Encyclopaedia Biblica/Galatians-Gaza

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search






  • 1. Date ( 10).
  • 2. Readers (11).
  • 3. Judaizing emissaries (12-13).
  • 4. Purpose of Epistle (14).
  • 5. Its place in history ( 15).

Bibliography (16).


The genuineness of the four so-called principal epistles of Paul Rom., i and 2 Cor., and Gal. so unreservedly accepted by the Tubingen school, has not been allowed to remain unquestioned in recent times. When the opposite view was first set forth with characteristic boldness by Bruno Bauer (Kritik d. paulin. Briefe, 5O- 52), it received no serious attention ; but it has recently been again pressed in all seriousness by Loman (Th.T, 82, "83, 86) and his many successors in Holland, 1 by Edwin Johnson, the anonymous author of Antiqua Mater ( 87), and especially by Steck (Galater- brief, 88).

1 Among them Vnlter, Komp. d. paulin. Hauplbriefe, 90 ; van Manen, Paulus I. -III. (Acts, 90 ; Romans, 91 ; Corinthians, 96). See van Manen (JPT, 83, 84, 86, 87 ; Th. T, 90 ; Exp. T 9 [Feb. -Apr. 98]), also Steck (Prot. A Z, "91, no. 31-34, 92, no. 34 / I "95. n. if- I Prot. Monatshefte, 97, pp. 3S3-34 2 )-

1. Difficulties.[edit]

Of the arguments brought against the genuineness of Galatians we may mention first : The difficulties presented by many of its details. For example, a contradiction has been found between 1 10 where the apostle disclaims any desire to please men, and 22 where, notwithstanding, he submits himself to the judgment of the original apostles. This, as well as many other examples of hypercriticism, we may safely disregard. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the epistle contains much that is obscure and (to us) surprising. It can only be welcomed as a gain for science that such difficulties have been pointed out anew. But the spuriousness of the epistle follows from them only by a petitio principii viz. , by assuming that the historical Paul, of whose writing we, in the view of these negative critics, do not possess a single line, was invariably in the habit of expressing himself with absolute clearness, and also that the text of what he wrote has at no point ever suffered at the hands of copyists.

For example, 1:7 is certainly obscure ; but it admits of being interpreted as meaning another gospel which [is no gospel at all but] consists in nought else [or, rests upon nought else] than this, that there be some etc. Again, in 2 18 the thesis is: If I build up again the Mosaic law which I have declared to be obsolete, I thereby declare the life I have hitherto been living in freedom from the law to have been a life of transgression. In 2:19 the sequence is unexpected ; but the intention is to justify the implication in v. 18 of the sinfulness of again building up the law. In 1 10 the conjectural emendation n yap, with the mark of interrogation instead of the present dprt yap, has much to recommend it (as in Rom. 3 3 ; in Gal. apri occurs immediately before, in 1 9) ; so has the interpretation of Tret &o as equivalent to Kf)pv<T(r<a (or, still better, the supplanting of iret Oio by a word bearing this meaning) ; for Paul apparently is here guarding himself against the same reproach as in 2 Cor. 4 5. Once more : in Gal. 3 20, the thesis sought to be established is that the law was given, not immediately by God, but mediately by angels, who were but inadequately fitted for the service. As a step in the proof, use is made of the (erroneous) assumption that only a plurality of persons will make use of a mediator, and that a single person will always communicate what he has to say personally and directly. The assumption here follows rabbinical modes of thought, resembling the argument in 3 16 (against 3 29, Rom. 4 16), where it is urged that in the OT by the seed of Abraham Christ alone can be meant, inasmuch as the word <77re pju.a is used in the singular ; resembling, also, the argument elaborated in 421-31, according to which the Jews who continue in unbelief are the children not of Sarah but of Hagar. Here again it is a mere petitio principii to take for granted that the historical Paul must have been incapable of adopting such rabbinical lines of thought. 1

2. Romans used?.[edit]

As regards other obscure points, there has been an attempt to explain them as due to unskilful borrowing from the author of Romans. It must be conceded not only that the two epistles have many thoughts in common, but also that in Romans these are for the most part elaborated with greater clearness.

In Gal. 36 the mention of Abraham comes in quite abruptly, whilst in Rom. 4 it fits naturally into the context ; in Gal. 3 27 there is a mixture of two metaphors which in Rom. 6 3 and 13 14 are applied separately and suitably ; in Gal. 3 19 the words, literally taken, admit of being construed as meaning that the law was given in order to prevent transgressions, and only from Rom. 5 eo does it become clear that for the multiplication of transgressions is what is intended.

On the other hand, positive blunders, of the kind that can occur only in the case of a compiler manipulating another man s work, cannot be shown anywhere.

In 56 circumcision is spoken of as a matter of indifference, and in v. 2 as positively hurtful ; but, as the first passage is intended to refer only to those who had been circumcised before their conversion to Christ, whilst the latter has in view only those who, being already Christians, suffer themselves to be circumcised, there is no contradiction. Such a digression as we have in 3 nyC at the close of which 3 13 resumes the interrupted connection with 3 10, or such as occurs in 5 i7(fromiVaor perhaps even from TO.VTO), can very well have been made by the historical Paul (or written on the margin by a. very early reader). Many other points that at first sight are very puzzling to us we can easily suppose to have been clear to the GaJatians through the oral teaching of Paul.

Steck, it is true, on the ground that we have no information as to what Paul may have preached in Galatia, forbids this supposition ; and, in like manner, he holds it to be illegitimate to regard the collection alluded to in Gal. 2 10 as historical, in dependent evidence from other sources being wanting. On such lines as these we need not be surprised that in the single word irpoftnov in Gal. 5 21 he finds conclusive evidence that the author of our epistle is quoting i Cor. , and more particularly (i g_f.

1 As regards 421-31, it has been proposed by some critics to strike out w. 24-27, or at least v. 25^1, from TO to Apa/3t a.

3 Synoptists earlier than Gal.?[edit]

It is alleged, further, that use of the synoptical gospels is seen in at least Rom. 12 14 138-to 1 Cor. 13:2 7:10-11.As it is maintained that these epistles are older than Galatians, it is relevant to discuss the allegation in the present connection. In point of fact, all the observed phenomena can be sufficiently explained by the assumption that the author knew the gospel history from oral sources. Indeed, it is actually in i Cor. 7 io/. that the genuine (because stricter) form of the prohibition of divorce has been preserved.

It is not to be supposed that if Jesus had mentioned the case of adultery as an exception to the general prohibition as we read in Mt. 032 19g any tradition would have overlooked such a mitigation; least of all is it to be supposed that Paul would have done so. In fact, the latter finds himself compelled on his own responsibility to establish a new exception that, namely, by which it is provided that a marriage with a non-Christian may lawfully be dissolved if there seems no prospect of its being continued in peace (i Cor. 7 15).

The attempt to trace the account of the resurrection of Jesus in i Cor. 15 3-8 to the written synoptists also must be held a failure.

In view of the denial of the resurrection of Jesus current in Corinth, the writer of the epistle was under the most stringent necessity to adduce everything that could be alleged in proof of it. That being so, he would assuredly have passed over none of the circumstances connected with the event detailed in the gospels ; least of all could he pass over what is related about the empty grave.

On the other hand, it is easy to understand why the synoptists left on one side the accounts recorded by Paul. What Paul constantly affirms is only that the risen Jesus had been seen. The synoptists believe that they have much more conclusive evidence to bring namely, that Jesus had been touched, and that he had eaten.

4. Extra-canonical writings used?[edit]

It is claimed that extra-canonical writings also have been used in the composition of the four epistles. Even should this be made out as regards Philo(born about 20 B.C. ; see Vollmer, Die A TZichen Citaie 6ei PauZus, 83- 98 ['95]) and Seneca (died 65 A.D. ;

see Steck, 249-265, especially for Rom. 12 19), the genuineness of the epistles would not (when we consider the early date of these writers) thereby be impugned. Nor would it be impugned because of their employment of the Assumptio Mosis.

George Syncellus, in the eighth century, finds such employ ment in Gal. 6 15 ; a MS of the eleventh century finds it in 56. Euthalius in the fifth century mentions an a.w6i<pvtf>ov Mwucre ws as source. The passage does not occur in the portion of the Assuiitf>tio that has come down to us (cp Schiir. GV I, 32, 5 3 ; ( 2 >, 2 636, ET 5 8 [_/: ; Clemen, Chron. d. Paul. Brief e, 257). Whether a Tewish book could have contained so anti-Jewish a proposition unless through interpolation by a Christian hand need not here be discussed. The Assmnfitio was in any case composed within the time of the sons of Herod the Great ; in 6 6 f. (according to the most reasonable reading) it erroneously predicts for them a shorter reign than their father has had (see APOCALYPTIC, 64).!

4 Esd. was written, it is true, under Domitian, and would, therefore, be decisive of the question before us if the departure from the OT text in Rom. 10 7 could be traced to 4 Esd. 4 8. The variation, however, comes simply from Ps. 107 26 ; cp. 130s.

1 See R. H. Charles, Assitrnfrtion of Moses ( 97), p. \vf. The view of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld that in the Assumptio the use of the plural cervices in 108 proves use of 4 Esd., and particularly of chaps. 11 f., which speak of the eagle with three heads (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) is quite mistaken. The passage rests simply on Dt. 32 n (cervices, which, more over, in Cicero and Sallust invariably means but one neck, renders jueTa(pea.), and is speaking of elevation in heaven, not of elevation over the Romans. For a fuller discussion of this point see the present writer s articles in the Protestantische Monatshefte, 1898, pp. 252-254 ; 1899, pp. 150-152 ; 1900, pp. 20-22.

5. Dependent on Acts?[edit]

It is also contended that, as compared with Acts, the representation given in Galatians is only of a secondary character. In particular, it is improbable (it is assumed ) that the historical Paul proclaimed his Gentile Christian gospel for fourteen years without gainsaying, that at the Council of Jerusalem he agreed to so manifestly untenable a solution of the matter, and in Antioch came into so violent collision with Peter (Gal. 2i 9 11-21). As to this, see COUNCIL OK JERUSALEM ( 4, 9, 3). The only serious difficulties are those arising from the state ment in 122, that Paul was unknown by sight to the churches of Juclrea, though they must have known him very well as their persecutor. The statement seems intended to mark with the utmost possible distinctness Paul s independence of the Jewish Christians. Even on the part of a writer of the second century, however, it would have been too grave a slip to say of the Pales tinian Christians who had survived the persecution, that they had not known Paul. If written in the second century, the meaning of such a declaration could only be that the churches of Judaea, having been broken up and dispersed by the persecution, and only at a later date reconstituted, were as such unacquainted with Paul. Thus interpreted, however, the passage can very well have been written by Paul himself. That it is not quite literally accurate must be conceded : the reconstituted churches must still have included persons who had known Paul in his persecuting days. Still, it is easy to understand why Paul did not have these persons in his mind. What he wishes to prove is simply that his own Christianity had not been derived from any man, but had come to him immediately from Christ. Had he received any Christian instruction from man, that would have been after his conversion, not before ; and there is no difficulty in believing that from the time of his conversion he had entered into no personal relations with the churches of Judaea, and, more particularly, that in Jerusalem at the time of his first visit ( 1 18/. ) he had remained incognito, and com municated only with Peter and James, since otherwise there was reason to apprehend a renewal of the perse cution that had broken out against him in Damascus (2 Cor. 11 32 f.}. Paul, accordingly, leaves out of con sideration those persons in the churches of Judaea who had known him before his conversion, because their acquaintance with him then did not affect that inde pendence of the Jewish Christian churches which he claimed for his own view of Christianity ; and this cannot with any fairness be charged against him as a failure in veracity (120). On the other hand, that is exactly what, we are told by Steck, is so improbable historically that Paul after his conversion remained away from Jerusalem for three whole years ; and the view of Acts (919-30) is preferred.

6. Theory of development.[edit]

This brings us to what lies at the root of the question in this aspect, namely, the demand for a straight-forward, rectilinear development in the history. It is, we are told, historically inconceivable that the view of Jesus and the original apostles, which was still entirely Jewish-legal, was followed immediately by that of the principal epistles of Paul, and only afterwards by the mediating view of Acts and the other writings. Steck, therefore, has made out and he alone with fairly good success what lie considers to be straightforward development as follows : Jesus, the original apostles, the historical Paul, Mk. and Mt. , Lk. , Acts, Rom. , i and 2 Cor. , Gal., the remaining Pauline Epistles (leaving out those to Timothy and Titus), then Marcion. To this series the objection suggests itself that, whilst its author makes out the historical Paul to have been only a shade freer from the law than Peter (Acts 163 21 18-26, e.g., are accepted as historical), he at the same time (p. 373, 369 f. } speaks of him as fundamentally free from the law, and names him as apostle of the Gentiles KO.T f^oXV" ai d Steck is open to the further criticism that he attributes to Acts the tendency to smooth over differ ences in other words, to go back to a point of the development that had been reached before. But the most fatal objection of all is that Steck himself, after an interval of no more than a year (Prot. KZ, 1889, pp. 108, 841), found it necessary to demolish the entire structure, and to place Rom. and Cor. before Lk. and Acts, because he (rightly) saw that Acts (see ACTS, (516) could not be assigned to a date earlier than after the beginning of the second century, and because in Marcion (circa 140 A.D.) the existence of ten Pauline epistles of which, moreover, three (Rom. and i and 2 Cor.), according to Steck s view, must be regarded as each made up of three (or more) originally independent pieces is already recognised. Further, the historical evolution argued for by Steck will not for a moment allow two separate lines of development, such as the line of the synoptic and that of the Pauline Christology, to go on concurrently. Still, alongside that line of development of Christianity, which had its roots in Palestine, he recognises another, almost independent, which took its rise in the heathen philosophical ideas current in Rome a line of development as belonging to which he reckons, for example, the principal epistles of Paul (denying at the same time their use of the Rabbinical forms of thought). Within his first-men tioned series, too, he recognises a certain weakening of the antinomism of Galatians in the minor Pauline epistles, as well as an accentuation of it in Marcion. In all this it becomes abundantly evident that historical science does not in the least require that a rectilinear development should be made out. It is, of course, the business of historical science to understand everything that happens ; but a development is not unintelligible even if it runs far ahead of its own time, and afterwards falls back upon the footsteps it has already outrun, to retraverse them anew, step by step. Were this other wise, we should have to eliminate from history all ils great and epoch-making men Luther, for example, and, in the end, Jesus himself.

The fact is certainly eloquent that not only Bruno Bauer and others, but Loman also (down to 1884 at least), denied the historicity of Jesus, and that in this respect Johnson has even gone beyond the last-named. On the other hand, it is highly significant that it is not enough for Johnson if Bruno Bauer derives Christianity from the humanist ideas of Philo, Seneca, and the Roman emperors down to Marcus Aurelins. In this quarter he misses the oriental fervour which he deems necessary to the founding of a religion, and, therefore it is the least he can do he transfers the origination of Christianity out of such ideas to the East. Over and above this, he is compelled to see in Marcion a highly important reformer, through whom Chris tianity was at least liberated from its rudimentary Jewish beginnings. We find Steck, on the same lines, characterising as an original and spiritually-gifted person the very man who (in his view) put together the epistle to the Galatians with so little skill.

As far as Paul in particular is concerned, it must be admitted that any ordinary man in his position would assuredly have gone immediately after his conversion to Jerusalem for authentic instruction in his new faith. Now, what if Paul was not an ordinary man ? The more fanatical he had been as a Pharisee in his zeal for the Mosaic law, the more clearly must he have recognised the impossibility of ever fulfilling it com pletely, and all the more manifest must it have been to him that in Christianity an altogether new way of salvation was opened up. Then, further, the appear ance of Christ to him on the way to Damascus gave him a clearer view of the divine purpose of the death on the cross than all the original apostles together could have supplied. It was in this manner that he obtained an idea quite different from theirs of the Christ whom he had never seen on earth (so 2 Cor. 5 16 rightly interpreted). It was in this manner that he discovered in Christianity at once the true religion for the world and the divine decree of abrogation as regarded the Mosaic law. It was in this manner that he found himself constrained to vindicate the great religious blessing of freedom against every attempt at a. re- imposition of bondage with the keenness which we perceive in Gal. 214-21 I8f. 5 12.

7. Objections confined to Rom. and Cor.[edit]

The traces of a later age, which Steck believes himself to have discovered, have reference only to Rom. and 1 and 2 Cor.

It will be sufficient here to remark that in the first instance these would only justify the excision of a few verses e.g., i Cor. 1629 Rom. 16 1 (if baptism for the dead, or the institution of deaconesses, were still unknown within the lifetime of the apostle). Some of the particulars alleged by Steck rest upon false exegesis e.g., where i Cor. 7 57 is taken as referring to a man wishing to preserve his virginity in monastic fashion a sense which would require the word TrapBeviuv.

8. Considerations implying early date.[edit]

On the other hand, the epistles contain much that would have been meaningless and even impossible in the second century.

The close adhesion to the Mosaic law which gives the chief occasion for Gal. and Rom. was, at that late date, but feebly represented (Just. Dial. 47 ; Ignat. ad Pkilad. t5 1 ; ad Magnes. Si, 9 1, 103, etc.). The gift of tongues, regarding which such elaborate precepts are laid down in i Cor. 14, was already un known to the author of Acts, otherwise he would not have taken it (Acts 2i-n) as meaning speech in existing foreign languages (see SPIRITUAL GIFTS). To put into the mouth of Paul an expression of the expectation of surviving till the second coming of Christ (i Cor. 15si_/;), would have been a most perverse pro ceeding on the part of a second-century writer. The case of the incestuous person (i Cor. oi-s), the intimate relation between Paul and the Galatian churches (Gal. 4 12-20), the journeys of Timothy and Titus to Corinth, the charge of fickle ness brought against Paul on account of a change in the plan of his tour (2 Cor. 1 12-24), an d, indeed (very conspicuously), the whole of 2 Cor., are so personal and full of individuality, that in this case we are really entitled to draw the conclusion (so often illegitimate) that they could not have been invented. As it is conceded on all hands that the four epistles stand or fall to gether, that conclusion must apply with equal validity to the many portions of Rom., i Cor., and Gal., in which the in dividuality is less marked.

