Encyclopaedia Biblica/Issachar-Janna

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



("DB^?: [e]iCC<\XAp [BAL], some- times ic&X^P [B* b F] ; in Rev. 7 7 some MSS ic&CX&P Jos. ic&x&pHC ; on the name see below, 3, 6 end), apparently the name borne by the inhabitants of the tract lying between the highlands of Ephraim on the S. and those of Naphtali on the N. ; between the lowlands of Zebulun on the NW. and the deep Jordan valley on the E.

1. Rarely mentioned.[edit]

Issachar finds prominent mention in the present text of the battle-song in Judg. 5. It would be natural that the brunt of the struggle should fall there. It is noteworthy, however, that whilst Josh 21:23 ^ (1 ch. 6:72 [57]) assigns Daberath to Issachar, Josh. 19:12 places it on the border of Zebulun. Moreover, in the passage where Issachar is mentioned in Judg. 5 the text is uncertain. There is no quite unambiguous evidence that Deborah or Daberath (whether a person l or a town) 2 or Barak, belonged to Issachar (see DEBORAH, 2 f.). Can there have been a desire to suppress the name of Issachar? It is not quite impossible. The writer to whom is due the enumeration of tribes summoned by Gideon (Judg. 6 35) and of tribes that gathered together to pursue Midian (7 23), if rightly represented by MT, 3 omits Issachar the very tribe which, one would suppose, would be most intimately concerned, and (if we suppose that Purah is a corruption of Puah; see GIDEON, i n. ) may have supplied Gideon with his attendant. Similarly, Issachar is allowed no part in the fight described in Judg. 4. Still more strange, perhaps, is the omission of the same tribe from the list of those summarily told of in the latter part of Judg. 1 {4} Moreover in the Blessing of Jacob the reference to Issachar is rather disparaging, and in both the Blessings Issachar yields precedence to Zebulun, although in Gen. 30 Issachar is the elder of the brothers. Is all this accidental ? Or can a reason be found ?

1 Moore, Budde, and others.

2 C. Niebuhr; Wi. C/2i26.

3 Of course the text may be corrupt ; see GIDEON, i, where it is proposed to read Issachar in the Gideon story for Asher (Judg. 635).

4 We. C//2I5 suggests that Issachar may have been included in Joseph ; Bu. (RiSa 44 Jf.) and Moore (Judg. 49) suggest that it was omitted through accident or design in abridgment.

2. Special cults?[edit]

Issachar's being a Leah-tribe associates it with Zebulun (cp the connexion of the two in Dt. 33:18-19), and they are mentioned together in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5:14-15): their territories were contiguous. What is noteworthy, however, is that the Blessing of Moses connects the tribes not as comrades in war (as in Judg. 5) but as guardians of a great religious fair (Dt. 33:18-19.); as if they had formed a northern confederation like that of Shechem which had its religious centre, according to Winckler (GI 2 56), on Shechem's sacred mountain. On what mountain such a gathering of northern clans may have been held does not appear ; possibly on Tabor (Herder, Graf, Steuernagel ?) or Carmel (Knobel, Bertholet). Nor have we any clue as to the deity who was thus honoured, unless we can venture to find a veiled hint in a well-known story connected with the birth of Issachar and Zebulun.

Reuben found duda'im (see MANDRAKE). These naturally belonged to Leah, the fruitful mother ; but Rachel bartered for a share. Issachar and Zebulun were born to Leah, Joseph to Rachel. Whatever be the meaning of Reuben's being assigned to Leah (see REUBEN), the tribe was mixed up with GAD [g.v. 3]. Now Mesha tells us (/. 12) that when he took Ataroth from Gad he carried off mn VNIN, which implies a cult of some kind. The Gadite cult may have been shared by Reuben : unless, indeed, 'Reuben' in Gen. 30:14 was originally Gad, whose birth has just been told of (v. u) : Gad could be called Leah's son. If there underlies the story of the duda'im the fact of an old cult, it is a little difficult to extricate it naturally ; but it is noteworthy that the Issacharite tribal hero Tola, or his clan Puah, is said to be 'son of Dodo' (nn I the text of the passage, however, is doubtful ; see 7).

3. Name.[edit]

It seems certain that popular etymology connected the name Issachar with the Hebrew root 13:?, wages (cp the gloss 6 eaTl /xtcrflos [BAL] and Jos. K fjLicrdov vevo/j.evo i) and in J's form of the theory the hire had to do with the mandrakes (Gen. 30:15). 1 It has been thought that religious ideas some times led to the omission of certain tribe-names (cp GAD, 2). If the omission of Issachar was intentional, the reason may have been political (see below, 4); but implications involved in the 'Duda' story might be enough. Or if the connection of the name with an Egyptian god Sokar (which is in fact one of the alternatives proposed by C. J. Ball, SBOT on Gen. 30:18; see below, 6) was held by some in ancient times, it is barely possible that this may have been disadvantageous to the tribe.

The first syllable of Issachar may possibly have been taken by J to be the Hebrew word ty N (so We. TBS, p. v, also 95^, and Ball, op. cit.), the whole name being explained as 'man of hire'. Another popular explanation may have been "I3b t? _ (cp Jer. 31 16 = 2 Ch. 15 7 Eccles. 4 9) ; perhaps also -\3\ff ND 1 ]. 2 The theory that the name is compound is not impossible (cp 6). Many modern writers, however, incline to the view that it is simple. 3 Thus Ball compares the Arabic ashkar ; 4 Nestle (AJSL 13 I75./C [ 97]) seems to favour Wellhausen s comparison of the Nabataean name 2axpt)A.-os, 5 and Cheyne thinks Issachar is a popular corruption of Yizrah[el] ([^idmr), which he has suggested as perhaps the original of Israel (^Kitr) and of Jezreel (^Njnr) ( see JACOB, 6) : Jezreel lies on the borders of Issachar. On the second part of the name see further, below.

1 In E Leah gave up her handmaid to Jacob (v. 18).

2 The name appears in the consonantal text invariably as nDB C". This is printed IJtJ D", that is with the Kre -|3j" ; but in different authorities occur the following five other forms : " | 5 e ? ! (without daghesli), IDC tr, "OBT , ~W?V\, ~ 1 ?? ^! > on which see Ginsburg, Introd. 250-254 (cp Baer-Del. Gen. 84yC).

