cp also Nimrud inscription 1. On the other hand, Sargon's enemy Merodach Baladan, son of Jakin, king of Kaklu, is described as being under the influence of an 'evil demon' (gallu limnu), 1 and 'showing no fear for the name of the lord of lords' (triumphal insc. 122). The Rassam cylinder of Ashur-bani-pal continually recites the names of Ashur, Sin, Shamash, Ramman, Bel, Nebo, Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, Nergal, and Nusku. In fact, the king (or his tablet-writer) seems possessed with a nervous dread of offending any deity by omitting his name. Doubtless in all these cases the magic potency of the name operated in the recital.

1 It may here be noted that the deity of a defeated nation became relegated into the position of a demon, like the Titans overthrown by Zeus. It is to be observed in this connection that the Hebrews called the deities of the Gentiles shedim (C liT) or demons (Dt. 32:17, Ps. 106:37, see DEMONS, 8 2, 4), and we meet with several of their names as the demons of later Judaism - e.g., Reshpa is the flame demon, the old Canaanite flame-deity Resheph, the Reshpu of the ancient Egyptians (Baethg. Beitr. 50, Wiedemann, Rel. Aeg. 83, and cp. the present writer's article 'Demon' in Hastings' DB). Beelzebub is the most conspicuous example.

Ishtar was the Assyrian war-goddess (Jastrow, Rel. of Bab. and Assyr. 83, 204; Driver, 'Ashtoreth' in Hastings' DB 1168). The Canaanite war-deities, according to Egyptian data, were the goddess Anat (represented as armed with helmet, shield, and lance, and in her left hand a battleaxe) and the god Reseph (armed with helmet and lance). See Wiedemann, Relig. der alten Aegypter, 83. The warrior Shamgar was Ben 'Anat ; see Baethgen, Beitrage, 52-53, Judg. 3:31, 5:6.

The Moabite stone yields us other parallels (see MESHA).

Chemosh, national deity of Moab, says to Mesha, 'Go, take Nebo against Israel'. This time it is Yahwe, national deity of Israel, who suffers. His vessels (?) are dragged before Chemosh, and Chemosh drives the king of Israel out of Yahas, ll. 14, 18-19. A high place is made for Chemosh because he had saved Mesha from all his foes, and had caused him to see his desire on all them that hated him. In former times when Omri reigned over Israel Moab was oppressed because Chemosh was angry with his land (l. 4-5). The biblical parallels to this language are very close both in Judges, Samuel, and the earlier Psalms - e.g., Ps. 60, which may contain, as Ewald supposed, a Davidic fragment. (Cp MESHA ; see also Wi. GI 2:204-203)

The name Israel may not improbably have originated with the early Hebrew battle-cry of the desert 'El fights'; and the cry 'for Yahwe and for Gideon', and 'the Sword of Yahwe and of Gideon', are the echoes of old Hebrew battle-cries. 1 All Israel's victorious wars were therefore wars of Yahwe. He was called in comparatively early times niN~s liSx mrr, 'Yahwe, God of Hosts'. The view of Wellhausen, Smend, and others, that this phrase originated with the prophets of the eighth century, is hardly probable. The conception of Yahwe as an atmospheric deity is obviously ancient, and the designation of the Hebrew god as Lord of the heavenly, as well as the earthly, armies is in full accord, Judg. 5:20 (Deborah's song). That Yahwe was closely identified with Israel s wars is clearly shown in Dt. 20:4, Josh. 10:11, Ex. 15:3, etc. Like other Semites the Hebrews inaugurated war by sacrifices. This was said to conse crate war (nDrrVp Bhjp, kiddesh milhamah), Mic. 3:4 Jer. 6:4, cp Josh. 3:5. {2} Hence the burnt-offerings at the opening of a campaign (Judg. 6:20, 6:26, 20:26, 1 S. 7:9, 13:10). The sacrificial pieces sent round by Saul to the Israelites were probably intended not simply to inaugurate a war against the Ammonites (1 S. 11:7) but also to unite the warriors into a holy league of war under Yahwe by a covenant. Every war against a common foe thus tended to weld the scattered clans into a unity, and this union was cemented by the rites of sacrifice. Moreover, in war-time, in seasons of great anxiety or strife, special piacular sacrifices would be offered. In times of special danger a human victim might even be sacrificed. Of this we have a remarkable example in 2 K. 3:27, which is the more significant as it reveals the Hebrew dread of its potency. (On the Hellenic belief in the efficacy of human sacrifice see WRS Rel. Sem. (2), 402-403, and n. 5. ) In early Hebrew warfare the leaders would always be accompanied on the field of battle by the priest-soothsayer with the ephod and sacred lot, or, as in the early Philistine campaigns, with the ark of God (1 S. 4:3-4, 14:18-19, 23:6, 23:9-10, 30:7-8). What is probably meant by the use of his ephod in divination by the priest-soothsayer is that the sacred lot was used in the presence of the plated ephod image which gave the procedure divine sanction.