9. External evidence sufficient.[edit]

Lastly, the genuineness is sufficiently attested by the external evidence. If the four epistles are to stand or fall together, the first epistle of Clement of Rome would be proof enough of their genuineness.

It cites (47 1-3) i Cor. by name as a writing of Paul, and (35s 3" 2-5) transcribes, without giving a name, Rom. 1 29^ and even Heb. 1.

Now, this epistle of Clement (li) informs us that it was written in a time of persecution ; it is still unaware of a distinction between Trpecr /Si/repot (44s) and ewiffKoiroi. (444i 424/1 ; see BISHOP, 8, MINISTRY) ; and it knows nothing of Gnosticism. Probably, therefore, it was written under Domitian (93-96), or perhaps under Trajan (112-117) ; at tne Ver 7 latest, under Hadrian (circa 120). Its colourlessness forbids the suggestion that circumstances of the time, as indicated by it, are fictitious. If it were a product of imagination dating from 150-170 A.D. , it would serve the interests of that time viz. , the idea of the episcopate and the polemic against Gnosticism. Let only this be further observed, that the principal Pauline epistles are largely made use of in i Pet. (especially, and manifestly, Gal. 823 01317 in i Pet. Is2i6n, and Rom. 12 / in i Pet. 88-12 47-11 2 13-18), and that there is a great probability that i Pet. dates from 112 A.D. The epistle of James also, which is of still earlier date (see CHRISTIAN, NAME OF, 8), in like manner shows acquaintance, not only with the Pauline doctrines, but also with the text of the chief epistles.

The clearest proof is Jas. 4 i. This verse is clearly dependent on Rom. 7 23 ; otherwise the word (ue Ar) would not have been used, for the context is speaking, not of the conflict of desires within the man, but of the conflict of the desires of one man against those of his fellow-men (iv vfilv, as if c<c T<oi r/Soviav riav crTpaTeuo/ueVwi Kara TOV v\t](rLov, instead of which phrase we have, borrowed from Rom. 7 73, iv rots ^e Aecrti v/xwi>).

Finally, on the evidence supplied by the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, see SIMON MAGUS.

There is thus hardly any necessity for going into the evidence of Marcion, who about 140 admitted ten Pauline epistles into his church lectionary, or for calling attention to the wholesale execution among the extra- canonical writings (and even among the heathen writings) of the second century which has to be made by Johnson before he can affirm that the NT came into existence between Justin and Irenreus about 155-180 A.D. , and that even Marcion perhaps was still unacquainted with any personal Christ acquainted only with the ideal figure of a xpriffrfo (see CHRISTIAN, NAME OF. i).


10. Dates.[edit]

Having disposed of the objections to the genuineness of Galatians we turn to the remaining problems. The superior limit for the date of the epistle has been indicated already (see preceding article, 24). In view of Gal. 16 it is not advisable to bring it much lower.

True, oiirois ra^e cos means, not so soon," but so suddenly. Thus the expression, considered in itself, allows the supposition that the beginning of the Galatians falling away was of late origin a supposition precluded by the other rendering and requires us to think only that the subsequent steps of the declen sion, once begun, took but a short time. On the other hand, it has to be remembered that the churches had already begun to show inclinations towards Judaism before Paul s second visit, and that Paul believed himself to have obviated this by his oral communications with them. His surprise at the sudden ness of the change that had come over them is intelligible only if we suppose the change to have happened shortly after his last visit.

Thus, the epistle is best assigned to the beginning of Paul s three-years stay in Ephesus, whither he had gone after leaving Galatia (Actsl9i).

On account of its similarity in contents to Romans, some have thought it necessary to assign the epistle to the same period. In that case its date would be some three or four years later ; for it is highly probable that Romans was written during the apostle s last stay in Corinth (Acts 20 1-3; cp Rom. 1623 with i Cor. 114). Only, identical subjects are not handled in an identical manner in the two epistles.

In Gal. 4 30 the Jews who continue in unbelief are expressly excluded from the inheritance, whilst in Rom. 93 1125-32 the apostle shows a strong interest in their ultimate salvation. In Gal. 83 439^? the Mosaic worship is placed on precisely the same plane with that of the heathe i, whilst in Rom. 7 12-14 the defect is sought, not in the Mosaic law, but only in the sinfulness of man. In Gal. 1 6-9 Paul anathematises every doctrine not in accordance with his own, whilst in Rom. 1 12 (5 17 he recognises the doctrines which prevail in Rome, though devoting the whole letter to their correction, as on an equal footing with his.

Clemen (Chron. d. Paulin. Briefe, 93) appeals to those differences in support of his contention that Galatians is (as Steck also holds) the last of the four chief Pauline Epistles, in the belief that in this way he is able to accept what is true in Steck s position and yet to conserve the genuineness of the epistles. His proofs admit of being turned the other way. Besides, his theory that Paul, during the first period of his missionary activity, continued to be Jewish-Christian in his thought and teaching, and that he reached the culminating point of his anti-Judaism only at the end of his life, is erroneous. In the case of so energetic a thinker as the apostle, the development indicated above m Sf- s certainly more probable. As far as the apostle s earlier period is concerned, Clemen s view is in direct opposition to Gal. 1 16. The culminating point of Paul s antinomism must have been reached in his controversy with Peter in the Syrian Antioch at latest. That after that nay, after his refusal to circumcise Titus at the time of the Council of Jerusalem he con tinued to preach circumcision is inconceivable (cp pre ceding article, 20 a). If this reproach, then, was levelled at him even at so late a date as that of Galatians (5n; on 1 10 see below, col. 1625, n. ), it cannot have been anything but a slander. If his adversaries were capable of this, there is nothing to show that with reference to any period after the apostle's conversion they had any ground for their assertion. They may safely be held to have applied to the present an asser tion that was true only of the time during which Paul was still a Jew. It is also on general grounds probable that Paul in the closing years of his life became gentler, not, as Clemen says, harsher. The second coming of Christ he believed to be near at hand ; yet, before this could happen the gospel had to be preached to all the world (Rom. 10 18 1125). It must have become clearer and clearer to him that he and his disciples were not in a position to accomplish this by them selves, and that accordingly the Jewish-Christian way of looking at things also was willed by God. Phil. 1 15-18 expresses this whh special clearness. In the Epistle to the Romans . an ircnical attitude was par ticularly desirable, inasmuch as he wished to estab lish friendly relations with the church in Rome, and thus to have a new centre from which to carry on activities. It is further worthy of remark that in Galatians, as in Rom. 825, the death of Christ is repre sented only as a propitiation for sins that are past not yet, as in Rom. 8 3, as serving also for the averting of sins to come, and that the doctrine of the spirit (irvevfj.a) in Gal. 5 16-25 is much less elaborately thought out than it is in Rom. 6-8.

11. Readers.[edit]

On the home of the readers, see preceding article. As for their nationality - according to Gal. 48 52 6i2/. they were at least preponderantly, Gentile Christians. Whether there may not also have been among them a sprinkling of Jewish Christians cannot be decided by reference to 3 13 23-25 4s, for in that case all the readers together must have been Jewish Christians. These passages, therefore, show only that Paul is inadvertently applying to his readers that which holds good as regards himself (see preceding article, 21, 3 d). In 4 21, on the other hand, he says, truly, not that his readers are yet under the law, but that they are now only contemplating the assumption of that yoke. That there was a Jewish element in the Galatian churches might be inferred more readily from 828, though here also, perhaps, Paul is speaking more from principle than was exactly required by the personal circumstances of his readers. The Judaizing emissaries, too, could have found access all the easier if born Jews already belonged to the churches. But the question must be allowed to remain undecided.

12. Judaizing emissaries.[edit]

From 3:1 57 we learn that the Judaizing emissaries were personally unknown to Paul. Both before and after his second visit they had been at work among the Galatians. Whether the same persons were engaged in this on both occasions we have no means of knowing ; but on both occasions they wrought in the same spirit, though on the second with immeasurably greater success (see preceding article, 25).

That one or more prominent persons were included among them follows from the o<TTt? tap jj of 5 10. It is impossible, however, to say whether any individual (possibly one of the original apostles) is intended. For 6 Ta./><i<T<r<uv iijias can mean every one who brings you into perplexity just as easily as 6 fpXofj.fvos in 2 Cor. 114 refers to all the Judaizers who had already arrived in Corinth (oi inrep\iav dn-ocrToAoi, 11 5), since the pro position that follows (apeiyecrOe, or <Wxo-0e) does not state a conceivable case merely, but an actual fact. It is certain. however, that the original apostles, in Jerusalem at least, did not interfere with the activity of these TapdcrvovTef (17; cp 5 12 : see COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, 3). From 6i2yC some have thought it must follow that they themselves had not as yet been circumcised, but were only fanatical proselytes. In that case it would be incomprehensible why they should not have accepted circumcision long before, or how they could without this have brought the Galatians so far. The determination of the question lies not in the rending TrfptTfT/trjuevoi, which is quite plainly a correction intended to make the meaning easier, but in taking the present oi irfptTfuvofntvot in a timeless sense the men of the circumcision (cp i Thess. 2 12 . 6 KaAup, 1 10 : o pudfiei os).

13. Their doings.[edit]

What their representations to the Galatians had been can be plainly gathered from the answers of the apostle. They had said that in order to gain salvation it was not enough to comply with the teaching of Paul, who had simply demanded faith in Christ crucified (3i/ 5) and risen, but that it was also necessary to fulfil all the prescriptions of the Mosaic law (825 10 54), to which alone the promise of salvation was attached (38 18 64). They had said that, on the other hand, the doctrine of Paul opened a wide door to moral laxity (5 13). These arguments on the merits of the case they fortified by personal ones. They maintained that Paul was not strictly an apostle at all, but dependent on the original apostles (li nf. 1 15-221). Only these, the pillars (2g ; see COUNCIL, 6), were competent to decide the true doctrine, as they had formerly (TTOT^, 26) been taught by the Lord himself when he was on earth. Wherever, therefore, the teaching of Paul departed from theirs, it was to be rejected. Nay, more, elsewhere (this is obviously what we are to understand) Paul himself was still preaching circumcision (5n); he is thus in contradiction with himself if he has failed to exact it of the Galatians. Thereby he has deprived them of their title to salvation ; and this he can have done only out of a desire to please men, 1 and so make the acceptance of Christianity seem easier than it really was. To these Judaizers, ac cordingly, the description in Acts 15 1 5 applies admirably. They had already brought it about that the Galatians observed the Jewish feasts (4io), and were seriously thinking of receiving circumcision (5 1/ 6 12/. ). Their moral character is represented by Paul as very despicable. He ascribes to them motives quite as low as the motives which they ascribe to him. It is not, he says, about the salvation of the Galatians that they are concerned : all that they seek is personal consideration among them (417) and repute with their Judaistic (perhaps even Jewish) co-religionists for having brought the Galatians to circumcision (613), and they are in dread of persecu tion by these same comrades should they fail to insist on circumcision in their proselytising efforts, and, like Paul, rest satisfied with faith in the cross of Christ (612). It is probable that in this Paul is as unjust to them as he was to Peter in charging him with hypocrisy (2 11-13 ; see COUNCIL, 3). From their point of view, they could hardly do otherwise than, on religious grounds, hold Paul s preaching to be not only dangerous but also God-dishonouring. But we have seen that among the means which they made use of even slander had a place (5 ii ), and that they flagrantly violated the compact of the Council of Jerusalem (2g).

14 Purpose of Galatians.[edit]

It was to counteract the influence of those persons that Paul wrote Galatians. Its course of thought is not apprehended if we view chaps. 1-2 as constituting a personal apologia, and chaps. 3-4 and 5-6. as forming respectively a dogmatic and a practical section. Nor does it avail to take the dogmatic portion as ending at 4:7 or 4:11, or not till 56 or 624, as if 421-31 were not intensely dogmatic, and 4 8-20 very much the reverse. The epistle must be viewed much more as being an epistle ; repetitions must not be ignored or denied ; and a chief turning-point must be recognised in 513.

After the salutation, 1 1-5, and statement of the position of matters, le-io, there follows what constitutes the first main division of the epistle, the historical demonstration that the gospel of Paul is independent of the original apostles, and is of directly divine origin. Here there are three sections : 1 11-24 2 i-io 2 ii-ai. _ The second main division contains the dogmatic proof that Christian freedomand observance of the law are incom patible. This in the first instance occupies 81-47 continuously. Next follow a practical application to the readers (4s-ii), a calling to mind of their former good relations with Paul (4 12-20), a renewed proof from the OT (421-31), a new proof drawn from first principles (5 1-6), and a renewed application to the readers (5 7-12). The third main division consists (like Rom. 6-8) of exhortation and proof that morality is not impaired by Christian freedom this in 613-24 in general terms, in 625-610 in relation to particular points of special importance for the readers. Finally, the autograph conclusion, 611-18, sums up once more the leading polemical points.

1 The >)TU> ai/flpioirois dpe cr/ceii/ of 1 10 will refer to this. It is not till ei In di/#paj7r<HS ripe&KOv that this alleged pleasing of men, as shown towards Gentiles, will be put on a level with the complaisance which Paul, before he became a Christian, and when persecuting Christians, had shown towards the Jews. See, further, above, i.

15. Place in history.[edit]

The importance of Galatians for its first readers undoubtedly consisted in the first instance in this that it them back to Paul and his gospel. Thus much may be presumed, if i Cor. (16i), which, as we gather from 168, was written at the close of the three-years stay in Ephesus, is of a later date than our epistle (see above, 10). For the history of primitive Christianity Galatians is a historical source of the first order. It constituted for the Tubingen school the Archimedean fulcrum by which it revolutionised the traditional conception of the history of the first century. What has already been said under ACTS ( 4 6/. ) and COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM ( i 7-11) may suffice to show the magnitude and fundamental char acter of the errors to which we should have been exposed had this epistle not been preserved to us. The character of Paul, the imperiousness which he showed in the service of what he had recognised to be truth, his ardent love and zealous care for the churches which he had founded, the rabbinical ingenuity yet truly religious depth of his thinking, and at the same time the far-reaching nature of the differences that separated the various tendencies in the early church, find immediate expression here as hardly anywhere else. In all time Galatians will

be the charter of freedom, not only from the Mosaic law but also from every yoke that is imposed upon the religious life as an external condition of salvation without reference to any inner necessity of the soul. It was in this sense that it supplied Luther with a foundation from which to carry on his life-work against the freshly- asserted claims of work-righteousness in the Catholic Church of his day.

16. Bibliography.[edit]

The outstanding commentaries are those of Luther (Latin in 1519, German in 1525, and fuller Latin in 1532) ; Winer ( 21 ; '59) ; Rueckert ('33) ; H. A. W. Meyer ( 41 ; (5). 70 ; (6), by Sieffert in 80, (8), 94, identical with ( 7 )of 86, ( y ), 99; ET from German ed. 70); Hil- genfeld ("52) ; Jowett ( 55 ; (2), 59 ; condensed ed. 94) ; Wieseler ( 59) ; Holsten (Inhdlt u. Gedankengang des Galaterbriefs, 59, expanded into Zum Evangelism des Paulus und des Petnis, 68 ; also a new work Das Evangelism des Paulus, li, 80); Lightf. ( 65; (10), 9 o); J- Ch. K. von Hof- mann (Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments, 2 i, 63 ; (~), 72); Lipsius (Handcomm. 22, 91, ( 2 ), 92); also in Dutch, by Baljon ( 89) and Cramer (Nieuiue bijdragen door Cramer en Lamers, (3, 90), both with many textual conjectures. As to the conjectures, see Baljon (De tekst der brie-ven aan de Roineinen, Corinthiers en Galatiers, akadcmiscli prcefschrift, Utrecht, 84), and on the attempts at dissection see Clemen (Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe, 94). Marcion s text is specially dealt with by Hilgenfeld (Z. hist. Theol. "55, 426-483), van Manen (Theol, Tijd. 1887, pp. 382-404, 451-533), and Theod. Zahn (Gesch. d. NTlichen Kanons, 2409-529, 92). Mention must also be m;)de of the work of Volkmar (Paulus von Damaskus bis sui Galaterbrief, 87 ; partly also in Theol. Zeitschr. aus der Schweiz, "&t,f.) p. w. S.

1 Its connection with nSn, milk, is improbable.

2 Besides these, its principal known sources, however, there may have been others : thus Sir G. Birdwood speaks in this connection


(fltyTQ, x&AB&NH HAycMoy [BL], X&Bp. H. [A], galbanum boni odoris [=D 1| ?3p TIP], Ex. 3034f), which was an ingredient in the holy incense, is a resinous substance often mentioned by botanical writers, ancient and modern. Though the etymology of rua^n, helb ndh, is uncertain, 1 the names %a\/3o.f?7 and galbanum are certainly connected with, and probably derived from, the Hebrew word.

The source of the gum is even yet not quite certain. Dioscorides and Theophrastus speak of it as the product of a Syrian narthtx , but in modern times the galbanum of commerce is known to be produced only in Persia, and since Boissier it has generally been identified e.%., by Fluckiger and Hanburyl 2 ) (320^), and by Dymock (2 152 ff-) as the gum of the umbelliferous Ft-rula galbaniflua, Boiss. et Buhse, and the kindred species F. rubricaulis, Boiss. 2 The resin is formed of tears which exude spontaneously from the stem, especially on its lower part and about the bases of the leaves. It has a peculiar, not unpleasant, aromatic odour (Fliick. and Hanb. I.e.).

N. M.

of Opkoitiia gall>anifcra of Khorassan, and Galbanum officinale of Syria (EBW 12 718).


(TJ^J), i. or Jegar-Sahadutha (1^ Nfl-lin^*), the former the Hebrew, the latter the Aramaic, designation of the heap or cairn which was a sign of the covenant between Jacob and Laban, Gen. 3147 ( Galeed again in v. 48).

The renderings of (S and Vg. (on which see Nestle, Marg. p. io_/C) show an uncertainty as to whether iy is a noun or a verb. For Galeed, ftovvbs /uopTvpei [A], ft. /uapTvs [Z>sil E L]; ACKRVUM TEST1MOXII in v. 47. ft. naprvpet [ADL], ft. ju.apTi/pt ou [E] ; GALAAD in v. 48. For Jegar-sahadutha, ftovvbs judprv? [A], /3. TTJS /J.. [/?sil L], fiovvov fiaprvpi as [E] ; tuinuluM testis.