3 The view that the second & was meant to show that the \y is

?, not jjt, is supported by Nestle (AJSL 13 175^, Trans. IX Or.

Cong. 2 62) who, however, believes that the & was really y. The double y may, however, be due to Volksetymologie.

4 Sorrel, or reddish-brown of horses (cp Lane, ad voc., Wi. (7/2281, n. i); cp Gen. 49 140, and note the derivation cf "lirn ( see Ass). The phonetic equivalent of Issachar in Arabic \s~yaskur, which occurs as a tribal name (see, e.g., Yakut 8288 /. 14) ; cp SNI^B" in a Minaean inscription from Mada" in Sft eh (DHM Ep. Denk. no. xxv. /. 4 ; see further Miiller s note, p. 48).

5 Heid.( l ) 3, n. 5 ; 2nd ed. omits.

4. Share in history.[edit]

If we judged by appearances we should conclude that in historical times Issachar played no important part. Some of the kings of Israel, however, appear to have been men of Issachar.

There seems to be no sufficient reason to doubt that one of the older sources of Kings called Baasha son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar (i K.. 15:27). 1 Of the origin of Omri nothing is said ; but that he also was of Issachar is for several reasons not improbable. 2 If then there is anything in the notion that there was a tendency to avoid mentioning Issachar (see above, 1-3) it might be suggested that under the Jehu dynasty it became the fashion to disparage the house of Issachar. It would not be strange if this were so. On the other hand Jehu himself may have belonged to the house of Issachar. 3

That would be the most natural explanation of his being called in inscriptions of Shalmaneser II. son of Omri (KAT f iSgyC 208) ; note also the phrase 'statutes of Omri' (Mic. 6:16 ; see OMRI, i). However that may be, Jehu was a trusted general of Ahab and Jehoram. The last king of the line was slain near Ibleam. Jehu's father s name is given as Jehoshaphat, the name (not a common one) of the governor of Issachar in the list in i K. 4, wherein MT(z;. 1 7) he is said to be son of Paruah, but Paruah should probably rather be Puah, the Issachar clan. 4 Jehu is oftener, however, called son of Nimshi. This is obscure ; but if we may explain it on the analogy of the Punic cjij || to a WIJi Nimshi would imply the cult of a god &, which might be the same as that referred to in the Issacharite BAASHA [y.v.]. 5

On the other hand Jehu may have been a southerner.

There are not lacking features of his policy that would fit in with such a theory (see JEHU, 2), and Nimshi may have been a southern name (cp Abishai, Amasa ; and, for the first part of the name, Naomi and Elnaam [i Ch. 1146]).

5. Geographical conditions.[edit]

Whether the dynasties of Omri and Jehu were from Issachar or not - and the saying in Gen. 49:14 suggests that Issachar supplied, rather than employed, gangs of labourers there - were not wanting influences that might have enabled men of that tribe to take a leading place. If nature has manifestly set Esdraelon in the arms of Samaria, 6 it has also assigned it a different lot. Commenting on the Blessing of Issachar (Gen. 49i4) G. A. Smith says (p. 383) 'To the highlander looking down upon it, Esdraelon is room to stretch in and be happy'. The most important point, however, is that the plain of Megiddo is the natural route from Sharon to the Jordan. From the earliest times it contained the sites of fortress towns (see ESDRAELON). Though its connection with Ephraim and with Gilead was very close, we have no hint how it became connected with Israel ; perhaps in self-defence against the inroads of the still unsettled peoples of the east ; or in connection with some other great struggle.'

1 <5 A s OIKOV ei<ra\ap, indeed, may not be strong evidence confirmatory of MT ; but B need not be opposed really. /SeAoai/ o vios a^eta may be a dittograph of /3<xa<ra v. a. due to homoio- teleuton (O.VTOV . . . OIKOV) (the Yap of <S B s f\apafv [e^apaxuxrev (L)] for TraT of A s errara^ec looks oddly like the end of icrcraxcxp). L adds lo-cra^ap of MT after peSSa^a (^ |3eAaa of <S *).

2 He was chief general under the house of Issachar, and we are not told his origin. It is plain that Ahab had a palace at Jezreel (although which was in Jezreel in i K. 21 i may be an insertion [ om.]), which continued to be the home of the family. The original owner of the hill of Samaria may have been an Issacharite (cp the clan of Shimron). It should not be ignored that in the Chronicler's list of Davidic tribal princes, the prince of Issachar is called Omri (i Ch. 27 18). Naturally in such a list (cp Gray, HPNi%$f. 188), no stress can be laid on this ; but traditional names do occur in the list : see Ephraim, Benjamin. (By a strange coincidence the plain of Megiddo is now called Merj ibn "Amir.) Here might be mentioned also the Phoenician policy of the house of Omri. Cp Smith, DBP) 1487^, Guthe, f;^7i 3 8.

3 Still, one of his house was called Jeroboam.

4 The T may be from -\y> which perhaps stood between niB and 13B C", asin B vio<ovaomi6i i<7craxap(z.. ) ;ns? WB p)> and practically in (S L u. jSapcraoux (/.*., nWI^ ?2 = 1B WS )3) fv icrcr.

8 If the Jehu dynasty also belonged to the house of Issachar a political reason for the rise of a fashion of disparaging Issachar is hard to find.

6 GASm. //C37Q.

7 Guthe (GVf 73), who accepts i S. 11 as it stands, infers from Saul's choosing Bezek as mustering place (iS. 118) that he counted on drawing from Issachar and the northern tribes. Bezek, however, is just opposite Jabesh, and Winckler s argu ment ((7/2i58, etc.), that Saul was a Jabeshite (cp SAUL), is certainly plausible. Even if it were to be held, with Cheyne, that Jabesh-gilead is a corruption of some other name, Guthe s inference is not conclusive : the mention of Bezek might be a consequence of the corruption (see SAUL, i, near end).