1 Judg. 7:18, 7:20. Moore regards the introduction of 2^n in the form given in v. 20 as due to a gloss.

2 This use of the Hithpael ENpnn shows that warriors consecrated themselves for war just as they would for the performance of a religious rite. This idea seems to underlie Is. 13:3, and Benzinger in PRE (3) would connect with this the ancient Semitic custom of sexual abstinence which prevailed among the Arabs; WRS Rel. Sem. (2), 455. It is in this sense we should understand 2 S. 11:6-7; Uriah refuses to come to his wife as long as the ark of God and the army of Israel are on the field. Evidently there was a taboo on sexual nncleanness in war-time. Hence the strict camp-regulations with regard to uncleanness in Dt. 23:10-14. These were manifestly old Toroth based on the conception that Yahwe was present in the camp (v. 14). Probably this is the underlying motive of Dt. 20:7. It is not easy, however, to follow Schwally (Semit. Kriegsaltert.) in his interpretation that in the other cases mentioned in Dt. 20:5-6 the individual was believed to be specially exposed to demons.

Wellhausen reminds us (Heid. (2), 132, 136-137) that nearly all the clan chiefs of the Kuraish consulted lots before they marched on their expedition to Badr, though requested by Abu-Sufian, whom they sought to rescue, not to wait to consult lots. Similarly, though with more elaboration of detail, the Assyrian ruler questioned the deity before definitely entering upon a fresh expedition, all possible contingencies being enumerated, so that there might be no loop-hole of escape, just as in a lawyer's deed. 1 As Yahwe, Israel's national deity, was identified with the people, and especially with the national act of war which was undertaken in his name and under his auspices, so the booty, including the human captives as well as the cattle, belonged in a very special sense to him. This is evidently the underlying principle of the herein, which surrounded the objects captured in war with a sacred ring-fence which forbade their appropriation for human uses. This explains Samuel's action in slaying Agag in 1 S. 15:7-33, the whole passage viewed from this aspect being exceedingly instructive.

The language of v. 18 is exactly parallel to that of the stone of Mesha , ll. 14-15, 32. In the latter case Mesha devotes to Ashtar-Kemosh (l. 17, nr4oinn) the entire population of Nebo, both men and women. The inscription makes it clear that this means wholesale slaughter (cp Josh. 6:17 ; see BAN). This tradition of ancient Semitism even persisted in Hebrew legislation. Dt. 7:2, 20:13-17, however, limit its application to Canaanite towns which, near the close of the seventh century, practically meant nothing but the maintenance of an old formula. Women, children, and cattle were permitted to live and be divided as spoil of war (see SIEGE, end, and cp Nu. 31:7-8, Josh. 8:2, 8:27-28, Judg. 21:11-12).

3. Preliminaries of war.[edit]

The negotiations which precede a declaration of war are set forth in fuller form in Judg. 11:12-28, 1 S. 11:1-10, 1 K. 20:2-11. The negotiations took place by word of mouth through messengers (Judg. 11:12, 1 K. 20:2). Proverbs or parables might be employed (2 K. 14:9-10, 1 K. 20:11). Proceedings of this kind are regulated in Dt. 20:10-11; but we have no precise information as to the form in which war was declared. Probably the cessation of negotiations would be the indication that war was in preparation.