Both have the same meaning viz. , heap of witness and the intention of the former is to suggest a derivation of the name GILEAD (q.v. ).

The original tradition, however, must have been without this trivial etymology. Nrm. lB "IV (Jegar-sahadutha) is certainly a corruption of in?!> ia (Gar-Salhad), 'fortress of Salhad'. 1 We have to suppose that J and E both had access to stories of the lives of the patriarchs in a written form, among which was that of the meeting of Laban and Jacob. J's source of information contained one statement which was very possibly wanting in E's, and which J's account gave, partly in a mutilated, partly in a corrupt form. The early tradition must have said that Jacob set his face towards Gar-Salhad on Mount Hauran, but Gar-Salhad had become corrupted into Gar-Sahad (intj> ij) and on Mount Hauran into on the mountain ("inaY The latter phrase may have originally stood in v. 25, where we now read "IJ3, on the mountain. Reasoning on the strange phrase Gar-Sahad, J seems to have come to the conclusion that it was really Jegar-sahadutha ( heap of witness in Aramaic), and that it referred to a cairn which Jacob must have erected as a boundary mark, and this suggested explaining Gilead as a modification of Galeed, the Hebrew equivalent of Jegar-sahadutha. He forgot the improbability (pointed out by We. C//43) that the grandchildren of Nahor and Abraham both sons of Eber should have spoken different dialects ; but how else could he have explained Gar-Sahad ? That Wellhausen is wrong in treating v. 47 as a late archaeological gloss should be clear ; heap of witness is by no means an obvious explanation of Gilead2, and has to be accounted for. The verse belongs to J, but is misplaced ; v. 48 should run, therefore he (Jacob) called it Gal ed, but Laban called it Jegar-sahadutha. Vv. 49 (on which see GILEAD, 4) and 50 belong to E ; they give an explanation of E's pillar (masseba) corresponding to that of J's cairn (gal). It has only to be added that Nahor is miswritten for Hauran (pin); the God of Nahor in v. 53 (E) was origin ally the 'God of Hauran' a phrase which lost its force when E, like J, brought the meeting of Laban and Jacob farther S. in order to suit the subsequent travels of the patriarch.

2. GALEED (lyhi) may also originally have stood in another important passage now evidently mutilated ^viz. , Josh. 2234, where we read of a great altar set up by Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, as a witness (cp v. 27) to the tribes on both sides of the Jordan that those on the eastern side were equally worshippers of Yah we, in the strict legal fashion, with their brethren on the W. (So Di., Bennett in SBOT; EV, following Pesh. and some Heb. MSS, is content with supplying l M )

The narrative to which the passage belongs (w. 9-34) must be very late, but may be based upon an early record which c^n- tained a second explanation of the name Gilead, connecting it with a great altar erected in early times by the eastern tribes. Whether this is probable or not, is a question on which critics are not at all unanimous. Those who agree with Di. will ascribe to the editor the anxious assurances of the eastern tribes that no sacrifices should be offered upon the altar, and certain other peculiarities, such as the indistinctness of the description of the locality of the altar (v. ioyC), and the omission of the name of the altar (7 . 34 ; cp Bennett). If on the other hand the narrative is an absolutely unhistorical invention framed to defend the doctrine of a unique sanctuary (Kue. Hex. 107, C P 339 TV and see We. CH 135), we must suppose that the name of the altar was accidentally omitted by a very early scribe, or perhaps (cp i S. 13 i and Budde s crit. note in SBO / ) was never inserted by the narrator. It is worth noticing that both in v. n and in v. 34 reads differently from MT. In particular (S has in v. n, en-! rov yaXaaS ( in Gilead ; L om.) where MT has ni7 < 73"7N ( in the districts ?), and in v. 34, KOC cmavoncurev Ir)<rovs rbv ftuifj.bv . . . KO\ flirtv ( and Joshua named the altar . . . and said ). At any rate, both texts (and also Jos. Ant. v. 1 26) agree in not giving the name of the altar.

Cp ED.

T . K . C.

1 Cp Kar-Asur, Kar-IStar, Kar-Sarrukin, fortress of Asur, of Istar, of Sarrukin.


(Josh. 15.59, Var. Bib., <5 only). See GALLIM, i.


(r&An*A& [ ANV ])- i Mace. 9 2. See ARBELA, zff., and cp GILGAL, 6 (c).


(W>|n, n^JO [2 K. 152 9 j- Aram. H^J ; |-AAeiAM& [B], -AiA. [B NAQrVL and NT] ; GALILEE A, G. GENTIUM"].

1. Name.[edit]

The name galil means circle, district, region. Once only we find the qualifying addition of the nations viz., Is. 9 i [8 23], In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he confers honour on the road to the sea, the other side of the Jordan, the district (galil) of the nations ( yoA[]iAai a TU>V idvtav). The latter phrase clearly means the district inhabited by a mixed population of Jews and foreigners. Josh. 1223 is partly parallel, for we should doubtless read (with Graf, St. Kr. 1854, p. 870) the king of the nations of the galil (not, as in MT, of Gilgal ). Cp 1 Macc. 615, yoAiAai a aAAoi^uAwi ; 17 yaAiAata simply, often in 1 Macc, (once in Macc, and twice in NT the article is omitted).

2. Original references.[edit]

Galilee (to retain the convenient though late-coined Graecised name) seems at a comparatively early period to have specially designated the territory of Naphtali.

The cities mentioned in the list of Tiglath-pileser s conquests (2 K. 15 29) as constituting the galil (Galilee) are, with prob ably one exception,! all in Naphtali, and, as if to prevent mis understanding, the narrator sums up thus : and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali. 2

Although the early Naphtalites failed to occupy all the land which they coveted (Judg. 133), and in Gen. SOy /". Naphtali is the son of a slave-girl, Naphtali, like Zebulun, is praised for its heroism in a patriotic war (Judg. 5i8). Probably, therefore, the special appli cation of the phrase district (of the nations) to Naph tali arose out of the occupation of Naphtali by the Aramaeans under Benhadad I. The chief (Naphtalite) Galilaean city was of course Kedesh, which is called Kedesh in the galil (Galilee), in the hill-country of Naphtali (cp Tob. 1 2 ).

The galil was, however, a vague expression, and must surely have been sometimes used with a wider reference. For this we may cite iK. 9 10-13, though this passage is decisive only for the time when it was edited. The connection between the Cabul mentioned here and that of Josh. 1927 seems hardly disputable. Whoever gave the last touches to the story of the de spised twenty cities of Cabul must have considered that the land of the gdlll extended to the Asherite town of Cabul, for to exclude the town of Cabul from the land of Cabul would be as unnatural as to exclude the town of Goshen from the land of Goshen (Josh. 104i ; cp 15 51). In the time of Josephus we know that CABUL [^.f.] was a border city of Galilee, and there is every probability that this ancient place was spoken of as Galilasan long before this ; Janoah, too, even if Asherite, was apparently regarded as Galilaean when 2 K. 1629 was written, though the writer certainly seems to have applied the term Galilee more especi ally to Naphtali. How, indeed, could Asher have failed to be included in the g lil haggoylm ? Accord ing to Judg. 131-33 the non-Israelitish element in Asher was considerably larger than that in Naphtali. The highly mixed origin of the tribe so-called is implied in Gen. 30 iz/. (birth of Asher), and is confirmed by the fact that the Hebrew tribesmen borrowed their name of Asher from their non-Israelitish parents, an extensive North Palestinian region having been called Aseru in the time of the Egyptian kings, Seti I. and Rameses II. (see ASHER, i).

1 Janoah ( = Yenu amu) being probably Asherite (see JANOAH), in spite of Buhl s hesitation (Geog. 229). It is no doubt out of the right geographical order ; but this is probably a con fusion introduced by the editor, and was not in the original record. It would, of course, be possible to emend my into mjD (cp i K. 1520, and see CHINNERETH), but the corruption assumed seems not very likely.

2 As Benzin^er points out, the preceding word ipSji cannot be right ; he misses, however, the true explanation of the pres ence of the word. It is simply miswritten for S SjM the scribes, as usual, left the wrong word and the right side by side. Cp the corruptions mentioned under GILEAD, 2.

The land of Zebulun also had a natural claim to be called Galilaean. Zebulun is not indeed said to have been, like Asher, the son of a slave-girl, but, like Asher and Naphtali, it had to tolerate Canaanitish enclaves in its territory (Judg. 130), and, if Is. 9i [823] may be followed, it suffered, like Naphtali, from the invasion of Tiglath-pileser i.e., was partly Aramaised. In the latter passages Zebulun (which corresponds to the road to the sea ; see ZEBULUN) and Naphtali together form the district (gdlll} of the nations, 1 and very possibly in i K. 9 13 the land of Cabul should be emended into the land of Zebulun (see CABUL), implying that the twenty cities in the land of the gdlil were in Zebulun.

3. Later boundaries.[edit]

After 734 B. c. the galll in its widest sense became an integral part of the Assyrian empire, and hence, though the greater part of the old Israelitish population remained, its purity must have become by degrees more and more contaminated. In 2 Ch. 30 10, how ever, there may be an allusion to post-exilic attempts of the Jews of South Palestine to strengthen the Jewish spirit in the N. as far as Zebulun, and i Macc. 5 14-23 shows that Jews lived in Galilee in Maccabean times. The term Galilee in post-exilic times, however, had obtained a wider meaning than of old. We know the boundaries of Galilee in the time of Josephus, and we may assume that they were the same in the preceding centuries. According to him, Galilee was bounded on the N. and W. by the territory of the Tyrians, to which Mount Carmel also belonged, on the S. by Samaria and Scythopolis (Beth-shean), on the E. by the trans- Jordanic region and by the Lake of Gennesaret (BJ iii. 3i). It was divided into two parts, Upper and

Lower Galilee, the boundary line of which was, natur ally, the plain of er-Rameh (the ha-Ramah of Josh. 19s6). The Mishna, which recognises the same divisions, though it adds the district of Tiberias (taken from Lower Galilee), names as the frontier city Kefar Hananyah ; 2 Josephus, however (Vit. 188), mentions Bersabe or Beer-subai (see 7). Elsewhere this his torian mentions Kedasa or Kydasa (the ancient Kedesh) as a Tyrian fortress on the Galikean border (Ant. xiii. 56 BJ\\. 18i iv. 2s). This is important for it suggests a change in the N. boundary of Galilee. In the N. , Galilee seems to have lost; but in the S. it gained considerably, for Ginaia or En-gannim, S. of the Great Plain, marked the southern limit of Galilee. Sometimes, too, localities on the E. of the Lake of Gennesaret (or Sea of Galilee) are reckoned as Galilasan (see, e.g., Jos. BJ\\. 81, where Judas of Gamala is called &v7)p FaXiAcuos) a natural inconsistency.

1 The phrase the other side of Jordan corresponds to Gilead in the traditional text of 2 K. 15 29, which lay before the author of this late insertion in Isaiah (see SB O_ T and cp Duhm). Guthe (PREP) ti 337) seems wrong in explaining -Qy of the district on the W. shore of the Jordan from Huleh to Dan. it? 1 ?} is surely corrupt (see col. 1628, note 2).

2 Neub. Geogr. 226.

3 All vegetation, says Merrill, would be affected by the " dew of Hermon," which is praised in Ps. 133 3. See, however, DEW, 2 (if).

4. Physical characteristics.=[edit]

Nominally, therefore, Galilee was cut off from the Lebanon by the territory of Tyre. It was, however, its relation to the Lebanon and to Hermon that made Galilee so rich in moisture 3 and especially in streams and wells, and therefore so pre-eminent in fertility, as compared with both Samaria and Judaea. There is no difference in this respect between Lower and Upper Galilee ; the distinction drawn in the Mishna is merely that the latter produces, and that the former does not produce, sycomores. Not only in Asher (Dt. 8824), but also throughout Galilee, olives were so abundant that it was easier, as a Rabbi said, to support an entire legion by means of olives than in the land of Israel (where food is less easily had) to raise a single child. 1 Naphtali was specially famous for its vines, and for 16 m. round Sepphoris the land flowed with milk and honey (Meg. 6 a). All this luxury might have enervated the inhabitants but for the long stretches of highland country.

Upper Galilee, in particular ( pne: in, the hill- country of Naphtali ), consists of a broad mountain- ridge, a continuation of the Lebanon range. On the summit is a tract of undulating table-land, diversified by wooded heights and smooth green plains. In the centre of this table-land stood Kedesh-Naphtali, among whose rich pastures Heber, the Kenite, sojourned (Judg. 4n). On the E. the mountains break down abruptly into the deep basin of the upper Jordan. On the W. the slopes are more gradual, and long ravines of singular beauty and wildness wind down to the sea- coast and the plain of Acre. These western declivities, once the possession of Asher, are still celebrated for their olive groves (cp the name Bir-zaith). The town of Safed, perched on the culminating point of the mountain chain to the S. , is one of the four sacred cities of the Jews. It is also noted as the centre of a wide volcanic region (see EARTHQUAKE, 3).

The southern slopes of the mountain range, from the castellated heights of Safed to the broad plain of Esdraelon, afford some of the most picturesque scenery in Palestine. Forests of evergreen oak sweep round the flanks of the hills in graceful belts, and line the sides of the valleys, leaving open glades, and undulating expanses of green grass, such as are seen in English parks. Here, too, are upland plains, like vast terraces, with rich soil and rank vegetation. The largest is that now called el-Battof fertile, but without sufficient drainage on the eastern side, and therefore marshy. There are others to the eastward, along the brow of the hills that encircle Tiberias, and extending down to Tabor. These are separated from the great plain of Esdraelon by a line of rocky but picturesque hills, which culminate on the E. in the dome of Tabor. Esdraelon stretches out beyond them like a sea of verdure, leaving in the distance the base of Carmel and the mountains of Samaria.

Lower Galilee was a land of husbandmen, famed for its corn-fields (the wheat of Chorazin was proverbial), as Upper Galilee was for its olive groves, and Judrea for its vineyards. The demand for the Galilasan wheat must have been large indeed (cp Acts 12 20). GEN NESARET (see GENNESAR), however, surpassed all other regions ; its fertility excites Josephus to an uawonted enthusiasm (BJm. 32/. 108). The best pomegranates came from Shikmonah i.e., we can hardly doubt, the Sykaminos of Josephus, between Caesarea and Acco, near Mount Carmel ; and it should be noted that Eusebius (OS 267 70) expressly identifies Syka minos and Hepha i. e. , the modern Haifa. Probably the old town lay a little to the N. of Haifa, on the site of some ruins still called the old Haifa. For the oil of ancient Galilee cp 2 Ch. 2 10, and for its wheat and fat oxen (but not fowls ; see FOWL, 2), i K. 423 [5s]. Turning to the rivers and lakes, we must give the first place to the Jordan, all of which to the N. of the Lake of Gennesaret, and one-third of its length to the S. , belonged to Galilee. Many small streams flowing from the eastern watershed meet the Jordan ; those on the W., including the Kishon (Nahr el-Mukatta), flow into the Mediterranean (see KISHON). The Semachonitis or Lake of Huleh (not the Waters of MEROM ) and the SEA OF GALILEE are the two lakes. The former is a triangular basin, about 6 ft. above the sea-level ; it is very disappointing, being shallow and reedy ; water-fowl abound in it. The latter is described in the next article. On the famous hot springs of Tiberias (rivalled by those of Gadara) see TIBERIAS.

1 Ber. Rabbet, par. 20, following Wiinsche s translation (cp Neub. Geogr. 180).

5. Later population.[edit]

The population of Galilee in the time of Jesus was of more diverse origin than it had ever been before. The somewhat mixed old Israelitish population had been further modified by Phoenician, Iturean (Arabian?), and Greek elements, so that the Jews, with perfect justice from their point of view, could look down on the Galilasans, whose imperfect legal orthodoxy and in accurate pronunciation 1 soon bewrayed them (Mk. 1470 Mt. 2673). Still, the Galiloeans could boast of great names in their past history, 2 and they were them selves no cowards when their religion was at stake ; the old spirit of the Naphtalites lived again in their descend ants, however mixed the race of those descendants might be. They were doubtless too industrious to be strictly orthodox from a Pharisaic point of view ; but the Messianic hope burned more brightly in Galilee than anywhere else in Palestine, and hundreds of inquirers from the populous Galikean towns and villages followed the great Teacher wherever he went. He had a word for all. He knew them indeed, as brothers know brothers, for it can hardly be doubted that, as Prof. Percy Gardner has well said, according to all historic probability, Jesus of Nazareth was born at Nazareth (Exploratio Rvangelica, 254 [ 99]), or rather at the Nazarene or Galilsean Bethlehem, for which, by a mis understanding, Nazareth appears to have been sub stituted (see NAZARETH). This connection of Jesus with Galilee has been well treated by Renan, though he has doubtless fallen into exaggerations which repel sober minds.

The region adjacent to Jerusalem is perhaps the most triste country in the world. Galilee, on the other hand, is full of verdure and of shade, the true country of the song of songs. During March and April the fields are carpeted with flowers. The animals are small, but of great gentleness. The forms of the mountains are more harmonious there than elsewhere, and inspire higher thoughts. Jesus seems to have had a special fondness for them (Vie de JesusW, 67 f.).

6. Local influences on Jesus.[edit]

The early history of Christianity cannot be understood apart from its physical environment. Galilee is dear to us, because by every right Jesus can be called a Galilaean, and must have imbibed the moral and physical influences of his village home ; Umbria gives the key to St. Francis ; Galilee, in some sense, gives the key to Jesus of Nazareth. How he had compassion on its teeming multitudes we know from the Gospels, and it is no slight merit in Dr. Selah Merrill that he has sup plemented the one-sided (though not untrue) statements of Renan by proving the density of the population of ancient Galilee. 3 He who wandered among the hills and valleys of Galilee was never far from some great and populous city. 4 Yet, such are the revenges of history, this home of the fulfiller and transformer of the Law became, in the second century after Christ, the centre of Jewish study of the Law. Galilee must at this period have contained a large and wealthy Jewish population. Traces of their splendid synagogues are still to be found at Tell Hum, Kerazeh, Irbid, Kedes, Meiron, Kefr Bir im, and other places. Strangely enough, in six of these there are carved representations of animals.