6. Prehistoric times.[edit]

It appears that at one time the plain of Megiddo was pretty completely under the power of the Philistines. 1 At least the Zakkar ( ! ) (Ta-[k]-ka-ra-[y]), who were associated with them had firmly established themselves at Dor in the 12th century. 2 Who the people were who suffered from these intruders we are not told. It might be supposed that they would hardly be Israelites, who probably settled first in the highlands ; that the strangers would be interested merely or mainly in the trade-routes and the cities lying on them, and that it was from them that these were won by Israel. That may be so. The struggle, echoes of which we find in Judg. 5, may conceivably have had this very result. No more, however, can we be sure that the land was found in the undisturbed possession of Canaanites. We hear of the district first in the time of Thotmes III. and it was thereafter more or less continually in the power of Egypt or contesting that power. The Amarna correspondence, however, shows us not only the open country but also the towns (e.g. Megiddo [A7?5i93]) threatened by the Habiri. The one thing that seems to be clear is that the population must have been even more than usually mixed. 3

It is not impossible that some Egyptians might remain when Egypt finally withdrew. At least, there would be natives or settlers who had been attached to them in one capacity or another, especially mercenaries. The Egyptian derivation of the name Issachar referred to above ( 3), therefore, is perhaps not quite impossible. Issachar is the only name of the twelve tribes (besides Naphtali) from which no gentilic is formed in the OT,* which makes it not improbable that it is a compound name. The Moabites knew a neighbouring people as Ish-gad (see GAD, i). It may be, then, that there was in the Gilboa district a community known to their neighbours by some such name as Is-sachar i.e. , the men of the god Sakar as Ish-gad were the men of the god Gad (GAD, i/ ). 5

Another theory (Che. Crit. Bib.) not open in the same way to the objection referred to below, regards nac B" as a popular euphonic adaptation of a primitive tribal name Ish-heres(mnE") man of the sun ; cp the place-name Beth-shemesh (Josh. 19 22); but the author of this theory prefers the explanation Yizrah [el] mentioned above ( 3, end).

The difficulty (referred to above) in the way of supposing that Issachar contains a reference to a god Sokar, is that, although, according to the Sakkara list, a king of the second dynasty (the Sesokhris of Manetho) bore a name compounded with that of this deity, and such compounds were favourites (Erman, Anc. Eg. 159) in the old empire (cp Seker-h a-ba u ; Lieblein, Diet, de notns hieroglyghiqnes, no. 1359 and others), there does not appear to be any evidence that the name of this god was used in forming proper names outside of Egypt.

It is true the letters SKR (TDD) occur in several proper names at Carthage : a god -taJoaiBn (CIS\ 253 [254] ; cp -QD D Ian in a Maktar inscr., Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, 1 49); n3DD~)3 (CIS 1 267 372 ; Eut. 152) ; but in each case 120 s preceded by O, and the name l3QO~l3y ( n a Sidon inscription : Rev. if Ass. II. 3, p. 76 [ 91]) seems to show that the divine name is not 12D but T3DD- Nor is the name ^jmjDi a so at Carthage (CfS 1 1218 1354), decisive. There does not seem to be any unambiguous case of ^jja preceded by a divine name. 130 is therefore probably, as elsewhere, for -|jt (so Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, 1 36). We find a Sacar (-12:?) in i Ch. 11 35, as father of David's hero Ahiam the HARARITE (of Arad? Adora?); but in 2 S. 23 33 Sacar becomes Sharar. See also ISHSECHEL.

In i Ch. 26 5 a certain Issachar is seventh son of Obed-edom ; but there may be dittography : IDB B" B E n. Similarly in the case of Sacar, the fourth son (v. 4) : nobl VTlbt

1 This statement may stand even if it should be held that the people referred to in the original form of the story in Sam. as holding Israel in subjection were not the Philistines. See SAUL, 4, and ZAREPHATH, where other related changes in the reading of the traditional story are proposed.

2 WMM, MTAG, looo, i. ; cp DOR.

3 Guthe thinks that Issachar and Zebulun came from across Jordan, and probably were pushed into their later seats by Joseph when it followed (frVl 50). Cp 8, end.

4 In the case of notfts" tf K, however, in Judg. 10, it is just possible that a final > has been lost before the following Nim. Otherwise we must insert D (Moore), or substitute it for B^N, before -gw- It is difficult, at all events, to follow Budde (ad loc.) in regarding the text as sound. Nu. 25s 14, which he cites, do not seem to be really parallel, the meaning there is the Israelite ; here it is an Issacharite. See, further, the article cited below, next col. n. 3.

8 Of the Egyptian god Sakar not very much is known. His name is met with chiefly in combination, as Ptah-Sokar, or

7. Later history; genealogies.[edit]

The later history of Issachar is obscure (cp SCYTHIANS). How few people are expressly said to have belonged to Issachar has been noted already ( 4, begin.). For an interesting case see SHUNAMITE, SHULAMITE ; for a tradition regarding N. Israel's great prophet, see HOSEA, 9. With Belemoth, the name of his supposed birthplace, cp LXXs Baithemoth mentioned below, 8.

On the Issacharite spy (Nu. 187) see JOSEPH i., 1 11. On the representatives of Issachar in the list (i K. 4) of Solomon's prefects and in the Chronicler s list (i Ch. 27) of David s captains (lE 1 ) f tribes (Omri) see above, 4, with footnote (4).

In Tola we have a typical case of the equivalence of genealogies and annals." According to Judg. 10 if. Shamir in Mt. Ephraim boasted that it was the resting-place of Tola, son of Puah, son of Dodo, an Issacharite judge of Israel. In P's genealogy of Issachar part of this story appears as a simple list of names. 1 For Tola the son of Puah who dwelt (a^v) in Shamir we find four sons of Issachar: Tola, Puah, Jashub 2 (aitit ), Shimron.

In the genealogical lists there is nothing equivalent to the ben Dodo inserted in Judg. 10 i after Puah. It is therefore not improbable that ben Dodo is to be explained as a marginal note, 3 and Mount Ephraim as a (perhaps erroneous) gloss on Shamir or Shimron (BAL Sa/ixapeia) ; cp Gen. 46 13 Num. 2(i 23./C i Ch. 7 i. It is not likely that the genealogy contained a name KAREAH. 4

With regard to the Issachar clan names it is remark able that Shamir is a precious stone (DIAMOND, 2), whilst Tola is a dye-producing worm, and Puah, apparently, a dye-producing plant. On this coincidence see, further, ZEBULUN.

To the four names given in P the Chronicler adds eleven descendants of Tola, four of whom are sons of Yizrah-yah (cp above, 3, end).