4. Preparations for war.[edit]

(a) Provisioning of troops. - On this subject we have very slight information. The methods consisted in the rough and ready ones of providing sufficient for the sustenance of the army for a brief space until it entered the enemy's territory; each family, household, or local clan sending provisions sufficient for its own warriors. Of what these consisted we may gather from 1 S. 17:17. Kali or roast (parched) corn was the usual diet of workers who led an out-door life (Ruth 2:14) and therefore of soldiers (cp 2 S. 17:28); and to this would be added curds and cakes ('rounds', n7nss, Judg. 8:5) of unleavened bread; 2 see BREAD and MILK. In one case (Judg. 20:10-11) we read that a special corps, about one-tenth of the army, was told off for the express purpose of supplying the army with necessaries. These could be furnished without difficulty in ordinary circumstances, to an expeditionary force at a short distance from its base. Rut when the territory of the enemy was entered the simple method adopted was that of unlimited spoliation of the crops and fruit-trees, including the palm-groves and the vines, in the country through which the army passed (cp Is. 1:7). The Assyrian army was specially destructive and left a wide tract of desolation behind it. Is. 7:20 compares it to a 'razor hired' by Yahwe for the infliction of his chastise ments (cp Is. 16:9-10). Even the flocks and herds were not spared (Jer. 5:15-17). Israel's practice was in reality the same in the spoliation both of sheep (1 S. 15:9) and of fruit (2 K. 3:19), the trees being cut down partly for the timber, which could be turned to account (see SIEGE), and partly to deprive the enemy of their use. This practice was forbidden in the Deuteronomic legislation (Dt. 20:19-20); but it was recommended by Elisha to Israel in the war against Moab (2 K. 3:19).

1 See Knudtzon's Assyr. Gebete an den Sonnengott, where examples are given of prayers of this kind addressed to Shamash. An excellent illustration is quoted by Jastrow, Rel. Bab. 334-335 See also 'Soothsaying' in Hastings DB.

2 Also round cakes of figs - summer figs dried into cake, and used as an article of consumption, called debelah (1 S. 30:12, cp 25:1 : fee FRUIT, 7) - as well as raisins (tsimmuk; see FRUIT, 4) which were also made into cakes ('ashishah; see FRUIT, 5), Moreover the grape juice which came from trodden clusters was boiled down to a syrup called 'honey', in modern Arabic dibs (see FRUIT, 3 ; HONEY, 1 [3]). This may have been the honey which Barzillai bestowed on David and his warriors (2 S. 17:29); see Whitehouse, Heb. Antiquities (R TS), 102-103.

(b) Mustering of troops. - Troops were summoned in early times by the blowing of the trumpet or war-horn whereby the clan warriors were rallied together (Judg. 3:27, 2 S. 20:1 ; cp 1 Macc. 3:51). 1 An alarm of war was usually sounded in this way, and was the function of the watchman (nss, tsopheh}. Compare Ezekiel's use of this metaphor for the prophet's vocation in 33:2-11. Frequent messengers were sent if the forces were to be summoned from a large district (1 S. 11:7).

1 The trumpet was also used in sounding a halt or a return (2 S. 2:28, 18:16, 20:22).

5. Varied details.[edit]

(a) Spring-time would be the natural season chosen for beginning a campaign. The annual expeditions recorded by Shalmaneser II. probably commenced at that time. The reasons are obvious, and have been partially indicated in the previous section (4a). Troops on the march - especially in a hostile territory - were sustained by the crops and other fruits of the earth. Winter, to say nothing of its climatic rigours, was the time when the earth was bare of subsistence for man. By the close of the month Tishri (Ethanim in the old Hebrew-Canaanite calendar) the troops would betake themselves to their homes. Thus in 2 S. 11:1 'at the return of the year, when the kings march forth' (cp 1 K. 20:20-26) does not mean the beginning of the year in the old pre-exilian calendar - viz., Ethanim or Tisri - but about the time of the spring months.

The expression rt3C N3 in 2 K. 13:20 cannot be cited in this connection since the passage should probably be emended, as Kittel suggests, into rnr:} n:B> pxn 1KT '(bands of Moabites) used to invade the land yearly'.