1 They confounded N with y, and n with n-

2 In Jn. 7 52 for 7rpo<j>/JTrjs we should probably read, with the Sahidic version, 6 7rpcxjJTi), else strange ignorance is ascribed to the Jews. Prophets and other great men had come out of Galilee. See Keim, Jesus of JVazara, ET 3 13-15.

3 Josephus asserts (Vit. 45; BJ\\\. 82) that there were 204 cities and villages, the very least of which contained more than 15,000 inhabitants. We need not accept this.

4 Besant, quoted by GASm. HG 432, n. 2.

7. Chief localities.[edit]

The best-known localities in Jewish Galilee are in the lower part of the province. On the W. of the southern border, S. of the Wady el-Melek, is the village of Semunlyeh, the ancient les Simonias (Jos. Vit. 24), identified by the Talmud with SHIMEON [y.v. , i.]. The modern village of Yafa, SW. of Nazareth, is the Japha of Josephus (BJ\\. 206, iii. 7 31). The frontier town of XalothorExaloth(/?/iii. 3 1 ; Vit. 44) is the modern Iksal ; cp CHESULLOTH or CHISLOTH TABOR. Another frontier town, Dabaritta(Jos. Vit. 2662; BJ\\. 21 3), is the modern Deburiyeh, at the foot of Mount Tabor on the north, the ancient DABERATH. Close to or upon Mt. Tabor was a fortress called by Polybius (v. 706) Atabyrion. S. of Tabor, on the slope of Little Hermon, is the small village of Nein, the Nain of the NT. The plain between Tabor and Gennesaret was called (Eus. OS 2968) Saronas ; the name is echoed in that of the village Sarona. ESDRAELON is treated elsewhere.

Let us now move westward from the shore of Gen nesaret, and pause first at the ruins of Irbid, the Arbela of Josephus, famous in the history of Herod (BJ\. 1624), and look up to the round rocky hill called Karn Hattin (1135 ft. above sea-level), regarded by the Latins as the Mount of the Beatitudes, and identified by the Talmud with the ZIDDIM of Josh. 1935. To the SW. is Kefr Kenna, which tradition identifies with CANA OF GALILEE. Conder s site for Cana ( Ain Kana) has the seeming advantage of being only half an hour to the N. of Nazareth ; the fountain flows on though the village has disappeared. But what if Nazareth is really a mistake for the Nazarene Bethlehem ? Sefuriyeh is no doubt Sepphoris, so famous in the Roman war ; the Talmud calls it Sippori. Beit-Lahm, the ancient Bethlehem of Zebulun and en-Nasira, or Nazareth, require to be noticed together (see NAZARETH).

In the N. of the Plain of Battof (the Asochis of Jos. ) we pause with interest at the Tell Jefat, upon which once stood the fortress of Jotapata, defended by Josephus (BJm.Tf.); cp JIPHTAH-EL. The border cities, Kefar Hananyah and Bersabe, are respectively Kefr Anan and Abu Sheba (N. of Kefr Anan), unless, indeed, Bersabe is the Birsabee of Theodosius (circa 530 A.D. ), which Guthe identifies with Khirbet el- Oremeh, above Khan Minieh on the Sea of Galilee.

Of the doubtless ancient sites in Upper Galilee, few have a proved biblical connection e.g. , Kerazeh ( Chora- zin) ; Safed (the Sefet of Tob. 1 1 in the Latin), the highest town in Galilee (2749 ft.), and, as some have fancied, the city that is set on a hill of Mt. 5 14 ; Meiron, where many old Jewish, teachers are buried ; el-Jish, the Gischala of Josephus, and the Gus Halab of the Talmud; and, to the NW. , Kefr- Bir im, already referred to. See also GALILEE, SEA OF ; ESDRAELON ; JEZREEL i. ; TABOR.


Neubauer, La Geographic du Talimai ( 68) ; Guerin, Galilee ( 80); Survey of Western Palestine ; Memoirs, vol. i., Galilee ( 81) ; Merrill, Galilee in the Time of Christ ( 91) ; Macgregor, The Rob Roy on the Jordan ( 69); GASm. HGZQ ; Guthe, art. Galilaa in PREP), Bd. vi. ( 99); also Art. Galilee in Kitto s Bib. Cycl. by J. L. Porter, from which a few portions of the present article have been adapted. T. K. C.

1 B. d.e. Syr. Hcl. (Tregelles) prefix eis TO. jue p>), which is also a correction, but one that does not suit, the eastern shore being meant.



The references following some names having no biblical equivalent are to passages that mention them. The alphabetical arrangement ignores prefixes : Ain ( spring ), Blr( well ), el ( the ), J. (Jebel, mt. ), Jisr( bridge ), Kefr ( village ), Kh. (Khirbat, ruin ), L. (lake), Alt., N. (Nahr, river ), Nabi ( prophet ), K. (river), Sahl ( plain ). Sheikh ( saint ). Tell ( mound ), Umm ( mother ), IV. (Wddy, valley ).

Abel-beth-maachah, Di Abil el-Kamh, Di W. Abillin, B3(JipHTAH-EL) tell Abu Kudes, 84 AbuSheba,C3(GALiLEEi.,7) Accho, 63 Achshaph??Ci Achzib, 62 Acre, 63 bay of Acre, 63 [HADDAH) kefr Ad(h)an, 65 (EN- sahl el-Ahma, CD3, 4 Ainltha, 2 (BETH-ANATH) Akka, 83 Alammelech ?? B3 Alia (ruin), C2 (.HALI) umm el- Amud, 82 wady Amud, CSCTAPPUAH) Anaharath ?? 5 kefr Anan, 03 W. Ara, 65 (EPHRAIM, 47) wady el- Arab, D4(GADARA> el- Araj, D$ (BETH-SAIDA) Arbela?? 3 Ard el-Huleh, D2 sahl Arrabeh,B5(DoTHAN) Arraneh, GS Asochis, 3 Athllt, A4

Bahr Tabariyeh, 03, 4 Ba hret el-Huleh, D2 (MEROM) nahr Banias, D2 (ABANA) nahr BareighIt,D2(ABEL ii.) el-Bateiha, 03 (ARBATTIS) BattSf, C3 (ALAMMELECH) Beisan, GS Beit Ufa, 4 (BETHULIA) Beit-Lahm, 84 blr Bel ameh, 5 (BELMEN) wady Bel ameh, CS(!BLEAM) Belat, C2 (RAMAH, 6) Belus, 83 jisr Benat Ya kub, D2 Bersabe, C$ (GALILEE!., 7) Bethlehem, 64 Beth-shean, 5 [MEL, i) Bilad er-Ruhah, 84 (CAR- wady el-Bireh, D4 kefr Bir im, C2 (AHLAB) esh-sheikh Burkan , C4(GiL-

Cabul, B 3 [BOA 2) Cassarea Palagstinoe, A4 CanaPPCs Capernaum ? 03 Mt. Carmel, AB3, 4 Chisloth-tabor, 4 Chorazin, 03

Dabaritta, 4 Daberath, C 4 nabi DahT, C 4 Daliet er-Ruhah, 84 Dan, D2 Daman, 62 (DAN-JAAN) Deburlyeh, C4 Deshun, CD2 (HAZOR, i) tell Dibbin, Di (!JON) Dor, A4 plain of Dothan, 65

Ecdippa, 62 Edrei?? C2 Endor ? G4 Endur, C4 En-gannim, GS Esdraelon, 64 Esflyeh, 84 (CARMEL) (E)xaloth, C 4

umm el-Fahm, 64 wady Fajjas, D4 Faku , GS (GILBOA, i) jebel Faku GS el-Fuleh, C4 (CYAMON)

Gath-hepher ?? C4 Gerasa, D3 (GERASENE) el-Ghuwer, D3(GAHLEEii., Mt. Gilboa, GS [ 2) Ginaia, GS Gischala, G2 Gush Halab, C2

J. Hadireh, C2 (HAZOR) Haifa, AB3 (ACHSAPH) Haifa el- atika, A$ [DALA) wadyel-Hamam, C3 (MAG- Hammon ? 62 ain Harnul, 62 (HAMMON) wady Hamul, B2(HAMMON) el-Harithiyeh, 64 (HAKO- well of Harod, C4 [SHETH) Kh. Harreh, D2 (HAZOR) N. el-Hasbani, Di, 2(AiN, 2) Hazor? D2 Hieromax, 04 Hill of Moreh ? C4 Hippos, 03 Hukkok?? C 3 tell Hum, D3 (CHORAZIN) Hunin, D2 (MIGDAI.-EL)

Ibleam ? C s khirbet Iksaf Ci Iksal, C4 Irbid, G 3 [ 4) 7) Sh. Iskander, B4 (EPHRAIM,

Jabesh ?? DS Jalkamus, GS ain Jalud, C4 N. Jalud, C4 (HAROD) Janoah?? Ci, 2 tell Jefat, C$ Jelameh, C4 (IBLEAM) Jelbon, GS (GILBOA, i) Jenin, GS Jezreel, C 4 Jiphtah-el ? C3 el-Jish, C 2 Jokneam ? 84 Jordan, D2, 3, 4, 5 Jotapata, C3

Kabr Hiram, C2 (HIRAM) Kabul, 83 Kadesh, D2 tell el- Kadi, D2 jebel Kaf tell Kaimiin, Kaisarlyeh, A4 [LEE ii., 7) Kal at el-Hosn, 03 (GAI.I- Kal at esh - Shakif, Di Kana, 2 [(EPHRAIM, 4) ain Kana, 4 (CANA) Kanah?? C2 jebel Karmal, AB3, 4 wady el-Karn, 62 [7) Karn HattIn,C3(GALiLEEi., el-Kasimiyeh, Ci tell el-KassTs, 84 (CARMEL, Kaukabel-Hawa, 04 [ 3) Kedasa, D2 Kedes, D2 Kedesh (Kishion?) 64 Kefar Hananya, 3 tell Keisan, 63 (KISHION) kefr Kenna, 3 Kerak, D4 (GALILEE ii., 7) Kerazeh, 03 Kersa, 03 (GERASENES) wady el-Khudera, AS tell Khureibeh, D2 Kishon, 83 kefr Kud, 65 (BETHULIA) Kuffln, B5

Ladder of Tyre, B2 (RAMAH, 6) nahr el-Leddan, D2 Lejjun, 64 Leontes, Di (ACHSHAPH) N. el-Litani, Di (ACHSHAPH) Kh. Luweziye, Di

nahr Mafshukh, B2 Martin er-Ras,C - 2 (MEROM) Mas adlyeh, 03 (BETH-SAIDA) Kh. Ma*sub, 62 (ASHERAH) nahr el-Mefjir, AS (KANAH) Megiddo, 64 Meiron, C3 (MEROM) el-Mejdel, 03 (MAGDALA) wady el-Melek, 83 ain el-Meyiteh, C4(HAROD) Merj Ayun, Di (Ijox) Merjel-Hadireh, C2(HAZOR) Merj Ibn Amir, BC4 el-Meshhed, C+ el-Mezar, C$ (GILBOA, 2) el-Mezra ah, 4 (ESDRAE- W.el-Milh, B 4 (ARAD)[LON) khan Minieh, 03 khirbet Minis, 03 Miryamln, 05 el-Mohraka,B4(CARMEL,3) jisr el-Mujami , 04 el-Mujedil, 84 (IDALAH) Mujeidil, C2 (MIGDAL-EL) nahr el-Mukatta , 63, 4 tell el-Mutasailim, 64

Nabi DahT, 4 Nain ? 4 nahr Na man, 63 (ADONIS) en-Nasira, 4 [RATH) en-Na ura, C4 (ANAHA- Nazareth, 4 Nein, 4 Nuris, 4 (GILBOA, 2)

Kh. el- Oremeh, 03 (GALILEE i., 7 )

Pella, 05 Ptolemais, 83

Ramah, 03 er-Rameh,C3 plain of er-Rameh, C% (GALILEE i., 3) Ras el- Ain, B2 (HOSAH) Ras en-Nakura, B2 (RAMAH, 6) Ras Umm esh-Shakf, 84 Rummaneh, 64 (HADAU-RIMMON)

Safed, C3 (GALILEE i., 7) Safuriyeh, 3, 4 (NAZARETH) wady Sakak, 62 Sarona, C 4 (GALILEE i., 7) Saronas, 4 [MAH, 6) Scala Tyriorum, B2 (RA- Scythopolis, C s Sefet, 03 (GALILEE i., 7) wady Selhab, BS (DOTHAN) L. Semachonitis, D2 wady Semak, 03 (GERAS- Semakh, 04 [ENES) Semuniyeh, 64 (KATTATH) Sepphoris, C3, 4 (NAZARETH) esh-Shari a, D2, 3, 4, 5 Shari at el-Manadireh, 04 wady Sharrar, C 4 (GOLAN) ShatUl, C4 (I)ETH-SHITTAH) Shilior-libnath ?? A4 Shunem, 4 jebel es-Sih,C4(XAZARETH) Simonias, 64 (GALILEE!., 7) Solam, 04 Sur, Bi Susltha, 03 (GALILEE ii., 7) Sycammum, A3

Taanach, 64 Ta annuk, B 4 [ 7) Tabakat Fahl, DS(GILEAD, Tabarlyeh, D3 ain Taba un, 4 (HAROD) ct-Tabigha, 03 (cp CAPERNAUM, i,f.) Tabor, C4 Tanturah, A4 [ 7) Taricheae, 04 (GALILEE ii., wady et-Tawahm, 03 et-Tell, 03 (BETH-SAIDA) Tiberias, 03 sea of Tiberias, 03, 4 jebel et-T6r, C4 Tyre, Bi Tyrus, Bi

wady Yabis, DS GABESH) Yafa, 4 (JAPHIA) Yakuk, 3 Yanuh, Ci, 2 Yarmflk, D4 (GOLAN) Ya tir, 2 Yenima, CD4 (APIIEK, 3, c)

Zer In, C^ nahr ez-Zerka, A4 ez-Zlb, Ba


( H 6<\AACC& THC r*AiA<MAC [Ti. WH]), a Hebraistic expression (see GEOGRAPHY, 4) for the fine sweet- water lake through which the Jordan flows on the E. of Galilee.

1. Names.[edit]

It occurs five times (Mt. 4i8 1629 Mk. 1 16 731 Jn. 61). Other names are (i) sea of Tiberias (>j 6. TTJ? Ti/3epidos [Ti. WH]), Jn. 21 i ; (2) sea of Galilee, of Tiberias (^ 6. T^S TaA. -Hjs Ti/3. [Ti. WH] Jn. 6 i), where of Tiberias seems to be a scribe's correction, intended to supersede of Galilee, and pointing forward to v. 23 where Tiberias is mentioned; 1 (3) lake of Gennesaret rt AIJIAIT) Tevvrja-aper [Ti. WH]), Lk. 5i; (4) the sea (v 0aA..), Jn. 611-25; (s) the lake (Vj Ai>.), Lk. 5 2 8 22_/C 33. To these must be added (6) sea of Chinnereth (rnjS C ), and (7) sea of Chinneroth (ni"l33"C ), see CHIN- NKKKTH, CHINNEROTH ; also (8) the water of Gennesar i.e., (RV) of Gennesareth, i Mace. 1167. See GENNESAR. For Talmudic notices the reader will consult Neub. Geogr. 25, and Kohut, Lakes of the Holy Land, JQR 4 691 ( 92).

2. Physical characteristics.[edit]

The extreme length of this lake is 13 m. ; its greatest width is little less than 7 m. It is an irregular oval in shape. Its surface is 68 1 ft. below the level of the Mediterranean . Its greatest depth has been exaggerated by M Gregor and Lortet.

As Barrois (1894) states, it varies from 130 ft. to 148 ft., according to the season, the greatest depth occurring along the course of the Jordan, through the meridional axis of the sheet. The surface temperature varies considerably. Down to 30 ft. it is on an average about 68 or 69, and at 50 ft., 62 or 63. Between 65 ft. and 130 ft., however, there is a uniform temperature of 59. This is much higher than in the Swiss lakes at the same depth, but the lake of Tiberias lies at a much lower elevation, under a much hotter sun, and is fed from the sides and the bottom by several hot springs (see PRFQ, 94, pp. 211-220).

The scenery of the lake disappoints some travellers ; but arriving from the S. where the landscapes are by no means always pleasing, one feels it a relief to catch a first view of its pale blue waters and the steep but bare and by no means bold mountains which so nearly surround it. 1 It is unjust to speak of it as dreary. It is only under certain aspects that it presents a painful monotony of gray ; the evening hues are delightful, and round it there is a broad beach of white pebbles with small shells. The Jordan enters at the extreme northern end and issues plunging and swirling at the southern. Here there are wide openings, which permit a view of the valley, and suggest interesting excursions.

The favourable physical conditions of Gennesaret (fl- Ghuwcr) have been referred to elsewhere (see GEN NESAR). Here it suffices to add that the harvest on the shore is nearly a. month earlier than on the neighbour ing highlands of Galilee and Bashan. Frost is entirely unknown. The trees, plants, and vegetables are those usually found in Egypt e.g. , the palm, the Zisyphus lotus, and the indigo plant.

Though the whole basin of the lake, and, indeed, the Jordan valley, is of volcanic origin, as evidenced by the thermal springs and the frequent earthquakes, yet the main formation of the surrounding wall of moun tains is limestone. A large number of black stones and boulders of basaltic tufa are scattered along the slopes and upland plains, and dykes of basalt here and there burst through the limestone strata in the neighbourhood of Tiberias and along the northern shore. 2

3. NT references.[edit]

In the OT the lake is only mentioned in descriptions of boundaries. It receives ample compensation in the NT, for its well-peopled, pleasant shores attracted the preacher of the kingdom of God. Four of its fisher-folk became his first disciples, with whom he took up his temporary abode in the village of consolation (Capernaum) he who was emphatically mindkem (i.e., Comforter, a Jewish title of the Messiah). The local colouring of the Gospel narratives which have the lake and its shores for their scene, is wonderfully true. The sudden storms the multitude of fish the desert place near Beth saida where there was much grass all this is in accordance with facts. The hot, tropical air of the Ghor is often filled by the cold winds from Lebanon which rush through the ravines of the Peraean hills (Thomson). So much for the storms. The fish are famous, both for variety and for abundance (see FISH, i). Josephus (.Z?/iii. lOy) remarks and Hasselquist corroborates this that some of them are found also in the Nile. 3 To Beth-saida the fish of the lake perhaps gave its name, and Taricheos was mainly devoted to the curing of fish. The desert but grassy place intended in the narratives of the first feeding of the people (see especially Mk. 639) is surely the rich but swampy plain of el-Bateiha in the NE. , at the N. end of which are the ruins of BETHSAIDA (q.v. ). Nor can we doubt that towards the S. of the lake there were also desert (solitary) places, even if they were only on high hill tops.