8. P's boundary.[edit]

P's geographical details about Issachar are not clear.

Instead of a boundary (v. 18) we find a list of towns (omit AV toward, RV unto i.e., the n of n^Xjnr with the versions), ending with a fragment of boundary (v. 22) -Tabor (B yai6/3o>p [ land of Tabor ?], A Oa^iaO, (SL 6a^wp, some MSS fia.i0en<aO : see below, n. 5), and two unknown places: SHAHAZUMAH and BETH-SHEMESH. The (thirteen : so Pesh. 5 ) towns in the list are JEZREEL (Zer lti) on a northern promontory of Gilboa, CHESULLOTH (Iksal) below the hills of en-Nasira, SHUNEM (Solem) on the SW. slope of Nebi Dahi, HAPHARAIM perhaps (el-Farriye?) on the hills between Carmel and el-Lejjun, SHION perhaps ( Ain ShaTn?) across the plain NW. of Nebi Dahi, ANAHARATH perhaps ( Arrane?) on the lower hills west of Gilboa, RABBITH [y.7>.], KISHION (Kidshon?; Tell abu Kudes?), EBEZ (q.v.), REMETH (g.v.), EN-GANNIM (Jentn), EN-HADDAH (for En-harod?, Ain Jaluil), and BETH-PAZZEZ. To these places is to be added JARMUTH (Josh. 21 28) = RAMOTH (i Ch. 773 [58]), which is the third of the four Levitical cities in Issachar : Kishion (Josh.)=Kedesh (i Ch.), Daherath, Jarmuth = Ramoth, and En-gannim (Josh.) = Anem (i Ch.).

According to Josh. 17 10 (also P) Issachar bordered on Manasseh on the (S. ) W. (cp EPHRAIM, 6), whilst according to vv. 11-13 (J) the most important cities in Issachar (see 5) Beth-shean, Ibleam, Taanach, Megiddo (with Dor) were, with their districts, claimed by Manasseh and eventually made dependent by Israel (cp Judg. 127 i Ch. 729). H. w. H.

1 On the question of the relative priority of P s list and Judg. 10 i, see the article referred to in n. 3.

2 For the variants see JASHUB.

3 See an article on the genealogy of Issachar and Tola in the OLZ 3 366/1 [1900], where, for example, it is suggested that ben Dodo possibly means son of his dod a gloss due to the fact that Tola is represented as son of his younger brother.

4 Tge reading Kupw(Kupve) in eight minuscules, six of which omit 'id Yissdhzr, is probably a fragment of ' Issachar' or 'i3ww* (see preceding col. n. 4). 1DW ( see preceding col. n. 4).

5 <& almost unanimously omits v. 22 b. MT reads sixteen. Possibly to Tabor (TOrn) was read as a place-name: Beth- l>ar(?) ; cp several of s variants. This would give sixteen towns.


(iT^ 11 [once 1!W 1 ] = i;Tt^ N, man of Jah 1 ; iecc[e]lA [BAL]).

1. AV ISHIAH, an Issacharite (i Ch. ^3, eicria [B], tea-. [A], two-. [L],/^[Vg.]).

2. AV JESIAH, a Korahite, one of David s warriors (i Ch. 12 6, lrVB", "jo-ou^ei [BN], teo-ta [A], leo-aove [L], Jesia [Vg.]). See DAVID, ii (a iii.).

3. The head of the b ne Rehabiah (i Ch. 24 21 om. B, ie<rias [A], iu)(T. [L], Jesias [Vg.]) ; in i Ch. 26 25 his name appears as JESHAIAH (iritis , wcraias [BA], iwcnje [L]).

4. AV JESIAH, b. Uzziel (Jahaziel), a Levite (i Ch. 23 20, to-eta [B], Kotrias [L], Jesia [Vg.]), of whose sons Zechariah is alone mentioned (ib. 24 25, ria [B], acr. and i<r. [A], IUICTLOV [L]).

5. Ishijah, RV Isshijah, one of the b ne HARIM in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5, end); EzralOsi (ieo-0-ias [L])= i Esd. 9 32, ASEAS (aaatas [BA]).


(TIT, "tipO, etc.), Lev. 12 7 15 2 etc. See MEDICINE.


( i CT AA KO y PO y L A 1 ) . * Esd. 8 4 o. See ZABUD, 2, and cp UTHAI.


(ni^), i Ch. 7so ; RV ISHVAH. ISUI ( W), Gen. 46 17 ; RV ISHVI.


(H crreipA H KAAOYMGNH IT&AIKH), Acts 10 1. See CORNELIUS, i, and cp ARMY, 10.


( ITA.AI&)- From the age of Augustus the word Italy was used as a geographical term in the same sense in which we use it now. See further ROME ; ROMANS.

It occurs four times in the NT, viz., Acts 10 1, the Italian band (see ARMY, 10, CORNELIUS, i); Acts 182, the expulsion of the Jews from Italy, || from Rome ; Acts 27 i, Paul s voyage to Italy, i.e., to Rome; Heb. 1824, those of Italy (see HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO, 9).


(D"]n), Dt. 282 7 f. See DISEASES, 3.


rrVN), i Ch. 11 31. See ITTAI.


("IttrVN. derivation uncertain, father of Tamar ? X being perhaps for ^2N, cp ABIEZER and I-EZER ; but ""N is more probably a fragment of a divine name, see ICHABOD, JEZEBEL; i0A./v\Ap [BAFL]), the name of a guild of priests which, to judge from i Ch. 24 3/., was of less importance than that of ELEAZAR (q.v. ). See GENEALOGIES, 7 [iv.], ZADOK, and cp C. Niebuhr, Gesch. d. ebr. Zeitalters, 1 280. It is in accordance with this that in the priestly genealogies Ithamar appears as the youngest (4th) son of Aaron, Eleazar being the third (Ex. 623 28 1 Nu. 32/., cp Lev. 106 1216 [P]). In P s description of the wanderings Ithamar is represented as superintending the Gershon- ites and Merarites (Nu. 42833 78). The Kohathites (to which the high-priestly family belonged) are not under his charge. The guild is mentioned again in the list of the returning exiles (Ezra82= i Esd. 829, tera- fj.apov [B]). It is curious to notice that in this passage the name occurs in connection with the b ne Phinehas and Gershom. The supposition that Eli was a member of this guild is manifestly uncritical, and has been shown to rest upon a misunderstanding ; see ELI, 2.