(b) Scouting was necessary in order to ascertain the strength and position of the enemy (1 S. 26:4, Judg. 1:24, 7:10-11, Josh. 2:1-2, ehn D ^riDi nnpr ; cp SPIES); or strict inquiries would be made by the leaders of the army of those whom they chanced to meet (1 S. 30:11).

(c) The camp (n:nn, mahaneh.) was carefully guarded, since it formed the base of operations (cp 1 S. 30:24). We have very few details to guide us as to its character or shape. Nu. 2 would lead to the conclusion that it was square; but as this passage is late (belonging to a considerable P section) it should be cautiously used. The Egyptian camp was, however, four-cornered. See Erman, 530 - a vivid description (see, further, CAMP).

Probably the camp was round like the encampments of the Bedouins (cp TENT). It is hardly possible to draw any particular inference from the ma'gal, 73^0, of 1 S. 17:20, 26:5. The word is found only in 1 S. in this particular sense of a 'waggon-laager'. Probably it would in many cases be fenced in with stones, like the hatser, isn, of the nomadic tribes (Gen. 25:16) for purposes of protection. Dwelling in booths must have largely prevailed in the time of David, and the language of Uriah the Hittite (2 S. 11:11) shows that this was certainly the case in time of war. The camp was guarded by sentinels, who had three watches (Judg. 7:19, 1 Macc. 12:27). To the rules for the maintenance of purity in the camp (Dt. 23:10-11, Nu. 5:1-4), we have referred already ( 2, n).

6. Accoutrements and other appliances of war.[edit]

The arms or weapons used in warfare would vary considerably at different periods of Israel's history. In the early nomadic stage of the nation's development the arms would consist of the spear or lance, hanith (,), a wooden shaft with a bronze or, in later times, an iron head (see SPEAR). We also read of the smaller kidon (J ITS), or JAVELIN [q.v.] (1 S. 17:6, 1:45; also a Babylonian weapon, Jer. 6:23, 50:42) and of the romah. (n"oi, difficult to distinguish from the 7'nn ; see SPEAR). The SWORD (q.v. ), hereb (yin), would be fastened to the girdle, and we likewise find in use the dagger, lahab (an 1 ? ; Judg. 3:22), so called from its glittering blade or point. The bow (see WEAPONS, 2) and the SLING (q.v. ) were also employed as weapons of offence, particularly by the Benjamites (cp 2 S. 1:22, 1 S. 20:20-21). The use of the bow by the Josephite tribes is clearly indicated in Gen. 49:23-24, cp Ps. 78:9. The use of the sling is specially connected with the Benjamites whose left-handed slingers became famous (Judg. 20:16, cp SLING). That the tribe of Judah also possessed slingers is evident from 1 S. 17:40 etc., and the constant presence of slingers in Assyrian warfare is certified by the figures on the monuments (see SIEGE). They were specially formidable in sieges, and operated with the Israelite forces with potent effect against the Moabite stronghold, Kir Harasheth. In early times we read little of defensive armour. The SHIELD (q.v.) in use was the smaller and simpler magen ([jD, dcTTris [aspis]) employed to defend the bowman on the chariot (cp CHARIOT, 9, and fig. 7). Neither chariots nor horsemen, however, were used till the time of Solomon. The shield was probably carried only by the more important warriors (2 S. 1:21). The BREAST-PLATE (q.v.) was like wise a rarity in ancient Israelite warfare and, like the bronze HELMET (q.v.) it would be the privilege only of the chiefs (1 K. 22:34). Probably the Israelites were among the most backward among Semitic peoples in adopting these accessories of combat, and the story of David's proving the armour provided by Saul probably reflects old tradition and prejudice (1 S. 17:38-39). The ordinary warrior wore only the simlah (see MANTLE, 2, i), which displayed the blood-stains of battle (Is. 9:4). Even Joab merely wears the lebus (2 S. 20:8 text restored by Klostermann). We may therefore assume that in the earlier period of Israel's history, when the nomad clans were establishing their position on the hills of Canaan, all their fighting-men were light-armed. As soon, however, as they learned the arts and methods of the Canaanites and Philistines who inhabited the plain, the distinction began to arise between the light-armed (whose weapons would be the spear, bow, sling, sword, and smaller shield) and the heavy-armed, whose accoutrements were the larger shield (tsinnah, naXi tftpeos [thyreos]; see SHIELD), resembling that of the Assyrians, as well as the cuirass (siryon, j vnp) and the helmet. According to the statements of the Chronicler, which in this case McCurdy (Expos., Nov. 1891) has shown to be worthy of credence in the main facts, it was Uzziah who first provided his army with helmet and breastplate (2 Ch. 26:14), to what extent is uncertain. Previously they had belonged to the captains or chieftains only.