1 Cp Harper, In Scripture Lands, 323 ; H. v. Soden, Reise- Iriefe, 98, p. 157.

2 Porter, Kitto s Bib. Cycl. 3 Cp Neub. Geogr. 25.

4. Feeding of the multitude.[edit]

This consideration is important with reference to the two narratives of the feeding of the multitude. That the same tradition may receive different forms, so that two distinct events appear (but wrongly appear) to be reported, is clear from the lives of the patriarchs. It is the application of the comparative method, not any wish to rationalise, that prompts many good critics to identify the two narratives referred to. 1 If this be done, we are placed in a position to rectify some very natural mistakes in the present form of the traditions. We shall see that the scene of the most original narra tive of the feeding was probably not in the NE. , but more towards the S. Jesus had gone hither to be as far as possible from Antipas, 2 and yet, even in this remote spot, he could not hide himself from eager followers. How did he deal with them ? There was probably a gap in the oral tradition, and the early Christians did not shrink from filling it up by ascribing to him who was a prophet, and more than a prophet, a deed such as Elisha was said to have performed of old. How well they expanded the scanty suggestion of 2 K. 4:42-44 ! 3 How much more spiritually suggestive are the evangelical narratives !

The view presented here is different doubtless from that commonly received ; but it seems to remove not a few very real difficulties. Nor is it only geography and exegesis that owe something to a keener textual criti cism. We are thus helped one stage further towards the perception that the central importance of the Gospel narratives does not consist in their freedom from the inevitable errors of much-edited popular traditions.

Let us now compare the various Gospel statements as to the scene of the reported event, assuming (as we may and must) that there is a duplication of the original story.

Ml. 14 13, When Jesus heard of it, he withdrew from thence in a boat to a desert place apart. No name of a place is given before v. 34, where we read, . . . they came to the land, unto Gennesaret. Mt. 15 29, And Jesus . . . came nigh unto the Sea of Galilee ; and he went up into a mountain, and sat there ; v. 39, And he sent away the multitudes, and entered into the boat, and came into the borders of (RV) Magadan.

Mk. 631, Come ye yourselves into a desert place ; v. 45, And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude away ; v. 53, And . . . they came to the land, unto Gennesaret. Mk. 84, Whence shall we be able to fill these men with bread here in a desert place? v. 10, And straightway he ... came into the parts of Dalmanutha."

Lk. 9 10, And he took them, and withdrew apart to a city called Bethsaida ; ^>. 12, for we are here in a desert place. The reading in v. 10 is uncertain (cp Blass s edition of Lk.). RV follows Treg., Ti., WH. Certainly the reading of the received text (followed by AV) is the work of a corrector. It does not, however, follow that that of B and D, etc. (D has /CIUJHTJI^ for iroAti/) is the right one. We must leave the question open. There is nothing else in the text of Lk. to indicate exactly where the scene of the narrative is to be placed.

Jn. 6 1, Jesus went away to the other side of the sea of Galilee ; v. 3, And Jesus went up into the mountain ; v. 10, Now there was much grass in the place ; v. 17, And they entered into a boat, and were going over the sea into Caper naum ; v. 23, Howbeit there came boats from Tiberias, etc. ; v. 24, . . . and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

1 Cp Keim, Jesu von Naz. 2 yi&f. 2 Cp Keim, I.e.

3 Note the barley loaves, and cp Jn. ti 9.

5. Bethsaida and Daimanutha.[edit]

The greatest difficulty here is in Mk. 645 (irpoayeiv els TO irepav wpbs ^OdaiSav ). Are there two Bethsaidas ? or shal1 we suppose ( GAS HG 458 ; see BETHSAIDA, 2) that going across does not mean crossing to the W. shore, but only taking the short journey northward to Bethsaida? The present writer thinks both views improb- able, and instead of adopting the reading of old MSS of the Itala (followed in AV m tf- over against Bethsaida ) would suppose that there is a scribe s error, and that for Bethsaida (Hr)6ffai5av) we should read Tiberias

A similar change is certainly necessary in the case of Magdala (Rec. Text) or Magadan (Treg., Ti., WH) in Mt. 15 39, and Dalmanutha in Mt. 610. These names have been discussed over and over again (see DAI.- MANUTHA), and the latest solutions are hardly more natural than the earliest. The name in the original tradition must have been one which would account equally well for all these forms, and it should be one of which we are not obliged to say with Bruce (speaking of Magadan in the Expositor s Bible) place wholly unknown. It seems to have been Migdal-nunia 1 (** T 3 3 V up, the tower of fish ), which was i R. m. from Tiberias, probably to the S. of that city. 2

It will be seen that just as Bethsaida and Capernaum go together in one form of the tradition, so some un known place on the E. coast (the neighbourhood of Gamala would suit) and Migdal-nunia go together in another. 3 We may perhaps find traces of this latter view of the localities in Mk. 645 (reading Tt/3epia5a) and also in Jn. 623, where the ships are brought by the evangelist from Tiberias, because the spot where he places the feeding was obliquely opposite Tiberias. 4 The land where they were going (v. 21) was not Capernaum (a mistake surely of the redactor of the Fourth Gospel), but Tiberias.

6. Calming of the storm.[edit]

Nothing has been said here as yet of the calming of the storm. Here again the spiritual suggestiveness of the narrative makes it an inalienable treasure. We cannot, however, pin our faith to the literal accuracy of the beautiful story, any more than to that of Ps. 77 19 [20], Thy way was in the sea and thy path in the great waters, and of Ps. 10728-30; see especially the suggestive words with which the latter passage con cludes - 'So he bringeth them unto the haven where they would be'. Such symbolic language is characteristic of faith in all earnestly-held religions, and the symbol soon fixes itself in narrative. These are no doubt held to be facts ; but the facts are valued chiefly as vehicles of spiritual ideas, and never examined into with the strictness of historic investigation.

1 Dalma = Ma(g)dal ; nutha = nunia. It is implied that the substratum of the narrative is Hebrew or Aramaic. Renan ( V ie tie J/susC 1 *), 146) thinks that Magadan comes from Dal- man(outha). This does not help much.

2 See Neub. Giogr. 217; Buhl, 226; but cp Gra. MGWJ, 80, p. 484 ; who makes the distance 4 m. (we return to this later).

3 It would not do, therefore, to suggest that Bethsaida (place of fish ?) might be a second name of Migdal-nunia.

  • Slightly differently Furrer, Bedeutung der bibl. Geographic,

=4 ( 70).

8 Gratz, however, suspects the text to be inaccurate. 6 MGWJ, 80, pp. 484-495.

7. Magdala, Tarichae, etc.[edit]

We referred above to a little-known Migdal, as almost certainly the Magdala of the received text of Mt. 15 39. The ordinary view identifying it with Mejdel, that miserable village with which the plain of el-Ghuwer begins, has to be abandoned. The Talmud mentions several Migdals in this neighbourhood ; Mejdel was one of these possibly that from which Mary Magdalene seems to have derived her name, scarcely the MIGDAL-EL (y.v.) of Joshua.

Other places on the W. shore are referred to in special articles (see, e.g. , CAPERNAUM, CHORAZIN).

Let us now turn to the S. end of the lake, where stands the ruin of Kerak, at the point where the Jordan issues. Here we should probably place Taricheoe, which, according to Pliny (Nff5i$), in his day gave its, name to the whole lake. 8 Its site indeed is not undisputed, being sometimes placed at Mejdel, and though the theory of Gratz Tarichese = Migdal-nunia = Mejdel is unacceptable, 6 the simpler theory which has commanded the assent of Wilson (PEFQ, 77, p. 10 ff. Furrer, ZDPVI&f. 12ig4/. 13 194^), and Socin (Baed. Pal.^ 290) cannot be lightly rejected. Upon the whole, however, the arguments of Schtirer (Gesch. 1 515) appear to be provisionally decisive in favour of Kerak ; Conder, Guthe, and Buhl also incline in this direction. One would like to be able to speak more positively. Taricheae was famous in the first Roman war ; at was a centre of Galilasan patriotism. Jesus may perhaps have been there ; it is a little strange that it should nowhere be mentioned in the Gospels. 1

Turning round the lake from Kerak, we pause first at Kal at el-Hosn, most probably the ancient Hippos (the Talmudic Susitha). The name of Gamala (mentioned above ; famous in the Roman war) 2 seems to be pre- , served in that of the village of Jamli ; Kersa is probably the ancient Gerasa (see GERASENES). But what an inadequate idea these few names give of the girdle of towns which inclosed the Sea of Galilee in ancient times ! As Lamartine says, the borders of the Lake of Gennesaret seem to have borne cities instead of harvests and forests. 3 The scene is very different now. Without the help of the imagination even the travelled student will see nothing but a sheet of water unenlivened by vessels and surrounded by treeless hills. T. K. c.


(i) Vth, rof. or KT), 4 ros ( X oAH), 5 Dt. 29 18 [17] 3232 Ps. 692i [22], Jer. 814 9is[i4] 23 15 Lam. 8519 Am. 612: the same Hebrew word is in Dt. 32 33 rendered venom, in Job 20 16 poison, and in Hos. 104 hemlock. The word primarily denotes an extremely bitter plant (Hos. 104) and its fruit (Dt. 29 18 [17] etc.); it is constantly coupled with njy 1 ?, laanah, wormwood, the two together denoting the extreme of bitterness. Though there is no evidence that the plant denoted by tj th was poisonous, the word is metaphorically applied to the venom of serpents (Dt. 3233 etc.), the notions of bitterness and of poison being closely conjoined in ancient thought (cp Di. on Job 20 14).

As the etymology of the Heb. word is unknown and there is no kindred form in any other Semitic language, we have no data for discovering the particular plant intended, the proposed identifications with hemlock, colocynth, darnel, and poppy being alike conjectural. The reference in Hos. 10 4 points to some weed growing on cultivated land (as (B aypuxrris) ; whilst in Dt. 32 32 some berry-bearing plant is indicated. The colocynth, which is otherwise probable, is a plant that grows, not on cultivated, but on barren land. Cp FOOD, 5, end.

(2) rrnp, mfrerah, JoblSist. and (3) .TITO. m rorah, Job20i42st (in (5 xoXij, exc. v. 25, 5iarcus [BA], Siairrj [NC]), are analogous derivatives from slightly different forms of the same root (Lag. Uebers. 40), which denotes bitterness. They mean properly the human gall or bile ; and, from the association of the ideas of bitterness and poison (see above), nYip is once applied, like tpto, to the venom of serpents (Job 20 14).

N. M. - \V. T. T.-D.

1 See GAS HG 451^

2 See Jos. />/ iv. 1 i. The view adopted above is that of Furrer and Buhl; Baed. / a/.( 4 ), however, still adheres to the older view which identifies Gamala with Kal at el-Hosn.

3 Quoted by GASm.

4 The latter spelling only in Dt. 32 32.

8 This, the word used in Mt. 27 34 Acts 8 23, is the usual & rendering of t?jn I but we find Su/xos in Dt 32 33 Job 20 16 Am. 612, jrifcpoi/ in Jer. 23 15, and dypcuo-ris in Hos. 104, whilst in Lam. 3 5 ros is rendered <ce<aAj through confusion with the other



(i) DinX [Kt.], attuk, Ezek. 41 15. p RN, attik, Ezek. 41 15 (Kr.) 16 42 5 (TO. arroAoiTra, ii;ro</>av<7eis, TreptVi-vA.oi ). The sense seems correct. With regard to s third rendering, observe that in 42 $f. the galleries have no pillars. Cp Ass. mtti^u, nicte^u, passage, road, from A/pnN, to pass on (Del. Ass. t/ll B, s.v.). An architectural applica tion of this word, however, is not mentioned. See TEMPLE.

(2) orn, rdhat, in plur., Cant. 7 5 [6] The king is held in the galleries ; RV corrects, in the tresses thereof. Neither gallery nor tresses is philologically defensible (see Bu. ad loc.). D am elsewhere means troughs ; here it seems to be a corruption of O JSH, pomegranate trees. (5 has irapa- j Spofiai ;, Aq. |3epaTt^i, Symm. ei\r/fj.a<Ti.. Read v. $?>, pleasant are they as an orchard of pomegranate trees (cp 4 13). So Cheyne, JQR, Jan. 1899; see COLOURS, 15.

(3) B rn, rahit, Kt. (tj m Kr.) in plur., Cant. 1 17 AVmg. ; but EV rafters. (5 <j>aTviafj.aTa., Symm. <>ar <o<reis, Quint. orpojTTJpes. This sense is best reached by reading VBiYl (Syr. J-Jo Nold.), with Budde. Wetzstein (Del. Jfokeslied u. Koh. 165) would read U^nl and our walls (B n = f"n).

(4) ohn, elam, &&gt;-*, flam, Ezek. 40 itff. AVmg. (EV arches, R\ mg. colonnade ). transliterates. See TEMPLE.


(tytr"ON), Is. 8821. See SHIP.


(D|, r &Ae[i]/v\ [BN L]).

1. A place included among the additional cities of Judah in @ s text of Josh. 15 590. (FaXXt/A [A] ; see SBOT,

1 Joshua, Heb. ). It occurs between Ka.rem( AznJfdrim; see BETH-HACCEREM) and Baither (Bittlr ; see BETHER i. ) ; it was therefore W. of Jerusalem.

2. A hamlet to the N. of Jerusalem, mentioned with Laishah and Anathoth, Is. 1630 (-yaXXei/x [AQ], raXetya [X*]). It was the home of Paid, the husband of Michal (see BAHURIM), i S. 2544 (pW- [B]. "yaXAei [A], -55. [forte A*], yo\ia6 [L] ; yf0\a [Jos.]). No plausible identification has been offered ; the text is probably corrupt. Elsewhere (SBOT, Isaiah, Heb., Addenda) 1 it is proposed to read, for n ^rna (EV daughter of Gallim ), ^3 n 2. A place called Beth- gilgal is mentioned in Neh. 1229 (RV) in connection with Geba and Azmaveth, and one called Gilgal in Josh. 15 7, and Geliloth in Josh. 1817. Probably the same village is meant in all the three passages (so independently G. A. Smith [GiLGAL, 6 (6)]) : we cannot identify it, but we know whereabouts it must have stood. It seems to have grown up near a cromlech facing the ascent of Adummim which formed a conspicuous land mark, and was probably regarded as sacred.

For Gallim in Vg. Is. 15s see EGLAIM. T. K. C.


(r&AAicoN [Ti. WH]), proconsul (AV deputy ) of Achaia probably towards the end of Paul's eighteen months sojourn in Corinth (about S3 A.TX).

1. Facts from classical sources.[edit]

His father, M. Annaeus Seneca, was a rhetorician of Corduba (Cordova), whence he migrated to Rome and became an eques ; his mother Helvia was also probably a native of Spain (hence equestri et pro- vinciali loco ortus in Tac. Ann. 14 53). L. Anhaeus Seneca the philosopher, and L. Annaeus Mela, the geographer and father of the poet Lucan, were his full brothers, both younger than himself; his own name was Marcus Annasus Novatus, and to him under this name Seneca addresses his books De Ira. From his father he received a careful education, and in Rome he attracted the notice of L. Junius Gallic, a rhetorician of repute (cp Tac. Ann. 63), who ultimately adopted him, so that his full name became apparently L. Junius Annaeus Gallic. Gallio s younger brother Seneca was in banishment in Corsica from 41 to 49 A. D. , when he was recalled by Agrippina to be Nero s tutor (Tac. Ann. 12 8). There is no sufficient reason, perhaps, to suppose that Gallic shared in his brother s disgrace (but cp Ramsay, St. Paul, 258). Towards the close of the reign of Claudius, he received the governorship of the province of Achaia.

1 Cp Geographical Gains from Textual Criticism, Expositor, Sept. 1899.

- Under Nero it received liberty for a time in 67 A.D. (Suet. Nero 24), but Vespasian soon withdrew the useless gift.

Achaia being a senatorial province between 27 B.C. and 15 A.D., and again from 44 A.D. onwards, 2 the term proconsul (afOuTraros) is rightly used in Acts IS 12, for the governor of such provinces bore always the title proconsul, but in the case of Achaia the governors were of praetorian rank only, five years at least intervening between the prstorship and the appointment to a province (Marq.-Momms. Rom. Staatsv. 1 545). We thus know only approximately the date of Gallio s praetorship ; nor is the year of his consulship ascertained ; it was presumably later than his governorship. That he actually held the consul ship is known from Pliny (HN 31 33), who tells us that he left Rome post consulatum on a voyage for his health. This must have been a different occasion from that recorded by Seneca, who says that Gallio suffered from fever in Achaia, and went a voyage in consequence (Ef. Afor. IS i [104 i] : illud mihi in ore erat domini mei Gallioms, qui cum in Achaia febrim habere coepisset, protinus navem adscendit clamitans non corporis esse, sed loci morbum ). This allusion gives us the only corroboration of the proconsulship recorded in Acts. It has been suggested that the L. Junius given as consul sn_ffectus with A. Marcellus at some time under Nero on a wax tablet from Pompeii is to be identified with Gallio (Nipp. in Hcrnies i i 130). We know that he was in Rome in Nero s fifth year (Dio Cass. 61 20=58 A.D. ). His appeal for mercy saved his life for the moment when Seneca was driven to suicide in 65 A.D. (Tac. Ann. 1673); but next year he also was one of Nero s victims (Dio Cass. 62 25 Jer. Chron. Eus.).

Gallio's genial and lovable and thoroughly upright character is sketched for us by his brother, and is summed up in the epithet dulcis applied to him by Statius (Sifo. 2 7 32) and by Seneca himself (Nat. Qu. 4 pref. : quern nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest . . . Nemo enim mortalium uni tarn dulcis est, quam hie omnibus ). Dio (00 35) records a witticism of his, in which he spoke of Claudius, who was poisoned by his wife Messalina, as unco in coelum raptus (in allusion to the deification of dead emperors, and the haling of dead malefactors through the streets to the Tiber).