S. A. c.


(7S u n\S\ perhaps El is with me, cp IMMANUEL ; and see NAMES, 28), in list of Benjamite in habitants of Jerusalem (see EZRA ii. , 5 [6], 15 [i] a), Neh. 11 7 f (A.I0IHA [BA], ce0. [N , a dittographed c]. ee. [L]).

Although the Nabataean name 5yn.u is closely parallel (CZS 2 196), its meaning 1s equally uncertain-'Bel exists', o?', he whom Bel leads '; to render 'Bel is with me' is, of course, impossible, since the preposition nu is not used in Aramaic.

1 Quoted by Driver (TBS 92) in connection with


fax] ta JVN^], TOIC nic- T6YOYCIN 06U) KM TTAYOMAI), personal names in Prov. 30 1, where RV renders The words of Agur the son of Jakeh ; the oracle. The man saith unto Ithiel and unto Ucal. 1 It is usual to retain Agur son of Yakeh as the name of some unknown Jewish or non- Jewish sage, but to get rid of Ithiel and Ucal by changes of points or consonants. Thus Kamphausen (Kau. S/S) renders v. i (after the heading), The man speaks (saying), I wearied myself about God, I wearied myself about God, and pined away ( ?*); so Del., Frank. ). This, however, implies an unusual construction of the verb nx^ with an accusative. Hitzig, Delitzsch, Frankenberg prefer to make SK, God, a vocative; but the context does not suggest an address to God. Agur son of Jakeh is almost equally hard to explain. Toy owns perplexity. <S BXAC , however, puts us on the right track. ro<s iricrT. 6e$ represents ^K rDND 1 ?, all of which can still be traced in MT, except that ,\ stands for the second D (see further Crit. Bib. ). The text prob ably is, The words of the man (called) hak-koheleth, the guilty one, to those who believe in God. Cp KOHE-

LETH. T. K. C.


(r6lT), Josh. 19 42 RV, AV JETHLAH.


( nJV), a Moabite, named in David's army-list (i Ch. H 4 6tYe0e/v\A [BN], i60. [A], 160AM [L]).


(J3JV, 10), a town in the southern part of Judah, 1 mentioned along with Kedesh and Hazor in Josh. 1023 (AcoplCON&lN K<M MAINAM [B] for Hazor and Ithnan ; i0NAZid> [A] for Ithnan, Ziph in v. 24; 10 NAN [L]). See ETHNAN.


(iOJV), 2 S. 172 5 f. EV m e- JETHER (q.v.,-$\


(pJV, eminent ; cp JETHRO).

1. A Horite clan-name, Gen. 8626 (ledpav [ADE], 16. [L]) = i Ch. 141 (yeffpa/j. [B], iedpav [AL]). See DISHON.

2. In a genealogy of ASHER (<?.? ., % 4 ii.), i Ch. 7 37 (Oepa [B], leflep [A], om. L). In i Ch. 7 38 the name apparently recurs as JETHER 6 ("IIT, lefljjp [B], leflep [A]). L gives eQpav (i.e., Ithran?) for Ulla the father of Hanniel and Rizia (u. 39); see AKAH, i.


(DiniV, 46, cp ABIATHAR, JETHER, JETHRO, AMMI [NAMES WITH], and see below ; see also Gray, HPN 49 55 ; ie0p&&lt;\/V\ [B], ie0ppAC [Jos.]), the sixth son of David by Eglah, 2 S. 3s (6I60APAAM [A], |60pA/V\ [L])- I Ch. 83 (|0ApAM [B], ie0pA[A]M [AL]) ; see DAVID, n</. The name is miswritten JERIMOTH (q .v. , 9) in 2 Ch. 11 18, where we should probably read Mahalath (see MAHALATH), daughter of Ithream and of Abihail daughter of Saul. The Chronicler, who draws from an older source, not knowing Abihail (a name corrupted elsewhere into MICHAL) as a daughter of Saul, has emended SIMB into 3N ll ?N (Eliab). Accepting the old view which identifies Ithream s mother EGLAH (q-v.) with Michal, Klostermann suggests that Ithream (i.e. , residue of a kinsfolk ) described the child of Michal as a repre sentative of the almost extinct family of Saul. In itself this view is not unplausible (cp Judg. 76), at least if Klostermann s explanation of Eglah be in some form accepted ; but it seems to the present writer to be opposed by the analogy of the names Rehoboam, Jero boam. To explain Rehoboam as the people is wide, and Jeroboam as the people increases (see NAMES, 46) appears arbitrary ; am in such names (when genuine) is, at any rate in the older period, presumably a divine title (see AMMON, i), and Ithream ought to mean the (divine) kinsman is pre-eminence. T. K. C.

1 So Jerome (OS 118 33, Ethnan in tribu Juda ) and Eusebius (Jib. 254 57, E0ca/ii </>uArjs lovSa).


(nJVr;, AI0AA6IM [BA], o e0pi [L j), a family of Kirjath-jearim, i Ch. 2 53 (see SHOBAL). In 2 S. 23 38 i Ch. 1 1 40 Ira and Gareb are called Ithrites : 28. (atOeipaios [B*], etffipcuos [B a - b ], eOOevaios [B], fffpaios, TfOpiTijs [A], lefffpei, leffe/j. [L]), Ch. (r)6r)pfL, io0Tjpei [B], ie-r]pfi, io0rjpei [N], tetfe/n [A], ie0/n[L]). In 2 S. 2838 aidetpatos [B] seems to suggest a reading nn>ri (Th., Klo., Marq., H. P. Smith) i.e., a native of JATTIR (q.v. ), in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15 4 8 21 14).


(pV[5 mjltf), Josh. 19 13, RV ETH-KAZIN.