It is not easy to determine how the Israelite forces in early times were shod. But it seems fairly probahle that they wore the ordinary sandals consisting of soles of leather or wood tied under the feet by thongs (Gen. 14:23). From Isaiah's vivid description (527) as well as from the portrayal on Assyrian monuments, we gather that the soles were firmly and strongly made and the back was protected by leather, but the toes and upper part of the foot were bare, covered only by the thongs that were bound firmly and tightly across. Not improbably the Israelites had by this time (740-700 B.C.) learned the value of a strong and serviceable military shoe, and the Hebrew word seon used by Isaiah in 9:4 {1} is probably a loan-word from the Assyrian shenu. See SHOES.

It is by no means easy to ascertain at what time the wheeled battering-ram of the Assyrians (Assyr. arammu, shupu) was first employed by the Hebrews. Probably it was quite unknown to Israel until the ninth century, when it was employed by Assyria against the Syrian towns in the N. See SIEGE.

1 Regarded, however, as post-exilic by Hackmann and Cheyne.

7. Tactics.[edit]

It has been pointed out already (see CHARIOT) that one powerfully determining factor in the advance of Israel's military accoutrements and tactics was the great change brought about when the people ceased to be a band of hardy warriors armed with spear and bow who sallied forth from their mountain fastnesses, and became a disciplined force that waged aggressive wars upon the plain. It was the life and death struggle with the Philistines that first welded the Israelite clans into some semblance of unity under Saul, the representative of the hegemony of Benjamin, and subsequently under David of Bethlehem - Judah. The Philistines taught the Hebrews some severe lessons from the time of the destruction of Shiloh down to Saul s tragic overthrow at Gilboa. The Hebrews were able to hold their own with wonderful skill and persistence when the fighting was in mountain passes like that of Micmash (1 S. 14:5-6) or in the forests of Ziph (1 S. 23:14) or Ephraim (2 S. 18:6), or when sudden night attacks were made (Josh. 10:9-10, Judg. 7:5-6), or rocky citadels stormed (2 S. 5:6-7) ; but their inability to forge their own weapons placed them at a great disadvantage (1 S. 13:19-20), and their irregular guerilla tactics were utterly at fault when the Philistines managed at Aphek to concentrate immense forces around Saul (whose strength was weakened by David's defection), and to drive him from the open plain of Jezreel (where the methods of attack employed by Jonathan could not avail) into his last forlorn stronghold on Mount Gilboa.

The mountainous regions, where chariots and horsemen could not operate, afforded the best ground for the irregular tactics of the Israelites. Even as late as the time when the dynasty of Omri reigned (9th cent. ), Israel's God, Yahwe, was regarded by the Syrians as god of the hills (1 K. 20:23).