2. References in Acts.[edit]

It has often been remarked that the narrative in Acts accords perfectly with Gallio's character as otherwise known ; but the erroneous impression given by the phrase of AV in Acts 18 17 ( and Gallio cared for none of those things ) has made his name proverbial for indifferentism in the Christian world (Farrar, St. Paul, 410). To speak of his char acteristic indifference, or disdainful justice, seems beside the mark. Ramsay (Church in R. .;#/. "349 n. ) points out that the Jews could act against the Roman Paul only by arousing official Roman action on some pretext." It is a mistake to imagine that because Judaism was a religio licita Gallio could be invoked in the interests of Jewish orthodoxy (the recorded instances of official protection when Jewish privileges were attacked by municipal authorities are of quite different nature) : in other words, the accusation, if exactly reproduced in v. 13, was designedly vague, and by the words contrary to the law it was intended that Gallio should understand Roman law, which alone he was con cerned to administer (so also Zahn, Einleit. 1 190). Further, in order to gain a correct conception of the incident, all idea of tumult must be rejected (KO.T- fireo Ttjcra.i 6fj.odvfj.ad6v of v. 12 merely signifies united action on the part of the community of Jews at Corinth). It is clear that Gallio s short speech represents the conclusion of a series of inquiries ( Ramsay, St. Paul, 258), in which the attempt of the Jews to prove that Paul s teaching put him outside the pale of Judaism, and so rendered him liable for introducing a new religion (cp the charge at Philippi, Acts 1621, and Thessalonica, Acts 17?) revealed the true grounds of their action. Gallio s refusal to accept a prosecution seems to show that he shared the broad and generous views of his brother about the policy of Rome in regard to the various religions of the provinces (Ramsay, ib. 259). w. J. w.

1 Against this, however, see Schiir. Hist. 2 363.


(} !>), Esth. 5 14 etc. ; AV^r- and RVs- tree. See HANGING, i.


[A]), i Esd. 8 2 9 = Ezra 82, DANIEL \_q.v. , 3]


j ; El is a reward ; 28 ; cp GAMUL, and Palm. [ BAL and Ti. WH]).

1. b. Pedahzur, a chief of Manasseh (Nu. lio 2 20 7 54 59 102 3 [P]t).

2. Gamaliel, or Rabban Gamaliel the elder, who, according to Jewish tradition, was the son of Simeon and the grandson of the famous Hillel, 1 is twice mentioned in the NT. Of his biography little is known beyond the facts that, early in the first century, he lived and taught in Jerusalem, where Saul of Tarsus is said to have been for some time his pupil (Acts 22 3) ; that he was a student of Greek literature ; and that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, which body he successfully counselled to moderation in their treatment of the fol lowers of Jesus (ib. 5 34 ft).

It would be extremely interesting to have some outside con firmation of the two notices in the NT. That Paul himself makes no reference in his epistles to his teacher, appears strange. Looking back on his past history the apostle describes himself (Phil. 3 5 /) in away that we should hardly have expected in a pupil of Gamaliel, if the rabban is to be judged by the notice in Acts 5 34 ff. Zahn (Einl.W 1 3548 50 f.) warns us not to exaggerate the Hellenistic influences of Paul s home. His Pharisaism was an inheritance from his fathers (cp Acts 236, RV a son of Pharisees ) ; but in this case why did he choose out Gamaliel? The problem seems insoluble.

According to Wendt, Acts 638^ may be based on some traditional saying of Gamaliel, which the author of Acts (who may have heard that Gamaliel s advice determined the action of the Sanhedrin) applied to the present case. Certainly pro visional conjectures of this sort may be admitted. Any close connection, however, between Paul and Gamaliel is not without its difficulty.

There is a late and otherwise improbable Christian tradition to the effect that Gamaliel ultimately became a Christian, and received baptism at the hands of Peter and John ; the s .me tradition located the tomb of Saint Gamaliel at Pisa. 1 Vhis tradition, however, is almost conclusively refuted by the fact that he is spoken of in the records of Judaism as having been the first of the seven rabbans (see RABBI). Such an honorific title would scarcely have been bestowed upon a Christian Jew.

The Talmudists speak of him as having been the president of the Sanhedrin during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. This, however, is certainly unhistorical, as may be seen from the NT and Josephus, where it is invariably the high priest who presides over the council. It should be added that the name Gamaliel is of frequent occurrence in the history of later Judaism. A grandson of the elder Gamaliel, who bore the same name, was the master and friend of Aquila, the Onkelos of the Babylonian Talmud.

See Schiirer, Gl I 2 299 f. ; Derenb. Pal. 239-246; Gratz, Gesc/t.W 3 a 349^ ; Ew. Hist. 7 1937:


(2 Macc. 414). See HELLENISM, 5.


AV Gammadims (DHJ33, but some MSS Dni; <J>YA<M<ec[BAQj i.e. , DnipB , with which Pesh. agrees; <\AA& K&I MHAoi [Q m *- Symm.] i.e., DHD Din.1; TTYrMAioi [Aq.W], r_A.q.-\ i.e., Dn|; fOMAAeiM [Theod.] ; Cappadocians [Tg. ]; PYG.V&I [Vg. , deriving from "1)03, Judg. 3i6; see CUBIT]). In describing the political and commercial relations of Tyre, Ezekiel (27") says that the sons of Arvad were on [Tyre s] walls, and the Gammadim on [its] towers. Plainly a proper name is required, and since Cappadocians (Lagarde) and Cimmerians (HaleVy) do not accord well with the Phoenicians of Arvad, it is evidently wrong to emend DHOJ into Q TDJ, with Lagarde and Hale\y. Bearing in mind the numerous corruptions in the text of Ezek. 27, we need not hesitate to read DTDS the Simyrites (or people of Simyra), called in EV the Zemarite(s) (so Co. Ezech., ad loc. ; Wi. AT Unt. 180). ones might easily be corrupted either into anas? (<) or into onDJ (M, etc.). The Arvadite and the Zemarite are mentioned together in Gen. 10i8. Thus we once more get evidence of the close relation between Gen. 10 and Ezek. 27.

That a name so unfamiliar in later times as Kamadu (the Egyptian form) or Kumidi (Am. Tat. 87 75, and elsewhere) should be referred to (as -ijjj) is improbable, though it is not unnatural that some scholars, 2 who (needlessly) think Cornill s conjecture violent, should think of identifying the two names. In Am. Tab. 87, Kumidi and Sumura 3 are even brought into some degree of connection ; Rib Add! states there that the fall of Sumura makes it hardly possible to hold Kumidi for the king. Guthe, with the assent of E. Meyer and Petrie, recognises the name Kumidi in the mod. Kamid el-Loz, 29 m. SE. of Beirut, 31 m. WNW. of Damascus. This is certainly an excellent position to command the upper Litani basin, so that the identification of Kumidi has a geographical value apart from the doubtful combination proposed by Mtiller. Cp WMM, As. u. ur. 193 ; E. Meyer, Glossen in sEgyptiaca, 72 ; Lag. M ittheilungen, 1 211 ; OS ft), 367. T. K. C.

1 Cp Clem. Recog. 1 65 ; Photius, cod. 171, p. 190.

2 WMM, E. Meyer.

3 Sumura should be the later Simyra = Ass. Simirra, though Winckler (KB 640*) doubts this. Cp Flinders Petrie, Syria and Egypt, 183.


(0|, benefited, 56; rAM OYA L B ]- OYHA [A], KA. [L]), representative of the twenty-second (so MT and @ AL ) or the twenty-first (so <5> B ) of the courses of priests (i Ch. 24 17).


(so Aldine ed.), RV GAS ( rAC [BA], om. L), a group of children of Solomon s servants (see NETHINIM) in the great post-exilic list (EZRA ii. , 9, 8c), one of eight inserted in i Esd. 5 34 after Pochereth-hazzebaim of || Ezra 2s7 = Neh. 7 59.


(}| gan, Ass. gannatu, Arab, jannat"", Syr. gann thd).

The Sem. word is derived from the root ~i^\ganan, cover, protect, the garden being secluded from the surrounding uncultivated country and the incursions of strangers, and con cealed by overshadowing trees from observation (cp Hcllen. iv. 1 15, irepifipyfiLfvoi. Trapaijeio-oi). In the Persian and the Greek period Hebrew also used D^HS panics (irapaieieros), park or garden of larger extent than KTJTTOS (or J3) ; see Neh. 2 8 Cant. 4 13 Eccles. 2s. In Assyrian kirii (pi. -ati) means a plantation of trees.

1. Egypt.[edit]

'Gardens' of the sort just described came in very early times to be specially attached to temples and also to the residences of wealthy persons. An illustration of the former will be found figured in Lepsius Denkmdler (895), reproduced from the wall-painting in the tomb of Mery re , high priest of King Chuenaten of the eighteenth dynasty (circa 1400 B.C. ; discovered at Tell el- Amarna). This figure represents the temple of the sun with the surrounding buildings. The space that intervenes between the buildings is planted with trees, and in every case the base of the trunk is enclosed in a round ridge of earth hollow in the centre in order to retain the water. Apparently there are also water-tanks for irrigation. All features, however, are not quite clear. From the same tomb we obtain other graphic details. A small house, the private residence of the priest, is depicted, and in one corner we have a glimpse of the garden portrayed in the conventional forms of old-world artists in which perspective is dis regarded. Among the trees we can recognise the fig, the pomegranate, and the palm, whilst an arbour covered by a trailing grape-bearing vine is clearly visible.

The Theban tombs frequently represent gardens of considerable size divided into separate enclosures for vines, dates, and sycomores respectively. The inter esting illustration given in Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. 1377, Erman, Life in Anc. Eg. 195, represents a large garden of rectangular shape surrounded by a wall. A canal of water flows in front. Between it and the wall there is a row of trees.

We quote from Erman s description :

The house is concealed in the furthest corner of the garden ; no sound from the stirring life on the canal could penetrate its seclusion. . . . There is no entrance except in front where a broad flight of steps leads down from the large porter s lodge to two small doors which open upon the canal. Through the chief entrance ... we pass put of a small door directly into the vineyard which is seen in the centre of the plan. The luxuriant vines . . . are trained on trellis-work built up with stone ; through these vine walks the path leads straight up to the house. If we pass, however, through either of the side doors, we come to a part of the garden resembling a small park ; here there is a fish-pond surrounded with palms and shrubs. . . . Two doors lead out of this garden ; one into the palm-garden which occupies a narrow strip on either side of the piece of ground ; the other door leads into the hinder portion of the garden. Whether we enter the right or left side we now come again to a " cool tank." . . . A pretty little arbour stands at the head of the pond ; here the master would sit in the evening and watch the water-birds at their play in the water amongst the lotus and papyrus plants. Finally at the back surrounded by a double row of palms and high trees lies the house itself. . . .

Egyptian sovereigns took great interest in horticulture. Rameses III. (1200 B.C.), according to the Harris papyrus (i. &3/.), made great vineyards, walks shaded by all kinds of fruit-trees laden with their fruit, a sacred way splendid with flowers from all countries. Queen Ha t-sepsut (Hatasu), living about 1500 B.C., imported thirty-one incense trees from their habitats by the Red Sea.

In a footnote to Sir G. Wilkinson s work (1 378) we have a long list of trees which was discovered in the tomb of an officer of Thotmes I. In this catalogue we find date-palms, sycomores, acacias, quinces, tamarisks, willows, and figs.

2. Assyria and Babylonia.[edit]

In Babylonia and Assyria the features of garden cultivation are very similar and there also monarchs interested themselves in the art. Among ancient Babylonian documents we read of a garden similar to that just mentioned.

This belonged to Merodach-baladan and contained the names of seventy-two trees, shrubs, and plants. This inscription, called the garden tablet, is entitled at the close ganndti sa Mardtik-aplu-iddina farri, Gardens of King Merodach-baladan.

Assyrian kings, as well as Babylonian, took a pride in planting gardens with choice and rare trees, brought from other lands. Tiglath-pileser I. ( 1 100 B. c. ) evinces this fondness for horticulture.

In his prism inscription (col. 7 17-27) he says: Cedar-trees, urkarinu and allakanu trees I took away from the lands which I had conquered ; trees which no one among my predecessors [lit. former kings, my fathers] had planted, I planted them in the parks (Jciratt). Valuable garden - fruit which was not to be found in my own country I brought away, and caused the plantations of Assyria to bear these fruits. 1

Four centuries later Sennacherib, in describing his palace without rival, announces that he planted a great park resembling the Amanus land (mountain), in which were all kinds of fragrant plants, fruit-trees, and the produce of the mountains and of Chaldea.

Amid some obscure details we learn that a canal was dug i\ kaspu from the river Husur, and that a pond was made. Vines and other fruit-trees as well as sirdu trees, cypresses, and palms were planted. Birds and other wild animals were placed among them. 2 A bas-relief representing a river and gardens watered by a canal, discovered by Layard at Kuyunjik, perhaps furnishes a rough illustration. Esarhaddon also (in two prism -inscriptions), after describing the erection of a palace of hewn stone and cedar, passes on to describe (col. 614^) the adjoining park thus : A lofty plantation like the Hamanu moun tain, overgrown with all kinds of sweet-smelling bushes, I placed by its side (A"Z?2i 3 8).

From the deeds of Babylonian purchase and sale published by Peiser we may infer that a plantation of date-palms (kirn gifimmarf), sometimes bordering on a canal (hirllu), formed a not infrequent accompaniment of a Babylonian private dwelling (Peiser, Keilinsch. Actenstiicke, Sargonstein, col. 423-25 ; 12 i).

1 KB 141; uHsib is rendered as Pa el oftsebu.

  • See Meissner and Rost s Bauinschriften Sanheribs, 14-16

and notes, p. $<)/. Evetts in ZA, Nov. 1888, gives another text.

3. Persia.[edit]

From the Babylonians the Persians acquired the art of horticulture and carried it to considerable perfection. Thence the skill in planting, as well as the name for a cultivated park (pairidaeza), spread to the Hebrews (DTIS) and also to the Greeks (TrapdSetcros ; see PARADISE).

It is from Greek writers that we mainly derive our information respecting these parks. Thus Xenophon employs the word/ara- tieisos in describing the large park attached to the palace of Cyrus at Kelaense in Phrygia through which the river Maeander flowed, and which was stocked with wild animals of the chase.

[here goes picture of] River and Garden. After Layard.

Its extent may be surmised from the fact that Cyrus here re viewed his contingent of 11,000 Greeks (Anab. i. IT ff.).

A biblical hint as to the size of these parks is conveyed in Esth. 1 5 where we are told that the Persian king gave a feast to all the inhabitants of Shushan in the precincts of the royal park attached to the palace. From Hellen. iv. 1 15 we learn that Pharnabazus also had his enclosed parks at Daskyleum, where animals for the chase were kept (cp Cyrop. i. 814). From Neh. 28 we acquire the additional detail that the keeper of the royal parks was an important court official by whom building materials were granted.

4. Canaan.[edit]

It is surely possible that Canaanite civilization presented features in the matter of garden cultivation analogous to those of the ancient empires of the Nile and of the Euphrates and Tigris. Phoenician inscriptions, however, yield us no information on the subject, whilst the biblical evidence is exceedingly scanty. 1

5. The Paradise narrative.[edit]

Under the circumstances mentioned above ( 4) the features presented by the Paradise-narrative Gen. 2 8-17 are of special interest and value. The main portion of this account is acknowledged to belong to the earlier stratum of J (J1). It is pointed out elsewhere (see PARADISE) that vv. 10-14 are probably a later addition 2 to the narrative of J1. The critical result is of considerable importance as we thereby eliminate the most definite Babylonian traits (mention of Euphrates, Tigris, Assur, etc. ) from the narrative. There is accordingly left to us a Palestinian narrative apparently based on an ancient tradition of Babylonian origin which had survived for several centuries at least on Canaanite soil and had then been remoulded.

Even when vv. 10-14 are removed from the section, there remain traits in the narrative that remind us of Assyria and Babylonia (see again PARADISE). The expression all kinds of trees agreeable to sight and good for food (v. 9) recalls the phraseology of Esar- haddon s above- quoted inscription Kala rikkl u iu fcurrusu all kinds of fragrant spices and shrubs (cp Khorsab. 143) ; and if we adopt the Assyriological explanation of IN as not mist but stream of water (cp Esarh. col. vi. 19 /. ), the counterpart of the Babylonian irrigation canal is restored to us and the picture is fairly complete. It is clear too from Nu. 24 6 (J ? see BALAAM, 5) that garden - plantations were familiar features in Palestinian scenery in pre-exilic times. On the text of this difficult passage see Dillmann, also Cheyne, Exp. T. 10401 (June 99), who critically emends (JQR Jan. 1900) the text more fully ; cp CEDAR ; PALM-TREE.

1 The text of Gen. 13 10 is disputed ; but Ball may be correct in reading Q^SO, Egypt, and [J?i , Zoan. If so, a familiarity with Egyptian gardens is presupposed in the narrator. [See, however, MIZRAIM, 2 b, ZOAR.]

2 Budde, to whose critical sagacity this observation is due, assigns the addition to the time of Ahaz {Urgttck, 515).

6. Solomon's plant lore.[edit]

What are the precise facts underlying the tradition of Solomon's botanic lore (1 K. 4:33 [5:13] cannot b e determined; but Phoenician influences would help to account for the great king s interest in plants. Later kings, at any rate, had their plantations. Ahab, who had a passion for building, coveted Naboth's vineyard in order to secure a suitable plantation as an adjunct to his palace ( r K. 21 2). In Heb. p-rn jj, gan hayydrdk, furnishes, however, a very vague conception of its character. J

7. Gardens as burial places.[edit]

Gardens were naturally chosen as burial-places. Trees having a sacred character are often conjoined with tombs (cp Gen. 358 and RS 6). Thus in 2 K. 21:l8-26 we read that Manasseh and also his son were buried in the garden of Uzza (see MANASSEH, UZZA ii. ). In the time of Jesus, family burying-places were frequently in gardens (Jn. 1941).