(flK, e00ei [BA], 181 [L], eGlC [Jos. Ant. vii. 92], fcrffaios [/ *. 10i]). i. A Gittite, who with 600 Philistines entered into David s service shortly before Absalom s rebellion (28. 15 18/ [rrpoc] C6006I [B in v. 19]). So far as the text is intelligible, it would appear that Ittai his name was probably once in v. i&6, thus pro viding a natural introduction to v. iga was a stranger ( 133) who had been exiled from his native place (reading l/yP*? 1 ?. (, Vg. ), and David advises him to return and take back his brethren with him, adding a benediction l (see TRUTH). In the fight against Absalom, he is a commander of the third part of the army. The rapidity with which Ittai, who when we first meet him had only been a short time with David (28.1520, jjxia Ven), springs to the high position of commander along with Joab and Abishai (28.182512) is surprising. It is natural to suppose that he was one of David s well-tried warriors, perhaps one who had been with him during his residence at Ziklag. It is hardly safe to identify him with 2 (below).

2. Ittai, one of David s heroes, who, probably to distinguish him from i (above), is styled b. Ribai from Gibeah of the children of Benjamin, 28.2829 (e<r9aci [B], om. A, 06i [L]) = i Ch. 11 31 ITHAI ( JVK, atpet [B], aiflei [tfJ, rjflov [A]). S. A. C.


i.e. , the territory of the Ituraans, which should mean especially (see ISHMAEL, 4 [7], and cp GASm. HG 545) the southern part of the Antilibanus. It is mentioned in AV of Lk. 3i, where the appear ance of the new prophet, John the Baptist, is elabor ately dated. The passage which, according to RV, runs, . . . and his brother Philip (being) tetrarch of the region of Iturasa and Trachonitis, and according to AV, . . .of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, is in Greek (Ti. WH), QCKiirirov 8 rov dde\<t>ov aurov TfTpapxovvTos TTJS J.TOVpalas Kal Tpaxwy/riSos ^dipas. Which of the renderings is correct ? It is important to notice that in Acts 16 6 the AV and the RV differ once more. The best MSS have TT]V Qpvyiav Kal TaXariKTjv X_&pav (so Ti. WH). This, as appears from Acts 18 23 2 (if the text is right), should mean, in Lk. s style, Phrygia and the region of Galatia. Herod Philip, then, on this view of Lk. s meaning, held a tetrarchy composed of two districts called respectively Ituraea and Trachonitis ; but here two difficulties arise.

a. It is at any rate doubtful whether there is a single Greek writer before Epiphanius 3 (Hcer. 19) and Eusebius (OS 268 93) who uses Irovpaia., Iturasa, as the name of a country.

Appian, in a list of countries, mentions HaXauo-rivriv icai rrji Irovpaitav* (Civ. 67), and though in Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 3 Dindorf reads Irovpaiav, Niese s and Naber s reading Irovpatiav is proved to be right by the following words, which refer to the people of the Ituraeans. 5

This, however, is the less serious difficulty. In Acts 18 23 it is possible to read with (apparently) Pesh. riji FaAaTKC))! (cat Qpvyiav \uipaLv, and apart from Lk. s presumed usage, 6 it would be not unnatural to understand the words of Lk. 3 i as implying that Itursea and Trachonitis were partly at any rate the same region.

1 On the text see Dr. ad he.

2 TT\V Va\tn\.KT\v \tapav KO.\ |Wytai> [Ti. WH].

3 Ramsay, Expositor, 94(1, p. 52.

4 Ramsay, ib. pp. 52, 146.

  • TToAe/iTjcras [ Iroupaiouj] icat TroXArjv aiiriav nj? xuipas TTJ

louSat ij Trpoo KTT/crajaei Of.

6 See Chase, Expositor, 93^, p. 405. Blass and Chase are on one side, Lightfoot and Ramsay on the other, in the interpreta tion of Acts 16 6.

b. The next difficulty is geographical. It is quite conceivable that a wild, semi-nomadic race like the Iturasans may, when their home on the Antilibanus was taken from them, have migrated into Trachonitis (proper), and that this region was therefore sometimes spoken of as Ituraean. G. A. Smith very aptly refers to the migration of many Druses from the Lebanon to the Jebel Hauran (to the SE. of the Hauran, on the edge of the desert), which has therefore acquired the second name Jebel ed-Druz. There is, however, no historical proof that the Ituraeans migrated in this way, and that hence their name attached itself to this new abode ; and in view of the extreme care with which Lk. describes the date of the Baptist s appearance, it cannot be thought likely that Lk. would have used this second, popular name ( the Ituraean region ) for Trachonitis, when there were other territorial names which had so much better a claim to be referred to in connection with Herod Philip.

For of what did the tetrarchy of Herod Philip consist ? Josephus tells us. It was Batansea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and certain parts of the house of Zeno (or Zenodorus) about Paneas (Ant. xvii. 11 4, Z?/ 11.63). Now even if we grant (for argument s sake) that the latter territory, 1 not (according to the hypothesis just now rejected) Trachonitis proper, may be intended by the Iturasan (region) in Lk. 3i, who can think it likely that Lk. would mention the region of Paneas 2 in preference to the names of more important territories ? Surely he would rather have selected Gaulanitis (Jos. Ant. xvii. 8 i) or Auranitis (xvii. 11 4). Is it not on the whole probable that he actually did so ? No names are more liable to corruption than those of places. In the very passage which has occasioned this article ( Lk. 3 1 ) there are traces of the existence of a false reading I8ovfj.ci.ias for Irovpaias ; what if Irovpaias itself is a corruption of avpavirtdos? Omit id, which, after IT, would be a natural transcriptional error, and you have a group of letters which might easily be confounded with iTovpcuas. This is preferable, not only to the rather improbable conjectures mentioned above, but also to the suggestion of Holtzmann (HClsj) that by an anachronism the evangelist assigns to Philip the territory afterwards possessed by Agrippa.

See the discussion between Chase and Ramsay, and between Ramsay and G. A. Smith in the Expositor, 93^, 94* ; and cp Schurer, Hist. 2, Appendix i. T. K. C.

1 No stress can be laid on Eus. OS 268 $3, Irovpaia ^ ital Tpax<oi tTis ; for, though Eusebius was a native of Palestine, he does not escape geographical mistakes, especially when dealing with the E. of the Jordan.

2 G. A. Smith argues that if the name [of the Ituraeans] spread down the slopes of Anti-Lebanon SW. towards Galilee [see Jos. Ant. xiii. 11 3], it is quite possible that it also spread down the same slopes SE. upon the district of Paneas (Expositor, 940;, p. 236). Schurer, too, remarks (Hist. 2 iiff.) that this district formerly belonged to the Ituraean state.