A change, however, begins to be apparent in the reign of David, whose wars of conquest led him beyond his own borders and who was seconded by one of the ablest and most energetic generals that the Hebrews ever possessed, from the days of the Exodus to those of Judas the Maccabee. What Hannibal was to Carthage in the latter end of the third century, Joab was to David throughout his stormy reign in the tenth. We have already seen (see SIEGE) that it was Joab who first taught the Israelites the regular methods of reducing a fortified town (2 S. 20:15). Nevertheless, the equipment of Israel must still have remained primitive, for horses and chariots were not employed, and even the leader Absalom rides upon a mule (2 S. 18:9). In the reign of Solomon Israel began to enter into fuller intercourse with foreign peoples, and the dynasty of Omri united Israel closely with Phoenicia, and was able to wage successful wars with Syria and Mesha, king of Moab. Omri and Ahab were capable generals, and the strategic instinct of the former marked out Samaria as his royal fortress-citadel. Omri's name was dreaded by the Moabites, as the stone of Mesha clearly testifies (l. 4-5), and became permanently identified by the Assyrians with the Ephraimite kingdom long after his dynasty had disappeared (see OMRI). Chariots and horsemen were now a recognised part of Israel's war-equipment, and in the Syrian coalition against Shalmaneser II. (as we learn from his monolith insc. col. 2:91) Ahab figures as Hadadezer's (see BENHADAD, 2) most powerful ally, furnishing a contingent of 2000 chariots and 10,000 men. Probably Ahab had brought Israel to a level of military efficiency fully equal to that of any other Palestinian state, evidenced by his brilliant victory at Aphek over much superior numbers (1 K. 20:27-28). In the last fatal battle of Ramoth Gilead, Ahab's value is so highly esteemed that the word of command goes forth among the Syrian ranks that he must be slain at all costs. See AHAB, 8.

The term ma'arakah (nsnyp, 1 S. 17:8, 17: 10 etc., 23:3) and the phrase [non^p] ?jny. &rak [milhamah] (Judg. 20:20, 20:22, 20:30, 20:33, 1 S. 4:2, 17:21), show that in comparatively early times the fighters were drawn up in line. {1} Sometimes we read that they were disposed in three separate divisions (Judg. 7:16, 7:20, 1 S. 11:11). This seems to have been a favourite tactical arrangement of forces, and it was adopted by David against his son Absalom with complete success in a country of wide extent covered by forest (2 S. 18:2).

The Hebrews remained throughout their history without a navy manned by their own sailors. The geographical configuration of the sea-coast of Palestine S. of Tyre, with its almost utter absence of harbours, made the sea a strange element. {2} Naval warfare was therefore unknown to them. For even their rivers were insignificant, and thus we never read of river expeditions like those which proceeded up the Nile, or of such naval battles as those which were waged by Rameses III. in which he repelled the hordes of barbarians (who had defeated the Syrians and the Hittites) from their descent on the mouth of the Nile by sea (Erman, 540). It is true that Phoenician vessels were utilised by Solomon ; but this was not for military purposes. On the other hand Sennacherib (like Xerxes more than two centuries later) employed Phoenician ships and sailors in his expedition to Elam in 697 B.C. A vivid relief, now in the British Museum, exhibits a Phoenician galley armed with shields and propelled by two banks of rowers (bas relief from Kuyunjik). In the ninth century B.C. Shalmaneser II. describes in his annals how he crossed the Euphrates on boats of sheepskin (ina elippani sha masak tahsi; {3} cp ASSYRIA) ; but such details are entirely foreign to the military annals of Israel. Cp SHIP.

When we come down to the second century B. C. we are brought into contact with Graeco-Asiatic civilisation and its military methods, 1 Macc. 6 gives us a vivid description, garnished with some luxuriance, of the warfare and equipment of king Antiochus.


The conquests of Alexander had extended to India, and Pyrrhus, in the preceding century, had made Italy familiar with the sight of Indian elephants in warfare. The army of Antiochus advanced against Judas the Maccabee in the phalanx formation. A thousand men, armed with coats of mail and bronze helmets, accompanied each elephant. The number of troops of Antiochus that were engaged is computed at 100,000 footmen and 20,000 cavalry and 32 elephants 'trained for war'. 400 horsemen were detailed for service around each elephant. Each elephant carried a wooden tower, 'strong and covered' and 'bound fast with cunning contrivances', containing 32 warriors besides an Indian, probably the driver who managed the elephant. The remainder of the cavalry, amounting to 4000 men, were placed on the wings for the protection of the phalanxes. The whole army covering the hills and the plain moved with precision. One elephant was believed by Eleazar, surnamed Avaran, fourth of the Maccabaean brothers, to carry king Antiochus himself. It towered above the other animals and was protected by royal breastplates. Eleazar daringly broke through the protecting phalanx, crept beneath the elephant, stabbed it, and was crushed by its fall. Cp ELEPHANT.