8. Other references: earlier.[edit]

Through the king's garden the Jewish soldiers escaped, when Jerusalem was captured by the armies of Nebuchadrezzar (2 K. 264 Jer. 394 Neh 315; see plan in Stade's GVZ 1:593). In all these cases we have not a single descriptive trait presented in the biblical record. We must therefore supply this lack by the legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the general features of Hebrew civilization presented in OT literature. In the first place it is evident that in the eighth and the following century Israel had advanced in civilization. Am. 815 clearly shows that it was a common custom for the wealthy Hebrew citizen to have a winter and a summer mansion. 2 These were adorned with cedar woodwork and inlaid ivory (cp Is. 9gf. [8f. ]). That gardens possessing orchards affording a grateful shade were attached, may be accepted as certain (cp Am. 5n). These would contain the well- known Palestinian fruit trees, the vine, fig, and pome granate. The ideal of a happy life to sit under the shade of one s own vine and fig tree 1 (i K. 425 [65] 2 K. 1831 Mic. 44, cp Jn. Iso), as well as the general features of the Paradise narrative, enable us to supply these main traits. Probably in f re-exilic Israel fruit- trees predominated. Nowhere do we read of fragrant plants or trees.

By Hos. 4 13 Is. 129 and 17 10 we are reminded that Hebrew sanctuaries had their plantations in sacred en closures in which stood the terebinth, the oak, and the ruaS (see POPLAR), together with the sacred pole repre senting the deity Asherah (see ASHERAH). Some different kind of sacred plantation is referred to in Is. 17 10 as plants of pleasance. The view that they were connected with the worship of Adonis (see RV m -) is not improbable. Robertson Smith (Prof ft. ( ) 273, 425) thinks that pots of quickly withering flowers are referred to. 3 The women who wept for Tammuz (Ezek. 814) may have covered the bier of their god with such pots or baskets. See, further, ADONIS.

1 The combination of this phrase with Egypt in Dt. 11 10 gives the impression of good irrigation and elaborate cultivation (cp Gen. 13 10). On the other hand, the expression in Prov. 15 17 pIM nrnx daily portion [so Toy ; Che. meal ] of vegetables (jitTa. \a\dviai ) suggests the idea of a homely meal to which the exceptional and festive meal of animal diet is placed in con trast. This view is reflected- in s rendering KTJJTOS \a^dviav ; Ahab s garden, therefore, must have fallen far short of a true rrapaSeio-o?. But is a disparaging epithet here purposely applied, and can we detect the influence of Judaic and Deu- teronpmic redaction (designated Do by Kittel)? See Ahab in Hastings DB, ad fin.

2 See HOUSE, 3, and cp sortE IV 3 n tne Bar-Rekub in scription from Zenjlrli.

3 [In Is. 17 1 1 the swift destruction of the gardens is not presented in MT so vividly as we should expect. The trouble is with the second part of the verse, the text of which Che. ( Isaiah, SBOT, Heb., 195) has critically emended, so that the whole verse runs thus :

(Even) though as soon as thou plantest them, thou fencest them in,
And early bringest thy shoots to blossom,
Thy grape-gathering shall perish in the day of sudden terror,
And thy young plants at the crash of ruin.]

9. Later.[edit]

Among the consequences of the Babylonian exile we may venture to place the improvement of Jewish horticulture. As we pass into the literature of the Persian and the Greek period, the portrayals of gardens become more vivid and detailed. See especially the picture of the garden barred and bolted, with its well of living waters, and its fruit-trees and fragrant plants in Cant. 4 12-16 62, and the description in Eccles. 2 4-6 (see CANTICLES, 15 ; BATH-RABBIM). The comparison of the righteous to a well-watered garden (Is. 58 n) suggests that the writer was well acquainted with Babylonian canal irrigation. This resembles the imagery of Ps. 1 3, and similar language appears in Ecclesiasticus, where wisdom is compared to various trees (24 13^), as the cedar, palm, rose, olive, cinnamon, and so forth, and lastly to a garden canal 1 (v. jof.). The Book of Enoch, too, yields some illustrations of our subject. In 32s/! (Charles) we read, And I came into the garden of righteousness, and saw beyond those trees many large trees growing there, including the tree of wisdom of which Adam and Eve ate, and which was like the carob tree (see HUSKS). So in 61 12, we have the garden of life.

We may infer from these descriptions that rich men in the Persian and Greek periods delighted in their gardens (cp Susan. 4, 15). In the time of Josephus, Jerusalem w r as crowded with gardens and hedges outside its walls in the Gihon valley (?) which debouches into the Kidron (BJv. 22). In the midst of these Titus nearly lost his life. Probably the garden of GETH- SEMANE (q.v. ) was not remote from this spot.

Baruch 670 [69] (Ep. of Jeremy) gives us an additional feature of magic superstition noticed by the Hellenistic Jewish writer. Gardens (including parks as well as the homely cucumber field) were provided not only with keepers (cp HUT), but also with irpofia.ffKa.via. scare crows to ward off evil spirits and probably birds and beasts as well. O. C. w.


(JJH TV?), 2 K. 927. See BETH-HAGGAN.


P"I3, leprous, 66), the ITHRITE, one of David s heroes. <5 s readings are :

2 S. 2838 : yi)pa/3 6 teeevalos [B], yap7)0 6 reflpinj? [A], ya/Sep 6 teflefi [LI ; in I Ch. 11 40 : yapijojSai io#7)pi [B], yapjjojSe i. [K], yapi)/3 leflepi [A], y. 6 i0pi [L].


(3n| niHJ ; BOYNWN fARHB [BNAQ]), is named only in Jer. 31 39! as a landmark indicating the future great expansion of Jerusalem ; see GOATH. Possibly it is the hill described in Josh. 158 at the N. limit of the Plain of Rephaim (Buhl, 95). In this case, G-R-B may be transposed from G-B-R i.e. , Gibbor[im], a synonym of REPHAIM \_q.v. , >.].


(|-&plz[e]iN [VA]), 2 Mace. 623; RV GERIZIM.


RV rendering of IN?, fer, Is. 61 3 10 ; see TURBAN. EV rendering of o*, Acts 14 13; see CHAPLET.


(D D-V ; C KOpA<\ [BAF], -poAA [L], Nu. list) bears the same name in Heb. Syr. and Ar. , and its identity with Allium sativum, L. , or some kindred species is thus assured. Pliny s statement (xix. 632), alium cepasque inter deos in iureiurando habet ^Egyptus (cp Juv. Sat. 15), points at least to such plants being common in ancient Egypt, though, accord ing to Wilkinson (8350), there is no direct evidence from the monuments of their having been sacred. 2 It is not indigenous in W. Asia, but is a native of Zungaria, from which it must have been carried westward in pre historic times. N. M. W. T. T. -D.

1 Cp also 40 27, where the fear of the Lord is compared to a garden of blessing.

" De Candolle (Orig. 51) suggests that it was not represented because it was considered impure by the priests.


EV's rendering of (a) some general terms for dress viz., 1J3, bfged, Gen. 39 12.^; PU 1 ?, I bhul, JobSOiS; nayp, ma atch, Is. 613; n B>, &r/z, Ps. 736 (DRESS, i, 3), ID, madh, Lev. 6 10 ; ei/Sv/ua, Mt. 22 n (DRESS, 3) ; and also (b) of certain special articles of dress, ffnK, addcreth, Gen. 25 25 Josh. 7 2I (RV mantle ) ; nVlpb, ;///, Gen. 23 ; TO^B-, salntah, i K. 11 29 ; T". /aX.-7-z/t, Esth. 8 15 (RV robe ); ift.ari.ov Mt. 9 16, CTToATJ Mk. 16$ (RV robe ), e<70rjs Lk. 244 (RV apparel ), for all of which see, further, MANTLE. For runs, kuttoneth, 2 S. 13 18 etc., \ntav Jude 23, iroSTJprjs Rev. 1 13, see TUNIC. Cp, further, DRESS.


(^P")5n), the gentilic name applied to KEILAH in i Ch. 4 19, perhaps miswritten for Calebite C lbs); cp CARMI, i.

(s text in v. 19 evidently differed much from MT, though it is not easy to restore that text exactly, owing to the tran- scriptional errors (ara^tei [B], o rapjxi [A], 6 yap/aci [L], zmri [Pesh.]). T. K. C.


is used to render massab (H- SP, once -HMD massabah, i S. 14 12) in EV of i S. 1823 \liff. 2 S. 23 14. For n fl6 (3 i p) in i S. 10s 13 3 yC (see SAUL, 2 n.), 2 S. 8 6 14 2 Ch. 17 2 (E V garrison ), a preferable translation is officer (or the like) in spite of i Ch. 11 16 (where || 2 S. 23 14 has 3SO). Hhtsscib 3JfD Judg. 96 (RVmg. garrison ) is probably an in tentional alteration of H3SD pillar (EV), which rendering in RVofEzek. 2Qn(^y n UVD) is to be preferred to AV s strong garrisons (cp RV mg. obelisks ) ; see PILLAR, MASSEBAH. In 2 Cor. 1132 AV <poupe u) is rendered kept . . . with a garrison for which RV prefers guarded (cp Phil. 4 7). Cp, generally, FORTRESS.


([-AC [BA]), i Esd. 5 3 4 RV, AV GAR.


(IDC? !), Neh. 66. See GESHEM.


(DFW3 ; ro9OM [ADEL]), one of the sons of Eliphazin Gen. 36 n i Ch. 1 36 (yo[<a]0an [BA]) ; in Gen. 36 16 (yo9a [AL]) called a clan (read f]^K).


(TyB>, Id ar; nyAH, also TTyAcoN [BAFL] ; cp Bib. Aram. 1HR Dan. 249 3 26), used collectively of the whole structure, including posts (n lT-ITP, m^zusofA), and doors (IT? 1 !, ddleth), as well as the open space before it (PinS, ptihah, TTYAtON , -cp Josh. 264). The doors themselves (the dual, Dt. 85 etc., suggests that there were two) seem not to have been hinged to the posts but to have revolved upon pins in sockets. When closed they were kept secure by bolts or h#rs (rvi3, frrldh}, made of metal (i K. 413), but often of some destructible material (see Am. Is Nah. 813). For the denom. ij/itrla er, gate-keeper, see PORTER.

One of the exploits of Samson (Judg. 16:1-3) may be mentioned here. When lodging at Gaza the hero rose in the middle of the night and went to the gate of the city. There he laid hold of the doors of the city-gate and the two gate-posts, and pulled them up, together with the bar, and carried off the doors and th-: whole framework to the top of the hill facing Hebron 1 (say 40 m.). The origin of the story can here only be glanced at. We may have in it a mere practical joke in keeping with Samson s jovial character. But a connection with some early mythical phrase, misunderstood by later generations, is not excluded. The descent of Heracles to the gates of the nether world has been compared by Steinthal.2

The sanctity of gates is well known (cp THRESHOLD, 2) ; the gates of Babylon had their special names, and temples beside them. This partly explains why justice was administered in the gate (2 S. 102 Dt. 21 19 etc.), and this perhaps is how your gates came to be equivalent to your cities (Dt. 12 12 etc. ; cp Ps. 872, the gates of Zion || the dwellings of Jacob ). The gates were also symbolical of the might of the city gates of bronze such as could not easily be broken. Hence we read of the gates of Hades (Mt. 16 18) i.e. , the power of Hades (traditionally described as a city).

In NT Ovpa is translated gate, Acts 32 AV; but cp DOOR. The usual terms are rvA) (Lk. 7 12; cp the gate Beautiful, Acts 3 10), and ITV\<OV, the latter of a palace (Lk. 1620), house (Acts 10 17), or porch (Mt. 2671 ; cp COURT, PORCH).

Compare, further, CITY, 2 (b), DOOR, FORTRESS, 2, 5 ; JERUSALEM, TEMPLE.

1 Possibly, however, (as Che. suggests), Hebron should be Sharuhen (see GAZA, SHARUHEN).

2 Goldziher, Hebrew Mythology, i,o^f.


(H!, wine-press ; re9[BNAL]; Jos. PITTA; Vg. GETH], one of the five royal or princely cities of the Philistines (Josh. 183 18.617).

1. References.[edit]

The ethnic form is GITTITE ( M ; ytdaios [BAL]) ; see 2 S. 6io/. 15 18 etc. ; whether GITTITH in Ps. 8 (title) means Gittite, is disputed (see GITTITH). It is not assigned in Josh, to any of the Israelitish tribes, and in Josh. 11 22 (D) [@ B om. ] it is mentioned as inhabited by ANAKIM. The Philistine champion, Goliath, came from Gath ( i S. 17 4 etc. ), and David took refuge with Achish, king of Gath (i S. 21 10 [n] 272 j 1 see DAVID, s). 2 According to i Ch. 18 1 David took Gath and her towns out of the hand of the Philistines ; this state ment, however, may be based on a conjectural restora tion of a defective text (see METHEG-AMMAH). At any rate, a Gittite named Ittai was the leader of 600 men in the service of David (2 S. 15 18, emended text ; see ITTAI, i), and on one occasion had equal rank with Joab and Abishai (182). Rehoboam is said to have fortified Gath (2 Ch. 118) ; but Uzziah, according to 2 Ch. 266, found Gath still a Philistine city, and when warring against the Philistines broke down the wall of Gath. About fifty years earlier the Syrian king Hazael is said to have taken Gath as a preliminary to the siege of Jerusalem (2 K. 1217). In Am. 62 (a passage later than the time of Amos ; see AMOS, 6 b) reference seems to be made to another disaster that befell Gath a disaster similar to, and nearly contemporaneous with, that which befell Calneh in 738 and Hamath in 720. The presumption, therefore, is, that Gath, as well as Ashdod, was taken by Sargon in 711. This is indeed attested as a historical fact by Sargon himself, who says, Asdudu, Gimtu, Asdudimmu s I besieged, I conquered (Khorsabad inscr. , 104/1 ). That Gimtu ( =Gath) is here mentioned between Ashdod and the port of Ashdod (?) is probably no mere error of a scribe, but indicates that Gath then formed part of the Ashdodite territory (see ASHDOD). This may perhaps explain the fact that Amos (16-8), Zeph. (24), Jer. (? 47s), and II. Zech. (9 5 /I) make no mention of Gath among the Philistine cities ; it had fallen to a secondary position.

We also find Gath mentioned in a fragmentary context in 2 S. 21 20 22 (David s war with the Philistines). This derives plausibility from the fact that Goliath was certainly a Gittite. BA and Pesh. (Gra. ) also read Gath for Gob in v. 18 (<5 L rafefl), and Gratz would read Gath for Gob in v. 19 (see GOB).

Gath is referred to also in i S. 17 52 (cp ; see H. P. Smith), and in the elegy of David (2 S. 1 20), a reminiscence of which has produced the doubtless incorrect reading in Mic. 1 10, rc3 ITSH /N, Tell it not in Gath. (5 agrees in reading in Gath, and introduces a reference in the next clause to ot evaxeifi [Sw. oi fvaxeift.], the Anakim. Elhorst and Winckler (A T Unters. 185) would read ITJn Sx /37J3, in Gilgal rejoice not ; Cheyne, for the sake of geographical consistency, l7 JJjr7N il7J3, in Giloh rejoice not (JQR 10 5737: [ 98]).

Gath of Philistia (as Am. 6 2 calls it) is very probably referred to (as Kn-tu) in the Palestinian list of Thotmes III., nos. 63, 70, 93 (RPW 548 4 ), and (as Gimti and Ginti) in the Amarna tablets (1838a; 1856). Am. Tab. 183 8 a. will be referred to again (see GEZER, i ) ; it states that the warriors of Gazri (Gezer), Gimti (Gath), and Kilti (Keilah) have joined together to attack the land of Rubuti and of Urusalim (Jerusalem). The sites of Gazri, Kilti, and Urusalim are known ; those of Gimti and Rubuti have to be investigated. Gimti ought to lie between Gazri and Urusalim, and it ought to be not less important a fortress than these places.

1 On these and some other passages, however, see JUDAH,


2 Possibly, too, David took a wife from Gath (see HAGGITH).

3 So Wi. (Textbuch, 29) and Peiser (KB 2 67).

4 This can hardly be doubted. See WMM As. u. Eur. 393 (cp 159); E. Meyer, Glossen in SEgyptiaca, 73.

2. Site.[edit]

The biblical evidence with regard to the site of Gath is not as decisive as could be wished. The most definite passage is 2 Ch. Il6-io, where, in the list of the cities fortified by Rehoboam, Gath occurs after Soco and Adullam and before Mareshah and Ziph. If, however, the Chronicler means the Philistine Gath, one cannot help thinking that he is in error (Jos. seems to call this place fiira, or lira.) ; such an error might account for the name Betogabra borne by Eleutheropolis at a later time (see ELEUTHEROPOLIS, i). Such a name as Wine-press-town, however, may surely have been borne by more than two places in S. Palestine. Conder speaks of a large ruin called Jenneta, S. of Bet Jibrin, which he proposes for the Kn-tu in the list of Thotmes III. (no. 70). From i S. 17 52 (RV GAI [q.v.]} we gather simply that Gath lay more inland than Ekron.

The notices of Eus. and Jer. (OST 2 ) 244 20, 127 15) are so con fused that we are driven to suppose that they had no exact knowledge of the site of the Philistine city. Josephus (Ant.v. 1 22) places Gath within the tribe of Dan, and couples it with Jamnia ; the Crusaders actually identified the two places.

At present there are two sites which have been de fended by geographers of repute. M. Clermont-Ganneau (PEFQ, July 99, p. 204) has lately revived the theory of Thomson (LB, 564) and Tristram (Bible Places) that Gath, Eleutheropolis, and Bet Jibrin are the same place. The most plausible argument is derived from the name Moresheth-Gath (Mic. 114), which is thought to suggest that Mareshah was a suburb of Gath. Mareshah, however, was no mere suburb; and if Gath in Mic. 1 14 is correct, we must regard it, with Wellhausen (A7. /V0//U 1 ), as a vocative, and render Therefore must thou, O Gath, give farewell gifts to Moresheth. More probably, however, ru is a corruption of m (cp Che. JQR 10576 /., and see MORASTHITE).