3 Q 2iTIE>(iK. 1022 2Ch.92i, AVmg. elephants teeth, oSmres eAe^ai/Tiroi [only A in i K.]) has been taken to mean tooth of the habbim (D 3?), which Schrader (KA TV) 187) connects with Ass. fin al-ab, tooth of halab ; but the authority for this sup posed Assyrian name for the elephant is most insecure (cp ELEPHANT, n. 2). Ivory in Ass. is sinni-piri, or, in the Amarna tablets, Sinni-biri (cp Zeit. /. Volkerpsych. 18249), and > unless we emend D SH to 7 Brt ( elephant, cp Syr. Jl^Q, etc.), it is

best either to identify with the Egypt, ah, ebu (cp Lat. ebur), elephant (with this we might combine the theory of an ultimate Sanskrit original [ibhas i cp eAe ^at]), or to read ivory and ebony (D 33H(i) |B ) as proposed elsewhere (see EBONY).


(ilW), 2 K. 18 3 4, RV IVVAH. See AVVA.


(]&, tooth, implying that the Hebrews knew that ivory was not a horn ; MT, and consequently EV, twice assume that D SH^ 3 also means ivory ).

Apart from such sources as the tusks of fossil ele phants and allied animals, and of the narwhal, etc., which may practically be neglected, ivory is derived from the incisor teeth or tusks of the ELEPHANT (q.v.). It is the solid dentine or central substance of teeth, which, alike on account of its mass, its fine elastic quality, and its property of taking a high polish, has always had a high commercial value.

1. Source.[edit]

The Tyrians, it appears, obtained ivory from Dedanite or Rhodian merchants (Ezek. 27 15; see DODANIM ) : the Israelites, in Solomon's time, through a ship or ships of their own, from OPHIR (q.v. , i K. 1022, cp v. 18). It is generally supposed that part of this ivory came from India, 1 though the African elephant has always been the main source of the commodity (this on account of the large size of the tusks, and because there are tusks in both the male and the female). Assyria received a small quantity from Egypt through Phoenicia usually in the form of skilfully chiselled plaques or ornaments. Gener ally, however, it was imported in its rough state ; the Assyrians themselves worked it up. This will account for the different style and character of the actual finds (cp Perrot-Chipiez, Art in Chald. 2 319^). The Egyptians obtained their ivory partly from Ethiopia, which was reputed to be very rich in it (cp Pliny, 8 10), partly from Cyprus (Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. 317 322 ; WMM, As. u. Eur. 336, n. 2 ; cp Ohnefalsch - Richter, Kypros, 1140191 ; EGYPT, 33). On the coast of Asia Minor there was an ivory industry of great antiquity (cp //. 4141-144).

2. Uses.[edit]

Ivory being a hard and durable substance, many articles, carved and veneered, have survived to our time both in Egypt and (especially) in As syria. Cant. 5 14 has been quoted as referring to such objects ; but eseth (nery) perhaps rather suggests a mass of ivory than an artistic product (see Siegfried, ad loc. ). Vessels of ivory are mentioned only in Rev. 18 12 ; but ivory was used by the Israelites as well as other peoples in the decoration of palaces (i K. 2239 ; cp Am. 815 and, if correct, Ps. 458 [9]). The Ninevite palaces were certainly inlaid with ivory (cp Horn. Oct. 463, chambers of Menelaus). Amos (64) refers in anger to the beds of ivory of the nobles of N. Israel (the reference to Zion in 61 can hardly be original). 2 In Taylor s cylinder inscription it is said that in the tribute of Hezekiah to Sennacherib were ivory couches, splendid seats of ivory (Schr. KA TW 293 ; cp BED, 5). Rather strangely we read in Cant. M [s] f a tower of ivory. Some particular tower seems to be meant (cp v. 544); but where and what was it ? Delitzsch thinks that it was panelled with ivory externally a difficult supposition (see below).

3. Other references.[edit]

Among the Phoenicians ivory was used to ornament the ship's deck (or rudder [?] Ezek. 276), just as, at an early age ivory was used by the Greeks in the handles of keys or bosses of shields, etc. It is probable, however, that the above list of references should be shortened.

Thus in Ps. 458 [9] and Cant. 7 4 [5] ]&, ivory, only appears through a corruption of the text. In the former passage 30 ]C should probably be D 3CB , ointments (Che. Ps. ( 2 )), and in the latter JSP? should be TJB n (\Vi.) or Tib (Che.). See Winckler (AOFliQzf.), and more fully Cheyne (JQR, Apr. 99), who takes the tower of Lebanon which looks towards Damascus to be a variant of the tower of Senir.

Some additions, however, may be made to the list. Thus in i K. 10 22 many read ivory and ebony for ivory ; in i Ch. 29 2 the same reading is possibly right for onyx stone ; and in Is. 2 i6 ships of Tarshish should not improbably be palaces of ivory. See EBONY.

A. E. S. S. A. C. T. K. C.

1 J. Kennedy s article (JRAS, Apr. 98, pp. 241-288) comes to a different conclusion. See TKADE AND COMMENCE.

2 Cheyne would change pSi Zion, into jms (see ZARETHAN).


(n-W).-AV Ivah, 2 K. 18 3 4 19i 3 Is.STist- See AVVA.


(KICCOC), 2 Macc. 67. See BACCHUS.


(Dnnn r), Nu. 33 44 RV, AV IjE-ABARIM.


(WV), Nu. 33 4 s RV, AV IIM.


(3 VN), Jobli RV m g-, EV JOB.


pny\ it (?) shines or oil, 1 54 ; [BAFL]), b. Kohath, a Levitical family name (Nu. 819, AV IZEHAR; Ex. 618, ICCAXAP [ B ] ieccA&p [F] ;

    • . . c&Ap[F]; Nu. 18i, IACCAAP [F*]. P; i Ch.

62 [5 28], 18 [63], I6CCAAP [L]; 38 [623], 23i2i8f). In i Ch. 6 22 [7] the name is less correctly Amminadab (but iffffaap [AL]) ; see AMMINADAB (3). See GENE ALOGIES i., 7 (iii. c).