1 The procedure of battle even in the later regal period cannot be described in any but general terms, as we have no materials for an accurate and detailed portrayal. Perhaps the following description (by Sir G. Wilkinson) of ancient Egyptian warfare (1:264) will serve as the best illustration: 'The archers drawn up in line first discharged a shower of arrows on the enemy s front, and a considerable mass of chariots advanced to the charge ; the heavy infantry, armed with spears or clubs and covered with their shields, moved forward at the same time in close array, flanked by chariots and cavalry, and prosed upon the centre and wings of the enemy, the archers still galling the hostile columns with their arrows'.

2 See Nowack, HA 1:247.

3 Monolith insc. col. 2:16.

8. Accompaniments of war.[edit]

(a) The conquerors were welcomed home with song and dance. Of this we have several examples in the literature of the OT; Ex. 15 and Judg. 5 (Deborah's song) are songs of triumph and thanksgiving after victory, 1 S. 18:6-7 gives only the brief refrain of the song of the maidens who greeted Saul and David (cp Judith 16:1-2, 1 Macc. 4:24). Of such a character is Hannah's song in reality (1 S. 2 [cp col. 2965]). Similarly Esarhaddon says (Prism Inscr. col. 1, 53) : 'With singers (zammure) and playing on lutes I entered Nineveh'. See fig. 25 in MUSIC. The burial of dead warriors was a sacred duty (1 K. 11:15), and lamentations were composed and sung, 2 S. 1:17-27, 3:31-36 (Ezek. 32:18-32).

(b) The darker reverse is presented when we deal with the treatment of the conquered. This was characterised by the utmost cruelty. The wars with the Canaanites are full of examples (Josh. 10:26-27, and passim}. Also we have instances of mutilation of the captives (Judg. 1:6-7; cp 1 S. 11:2 and 2 S. 12:31). Captured kings or generals were frequently slain (Judg. 7:25). Too often we read of wholesale slaughter (Judg. 8:7, 2 S. 8:2) indicated by the phrase ann ^ nan (EV 'smote with the edge of the sword'). The feet were placed (in token of conquest) upon the neck or head of the conquered (Josh. 10:24). The dead were decapitated (1 S. 17:54, 31:9, 2 Macc. 15:30, Jos. BJ i. 17 2). The dead were often rifled of their property, and prisoners plundered (1 S. 31:8, 2 Macc. 9:27). The horses of the enemy had their sinews severed ('houghed') that they might be rendered useless (Josh. 11:69). We also read of pregnant women ripped up, and infants dashed to pieces (2 K. 15:16, Is. 13:16, Am. 1:13, Hos. 10:14, Nah. 3:10, Ps. 137:8, 2 Macc. 5:13). The land of the enemy was desolated, the trees cut down, and the wells stopped up (Judg. 6:4, 1 Ch. 20:1, Dt. 20:19-20). Towns and villages were burnt to the ground (Judg. 9:45, 1 Macc. 5:28, 10:84). The payment of large sums of money was imposed on the conquered, or a yearly tribute (2 K. 18:14, Is. 33:18), a custom which was universal and is constantly referred to in the Assyrian inscriptions.

A severe judgment, however, cannot be passed on the treatment by the Hebrews of their conquered. The universal custom of antiquity must be taken into consideration as well as the all-prevailing conception of war as a religious act in which the deity of the nation was deeply involved. The old Semitic conception of the herem explains much of the practice. In comparison with Assyrian usage the Hebrews must be called humane. By far the larger proportion of the captured were made into slaves. The women became concubines, and were treated with consideration.

The Egyptians also, according to Wilkinson's judgment, were humane as compared with the Assyrians in their treatment of captives (Anc. Egypt. 1:264). 'The cruel custom of flaying alive and the tortures represented on the sculptures of Nineveh show that the Assyrians were guilty of barbarities at a period long after the Egyptians had been accustomed to the refinements of civilisation'. Just as the followers of David reckoned up the foreskins of the Philistines whom they had slain, so the ancient Egyptians reckoned up the severed hands which were placed in heaps before the king and counted by his secretary (Wilkinson, ibid. 1:266).