There is only one site that seems to meet all the requirements of the case ; it is worth mentioning, even if Dr. Bliss s excavations should one day prove it to be the wrong one. It is Tell es-Sdfiyeh^ (collis clarus, William of Tyre), the Blanco, guarda of the Crusaders, a tall white cliff 300 ft. above the valley of Elah, 18 m. from Ashkelon, 12 from Ashdod, and 6 from Eleu theropolis. J. L. Porter made a careful topographical study of Philistia in 1858 with the result that he con vinced himself of the claims of Tell es-Safiyeh to be the ancient Gath. Some of our best geographers have followed him, though others prefer to keep Tell es-Safiyeh for the Mizpeh of Josh. 1638. The objection of Sir C. Warren (Hastings, DB2ma) that the sites of other Philistine fenced cities do not present any natural features capable of defence, does not seem decisive. The disappearance of Gath from history is surely not more surprising than many other sudden blows to flourishing fortified cities.

The site, says Porter, is a most commanding one, and would form, when fortified, the key of Philistia. It is close to the mountains of Judah. The Tell is about 200 ft. high, with steep sides, now in part terraced for vineyards Gath signifies a wine press. On the summit are the foundations of an old castle, probably that built, or rebuilt, by the Crusaders ; and all around the hill are great quantities of old building stones. On the NE. is a projecting shoulder, and the declivities below it appear to have been scarped. Here stands the modern village. Its houses are all composed of ancient materials, and around it are ruins and fragments of columns. In the sides of the hill, especially towards the S., a great number of cisterns have been excavated in the limestone rock (Kino s Bibl. Cycl.1^\ cp Porter, Handbk.forSandP, 252).

Dr. Bliss s first report of his exploration of Tell es-Safiyeh (PEFQ, July 99) leaves it quite uncertain whether Gath was, or was not, on this interesting and important site. Inscriptions, however, such as will determine the point, may be reasonably hoped for. Dr. Bliss states ( Second Report, PEFQ, Oct. 99) that the boundary of the ancient city on the S., E., and W. has been determined by the discovery of a massive rampart. The town was irregular in shape, measuring about 400 yds. in maximum length and about 200 yds. in maximum breadth, and thus contained a space about six times the size of the fort on Tell Zakarlya (Azekah?). The city walls are 12 ft. thick ; they are built without mortar, like those at Tell Zakariya, but are twice as thick and twice as high ; they are preserved in places to a height of 33 ft., and show a system of buttresses regularly spaced. They rest not on the rock, but on some 6 ft. to 10 ft. of debris, which is characterised by very early pre-Israelitish pottery. As their massive foundations must have been sunk in a considerable quantity of soil, we gather that they were not erected much before Jewish times. The gate has still to be found. At the NE. of the Tell, at a depth of from 18 to 20 ft., has been discovered what appears to be a primitive sanctuary, with three standing stones, or menhirs, surrounded by a rude enclosure (cp WRS Rel. Se>n.W 200^); it is shown by the pottery to belong to what Dr. Bliss calls the later pre-Israelite period. It is unnecessary to give details of minor discoveries. It is much to be regretted that the position of the village and the cemeteries prevents a complete examination of the site of Tell es-Safiyeh, which must certainly have been occupied by a fortress long before the appearance of the Israelites and the Philistines.

T. K. C.

1 Clermont-Ganneau states that the locality figures upon the mosaic map of Medeba under the Greek name of Saphitha, a name which shows that it was still flourishing during the Byzan tine period {PEFQ, Oct. 99, p. 359).


(-|E>nn HS ; peGxoBep [B], reQ O(bp& [L] : C P HEPHER), a place on the border of Zebulun, where the prophet Jonah was born (2 K. 1425, peG (\\oBep [ A 3). mistakenly called GITTAH-HEPHER in AV of Josh. 19i 3 (RV, Gath-hepher ; r eBepe [B], r<Mee& [A], reee&e (}>ep [L]} ; Jerome (Procem. in Jon.) says that the tomb of Jonah was shown in his day at the small village (haud grandis viculits) of Geth, 2 R. m. from Sepphoris on the road to Tiberias. In Talm. Jer. (Shgbi ith 6 i) the place is called Hepher 1 ; a disciple of the school of Sepphoris could live at Hepher, because the two places were not 12 m. apart. Benjamin of Tudela (iath cent.) states that the tomb of Jonah lay on a mountain near Sep phoris. These data seem to point to the village of el- Mcshhed, about 3 m. NE. from Nazareth and 2 E. by S. from Sepphoris, where a tomb of Jonah is shown ; the place lies between Yafa (Japhia) and Rummaneh (Rimmon), as Gath-hepher did, according to Josh. 19 12/.

T. K. C.


(jiDTTia). i. A Danite town (Josh. 1945, ye6pe/j.fj.wv [BAL]), assigned to the Levites (Josh. 2l2 4 , yeefpffJi/J-uv [B]). On the apparent mis- statement of i Ch. 654 [ 6 9] (yfOwpuv [B]) see DAN, 8. Gath-rimmon must have lain a little to the E. of Joppa. In OS 246 59 it is placed between Diospolis and Eleutheropolis ; but this is too far S. A yedOa (Gath), however, is mentioned (OS 246 73) as situated between Antipatris and Jamnia, and as otherwise called yi.6da.tJ.. Knobel suggests that this may be the GITTAIM of the OT ; and our Gath-rimmon. There is a city called Giti-rimu[nu?] in Am. Tab. 16445-

2. A miswritten name in text of Josh. 21 25 (le^afla [B], /3ai0cra [A], but ye6penfj.<av [L]). Gath-rimmon occurs in v. 24. The true reading must be either Beth-shean (jKBT) a)i which is supported by B ( Nn ij) and A (JJBTV:)), or . less probably, Bileam (i Ch. 6 55 [70]) i.e., IBLEAM [?.z>.]. Dillmann prefers the latter ; but we want a compound name corresponding to Gath-rimmon. jKB.-jv3 can easily have become pcM-ru. Beth- shean and Ibleam are both mentioned in Josh. 17 n.

T. K. C.

1 Neub. Gtogr. du Taint. 201.




(oi r-AAAT&i [VA]), i Mace. 82 2 Mace. 820 RV; RV m - in 2 Mace, and AV GALATIANS. See GALATIA, 32.


in Is. 4022, RV m &- rendering of pi, dik ; EV CURTAIN. The Hebrew word is doubtful ; Ka^dpa, suggesting gpj (Klo., Che. SBOT), whilst Aq., Symm., Theod. have \firr6v (p ! l)-

GAZA / AZZAH[edit]

[g.v.] (HW; fAZA [BAL]; Ass. tfa-zi-ti, Ha-az-zu-iu, Ha-(az)-za-at-tu ; Eg. Ga-da-tu [WMM "As. . Eur. 159] ; Gentilic ,fWBn, O I-AZ&IOC C BAL ] J sh - 13 3 ^ Qazathites, RV Gazites).

1. OT references.[edit]

The most southern (2 K. 188) of the five chief cities of Philistia (i S. 617 ; cp Zeph. 2 4 Zech. 9 5), mentioned in the lists of Rameses II. and III. (RP^ 62741). In primitive times it was the S. limit of the AVVIM [i] (Dt. 223), and afterwards was regarded as the most southern point of Palestine (Judg. 64; cp Gen. lOig), and of the province W. of the Euphrates (i K. 424 [64] [@ BAL omit]).

According to Judg. 1 18 (yaep [A*vid]) it was conquered by the tribe of Judah ; but this verse is inconsistent with v. 19, and is based on a misunderstood gloss (see Budde s note). In Josh. 15 47 (R) Gaza is assigned to Judah; but this late passage has no historical authority. The enigmatical AVVA (AV AVA) in 2 K. 17 24, and IVVAH in 2 K. 18 34 19 13 Is. 37 13, should very possibly be Azzah = Gaza (,-jij; for my). See AVVA.

Gaza is mentioned once again in Judges (161-3) ; the passage has a twofold interest, legendary (see GATE) and topographical. An error has made its way into the text, which can perhaps be corrected ; this we shall reserve for the close of the article. The next reference of interest (for i K. 424 [64] is late and unimportant) is concerned with Hezekiah s victory over the Philistines as far as Gaza" (2 K. 188). This victory is probably connected with the circumstance that Hezekiah sym pathised with Ashdod in its rebellion against Assyria (713-711 B.C.), whereas Gaza remained quiet. Heze kiah s success against Gaza, however, was not lasting, for in 701 Sennacherib transferred a part of the territory of Judah to his faithful vassal Sil-Bel (?) of Gaza. 1 This strong city, however, had not always been so devoted to Assyria. In 734 B.C. Hanun sought, though in vain, to resist Tiglath-pileser, and in 720 Sargon in his turn had to take the field against this same king. How ill Hanun fared at the battle of Raphia is well known (see SARGON).

What happened to Gaza we are not told ; but if the emendation of 2 K. 1834, etc., proposed above be accepted, Sargon carried away the idols of Gaza, or, at any rate, introduced Asur as the supreme deity. (The local deity of Gaza was called Marna, Lord or our Lord. ) So much at any rate would be implied by the words, Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad of Sepharvaim and of Azzah [Gaza] ? Regardful of its commerce, Gaza seems from this time forward to have been punctual in its payment of tribute. Nabuna id says that all his vassals as far south as Gaza contributed to the building of the temple at Harran (555 B.C.).

In the prophets there are three references to Gaza. Of these, Am. 16/. is the only one that is undoubtedly genuine. Gaza is there threatened with punishment for delivering up Hebrew slaves to Edom, a country with which it naturally had close trade relations. Zeph. 24-6 is without a historical point of contact, and may there fore be a late insertion, framed on old models (see ZEPHANIAH ii. ) ; so also Jer. 47 1-7 (where the heading is late; only Q m s- of (5 has ydfav), and Zech. 9s (see JEREMIAH ii. ; ZECHARIAH ii. ). Herodotus, writing probably in the time of Nehemiah, calls the city of Gaza jcaSi/Tij ; he says that it seemed to him not inferior to Sardis (3s). 2

2. Later history.[edit]

In the NT there is one reference to Gaza ( 3) ; but before referring to it we must briefly sketch the later history of the city. Its name means 'the strong' ; and this strength is illustrated by its resistance for five months (332 B.C. ) to the powerful engines employed by Alexander in besieging it (Arrian, Alex. 226 f. ; Q. Curt. iv. 67) ; Strabo (as quoted next col. , n. 5) states that it was destroyed at this time, and that it remained deserted until his day. If, however, Strabo wrote this, he committed an error, for Gaza was a strong place in the wars of the Ptolemies and Seleucidoe, and is mentioned as such in the story of Jonathan the Maccabee (i Mace. 11 6i/". ). 3 It was razed to the ground by the fierce Alexander Jannaeus after a year s siege (Ant. xiii. 183). Gabinius, governor of Syria, rebuilt it (Ant. xiv. 63) ; Augustus gave it to Herod (Ant. xv. 7s), after whose death it was annexed to the province of Syria (Ant. xvii. 114). In 65 A.D. it was destroyed by the Jews (BJ ii. 18i), but soon recovered. Mela (temp. Claudius) calls it ingens urbs et munita admodum ; Eusebius (O5< 2 ) 242 62) says that it even now remains, a notable city of Palestine. The most southern fortress of the Crusaders, however, was not Gaza, but Daroma, i.e. , Der el- Balah, S. of Gaza, near the Egyptian frontier. 1 See further, GASm. HG 187-189.

1 Taylor cylinder, 3 25 ; cp Wi. GI 1 220 f.

2 On the Kadytis of Herod. 2 1513 see JOSIAH, 2.

3 In i Mace. 1843, too, the MSS read Gaza. See, however, GAZARA.

3. Acts 8:26 examined.[edit]

We now turn to the much-disputed passage, Acts 8:26. As Philip was starting to meet the Ethiopian eunuch, an angel said to him, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza : the same is desert (so RV) avrrj earlv tprj/j.os. Many commentators (e.g. , Holtzmann and Blass) suppose one of the roads from Jerusalem to Gaza to be meant. This view is best supported by Robinson (&J? 2640^).

The most frequented at the present day, although the longest, is the way by Ramleh. Anciently, there appear to have been two more direct roads ; one down the great Wady es-Sarar by Beth-shemesh, and then passing near Tell es-Safiyeh ; the other to Gaza through a more southern tract. Both these roads exist at the present day ; and the latter now actually passes through the desert ; that is, through a tract of country without villages, inhabited only by nomadic Arabs.

It is not, however, the most natural interpretation of avnj early eprj^os that these remarks presuppose. If the phrase were rj ea-riv eprifjio ;, Robinson s view would be very much more plausible. We could not, indeed, illustrate by Arrian s words (bk. 3, p. 211) referring to the time of Alexander, eprjju.i]v S flvai Tt]V oSov SCavvSpiav (quoted by Wetstein), because the narrator expressly says that there was water to be found on the road,- so that the eunuch could be baptized.

The word this (avT/?), however, must surely mean Gaza, 3 not the road to Gaza, and then the difficulty arises that Gaza in the time of Philip was (as we have seen) a large and flourishing city. Hug s explanation that the words avTt] K.T.\. refer to the destruction of Gaza by the Jews in 65 A.D. , mentioned by Josephus (BJ ii. 18 1), is forced ; what object would the notice serve? It has often been held (e.g. , by Erasmus) that after Old Gaza had been destroyed, the new city was built on another site. G. A. Smith (HG 187) defends this with much plausibility. He thinks that the road to Egypt passed by the deserted Gaza, not by the new city, which was nearer the sea (but does not this involve an unnatural use of avrrj ?). And even if old Gaza were not absolutely deserted in Philip s time even if the fine position had drawn people back, yet the name ^p7;/xos might stick to it. Evidently this is not quite satisfactory. If Gaza were characterised at all, some other epithet than gpr)fj.os would have been used, at least if the notice avrrj K.r.X. comes from the writer of Acts. But does it really come from that writer ?

From Beza's time to our own the words have repeatedly been viewed as a gloss, and it can hardly be denied that the clearness of the narrative gains by their omission. Schmiedel 4 suggests that they may have a purely literary origin, and be the marginal note of a man who knew, perhaps from Strabo, 5 that Gaza had been destroyed, and wondered that the road to a deserted city should be mentioned.

The only alternative to treating the words as a gloss seems to be to suppose a lacuna in the text, and to read avTT] iffrl TT\-r)ffiov rrjs tpr}fj.ov, the same is near the desert (whence the Ethiopian eunuch comes).

1 Conder, PEFQ, 1875, p. 160.

2 Robinson (/>/i 2641) suggests that the water in the Wady el-Hesy may he intended. There is no such water in the second part of the road by Bet Jihrin, which from its directness comes first into consideration. In the time of Eus. the spring connected with the story was on the road to Hebron. Since 1483 A.D. a well in the Valley of Roses near 'Ain Karim has been pointed out by tradition.

3 So Wetstein, who thinks that the narrator remarks the coincidence that the prefect of the treasure (yaa) was on the road to Gaza. He also quotes ancient authors who state that Gaza was so named from its riches.

4 Theol. Z. aus tier Schweitz, 98, p. 50 f.

5 Strabo xvi. 2 30, eVSofo. wore ytvoftivn, Kareo irao /xe.T) 8 VTTO AAefdi/Spov, cal jieVovcra. epr)nos. The correctness of the last three words, however, is disputed. Jos. (BJ ii. 18 i) remarks that when Gabinius rebuilt Gaza, it had been long time desert. 1

4. Site, etc.[edit]

From its position as the last town on the road to Egypt Gaza was bound to be a place of importance (cp GASm. HG 184). Even now it has tolerable bazaars, resorted to by native travellers.

The modern town (Ghazza) consists of four quarters, resembling so many large villages. Of these, one stands on the flat top of a hill, whilst the others are on the plain below ; l The hill, within which no doubt are the ruins of successive cities, is crowned by the great mosque which was originally a Christian church, built by the Crusaders out of ancient materials. The town has no walls ; but the sites of gates remain, and one of them (see below) is actually shown as that of the gate famous in the story of Samson (GATE). Broad, yellow sandhills separate Gaza from the sea ; the sand is steadily encroaching on the cultivated ground. However, between the sand and a long ridge of low hills parallel to the coast the fertile soil produces abundance of the choicest fruit and vegetables. A large and magnificent olive grove, said to be of great antiquity, stretches to the northward ; orchards of fruit and palm trees encompass the suburbs. 2

The exact site of ancient Gaza is doubtful. It is certain, however, that the town stood on a hill in the time of Alexander, and this hill may have been that on which the main part of the modern Gaza stands.

Broad mounds, says Conder, surround this eminence, and appear in the middle of the buildings. The ruins among the sandhills seem to be those of the ancient Majumas or port. A beautiful garden of lemons, surrounded by a mound, seems to mark the site of this second town ; near it is a ruined jetty on the seashore. 3

Samson s gate, referred to above, is on the SE. , and, riding farther for a mile, we come to the hill of el- Muntar, which commands a wide view over the whole plain away to the distant mountains that encircle Hebron. It is the highest point in the ridge of hills on the E. , and is pointed out as the hill (inn) to which Samson carried the gate. Porter and Conder accept this as the real site. Gautier, too (Souv. 128), thinks that el-Muntar must be the mound which the biblical narrator had in view. But how should the giant have got tired so soon ? and how can before Hebron mean looking towards the distant Hebron mountains ? Hebron, however, is an improbable reading. The Danite champion would naturally keep to the SW. of Palestine. Probably the true reading in Judg. 16s is before Sharuhen, not before Hebron. On the site of Sharuhen, or Shaaraim, see SHARUHEN.

Besides the works referred to, see Reland, Pal. 788 jf. ; Guerin, Judte ; Stark, Gaza ( 52); Gardner, Index % 11% ff.\ Gautier, Souvenirs, i66_^ (t 2 ) 98, pp. 114-134); Gatt in ZDPV 10 149 ( 88), (plan of Gaza). T. K. C.


RV AZZAH (ITU? ; i Ch. 728 ; so in most printed Bibles). There is much variation ; ,TJ? (cp EPHRAIM, 13) and my ; njny and mjnj? are also sup ported. RV m e- (following Gi. , Ba. ) gives AYYAH (.vp ; yaiav [B], yafrs [A], [KCU] adia [L]). The Philis tine Gaza cannot be meant. The text may be corrupt.