9. Attitude of Prophets.[edit]

The attitude of the Hebrew prophets towards the wars of their people against a foreign foe was at first one of unquestioning sympathy. This was inevitable in consequence of the religious aspect of war above indicated. Elisha advises the allied monarchs of Israel and Judah to adopt a skilful ruse in their war against Moab (2 K. 4:15-16), and on his deathbed he is greeted by Joash, king of Israel, with the same words 'The chariots of Yahwe and the horsemen thereof', with which the prophet himself had greeted Elijah in the latter's closing hours (2 K. 2:12, 12:14); and Elisha's last address to the king of Israel is one of passionate insistence on the need of persistent energy in prosecuting the war with Syria. More than a century later, Isaiah's powerful personality is Judah s strongest stay in the kingdom's darkest hour of conflict with Assyria. Towards the close of the eighth century, however, prophecy scanned more closely the religious and ethical aspects of national policy, and in the days of Jeremiah the divorce between nationalism and religion in its purest sense was complete, and the prophet saw nothing tjefore the disordered and corrupt state but irrevocable doom. There gleamed also upon the distant horizon the vision of a pure, holy, and righteous rule, when men would 'beat their swords into coulters and their spears into pruning-knives' (Mic. 4:3, Is. 2:4), 'the image of Joel 3:10 reversed' (Cheyne). sustained also by the utterances of Is. 9:5 and 11:1-9; cp Zech. 9:10. These are the ideals which Christianity seeks to realise.

10. Metaphorical references.[edit]

In the moral world there is a constant opposition between the powers of good and evil, both in the individual mental life and in the life of society. Both the Old and the New Testament, therefore, inevitably employ the material terms of earthly warfare as metaphors. God is repeatedly called a 'shield' in this world of strife (Gen. 15:1, Dt. 33:29, Ps. 5:12, 59:11, 84:9, 84:11), or his truth (or faithfulness) is so called (91:4). These terms abound in the NT passages which deal with spiritual warfare. The apostle Paul is especially prone to their use (1 Cor. 9:26, 2 Cor. 7:5, 1 Tim. 6:12, 2 Tim. 4; and in Eph. 6:11-12 [see BREASTPLATE]). In the Book of Revelation, which moves in the language and ideas of Jewish apocalyptic and Messianic eschatology, we have a 'war in heaven' (TroAe/uos cv ovpav^ [polemos en ouranoo]) in which Satan and the Beast are finally quelled by God and his heavenly host, Megiddo being employed as the type of the great heavenly Armageddon (see Beyschlag, NT Theol. II. pp. 399-408).

11. War in Islam.[edit]

War in Islam, on the other hand, is chiefly regulated by Kuran, Sur. 47, and is nothing but old Semitic warfare carried out beyond the distinctions of nationalism into that of believers and non-believers in the prophet. Allah is the Lord-protector of the faithful but not of unbelievers (Sur. 47:12). The Jihad should even be carried on against unbelievers during the four sacred months, while for all believers those months are exempt (Sur. 9:36-37). Those who are slain in a Jihad have paradise as their reward (Sur. 47:5-7). See further Sell, faith of Islam (2), 360-361

12. Literature.[edit]

The most important recent contribution is Schwally's Semitische Kriegsaltertumer, of which his first Heft, dealing with the religious side, has appeared. Especially important is his account of the taboos imposed during war, as well as of the apparatus of religious cultus in war. The writer, however, is somewhat in danger of finding religious motives connected with war where none such existed. See criticism by Volz (in TLZ, 13th Sept. 1902). Next in importance are the arts. 'Kriegswesen, etc.' by Henzinger in PRE (3), and section 72 in Nowack's Heb. Arch. (1:372-373). Respecting war among the Assyrians the materials are found in the royal annalistic inscc. in Schrader's KIB 1 and 2. For Egypt consult especially Erman's Life in Ancient Egypt, 20 (520+).

O. C. W.

WARD[edit]

See PRISON. The words are:-

1. "CE lp, mishmar, Gen. 40:3-4, rnWC, mishmereth (section 1).

2. 1PD, sugar, Ezek. 19:9-10 (section 2:2).

3. rnps, pekiduth, Jer. 37 13! (section 2;10).

4. T>jprj<n<; [teresis] (section 2:14).

5. j&t;jplt;n&lgrj< [phylake] (section 2:15).