The gentilic is Izharite ("1.^, i Ch. 2122, t<r(ropei [B], icro-aapt [A], viol icraap [L] ; 26 23, icrcraap [B], AL as 21 22 ; . 29, io-<rapei [B], ixaapt [A], te<r<raapi [L] ; AV once IzeharltO, Nu. 827, 6 uapieis [B*], tcrcr. [Bab], traapcis [A], i(r<7. [FL]).


RV; AV JEZOAR ("inV\ kt.; "IPIX1, kre), a son of ASHHUR [^.T . ] of Judah ; i Ch. 4? (cA&P [BA], 6ICAP [L]). For kre, see ZOHAR, 3.


(nK pr), i Ch. 818 RV, AV JEZLIAH.


(rvrnP, Yahwe rises, 35, 53; cp ZERAHIAH) b. Uzzi, an Issacharite : i Ch. 7 3 (z&peiA [B], iezp&A [A* vid -], iezpi& [A 1 and A], iezepiA [L]), cp ZEKAHIAH b. Uzzi (i Ch. 66 [632] etc.). The identical name appears also in the EV under the form JEZRAHIAH [^.^.].


, . i Ch. 278. See ZERAH.


( v "lV i- e -< a man of IV . I a Jezerite, see JEZER), a son of Jeduthun (i Ch. 25n, ^V ?. iecAp[e]i [BA], iez. [L v. 14]). In i Ch. 253 ms name appears as ZERI ("is ; <roup[e]t [BAL]).


), Ezra l0:25 RV, AV JEZIAH.


(liWl), i Ch. I 42 t RV, AV JAKAN (g.v.).


(i"QplT, 73; cp ASHARELAH, JESHAR- Ei,AH, a Simeonite name (i Ch. 436: ICOKA.B& [B], lAK- [A], iCKeBA, [I-])-


(N^IT [Gi. Ba.], other readings IP and H^ [Gi.]), Neh. 7 58, or Jaalah (r6lP, 53, 68), Ezra2 T 5 6. The b ne Jaala, a group of children of Solomon s servants (see NETHINIM, and cp EZRA ii. , 9).

The readings are : Neh. 7 58 (ieAr,\ [B], leojjA [NA], leSoAaa [L]) = Ezra2 56 (ier,A.a [B], leAa [A], iSA.aa [L]) = i Esd. 633, I JEELI (ie[t]r,\[e] t [BA], i*SAaa [L]).


RV Jalam (D^IP, 54, 64; ierAo/v\ | [BADEL], an Edomite clan, son of Esau (see EDOM, > 2), Gen. 36 S (lerAoyM [E]) 14 18 (lepAcoM [^ vid -]) ; i Ch. I 3 s (ie[-A<\o/v\ [L]).


RY Janai ("Ol^,. also ^IP [Gi.]), a Gadite (clan), i Ch. 5i2f (l&NGIN [B], -N<M [A], ICOANI [I-] O ^P SHAPHAT [4]).


Ps.l326RV ni ff- See KIRJATH-JEARIM,3.


(D^n S ny*). 28. 21 19; see ELHANAN, 2.


(n^U 1 !), i Ch. 8 27 RV, AV JARESIAH (q.v. ).


RV Jaasu, RV" g- Jaasai (ibr;., Kt. VP!;cp 8^^!i 3 1 - 5 2 ) one of the b ne BANI in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i. , 5, end), Ezra 1037 ( iasi [ v g-]- utlli [Pesh.], KAI enoiHCAN, i.e. , -V^^l [BNA], om. L), whose name may be re cognised in the ELIASIS of || i Esd. 93 4 (eAlAC6iC [BA], om. L, formation analogous to nt l/pN).


(^Pfe^!, 31; 'El performs', one of David's heroes, i Ch. 11 4 7, AV JASIEL (eccemA [B], 6C. |K], 6CCIHA [A], iecc. [L]). He is called n^VDH (6 fjLfivapfia. [BX], 6 /j-ecrufiia [A], 6 /aacra/3ia [L], DE MASOBIA [Vg.]). AV and RV (by a virtual emendation of the text) render this the Mes( z )obaite.

The reading is conflate ; we must read either Si SH, the Mizpahite, or ."13X313, 'from Mizpah'. The designation was no doubt suggested by Igal ben Nathan of Mizpah in 2 S. 2836 (see IGAL, 2). jj and 3 were easily confounded (cp the play on rnitO and ."iSi D in Gen. 31 49 52). Probably Mizpah in Benjamin is meant by the Chronicler, who gives the name Jaasiel to a Benjamite prince, b. Abner, in i Ch. 27 21 (a<reii;p [BJ, oanjA [A], iao-0-. [L], nw/V/fVg.]).

On the names in i Ch. l! 4 i<5- 4 7, see DAVID, n (a ii.).

T. K. C.


(irPJTN?, 32; 'Yahwe hears' or 'weighs' ; cp AZANIAH ; rV3TN^, Jer. 863, Ezek. 11 1 ; irVJ^, Jer. 408; HW, Jer. 42 1 ; lezONiAC [BXALQ]).

1. Son of the Maacathite ; a captain (2 K. 2623 ; ofonos [B] ; Jer. 408, JEZANIAH). Probably identical with Jezaniah b. Hoshaiah, Jer. 42 i (afapia? [BNAQ]) in 432 called AZARIAH [y.v., 16] (a^aptos [B^/AQ], afaxapias [N*]), which is read by (B [except Q>g-] in the former passage. Cp JOHANAN (9).

2. b. Jeremiah, a Rechabite head (Jer. 863 ; levoi iai [B^A]).

3. b. Shaphan, head of seventy elders of Israel in a vision of Ezekiel (Ezek. Sn ; te^ovios [BQa]).

4 . b. Azzur, a leading Jerusalemite (Ezek. 11 i ; lexoviav [BAF]).


P.T1P). Nu. 21 32, etc. See JAZER.


(-in Tl?!, 'Yahwe strengthens', cpj A AZIEL; 29 ; oz[e]l& [BA], OZI&C [L]). one of the sons of Merari (i Ch. 24 2 6/. ).


(^N 11 ^, God strengthens, cp JAAZIAH ; 29), a Levite, of the second degree, a temple musician (i Ch. 15i8, ozemA [BN], IHOYA [A], leinA [L]).

For Zechariah, Ben, and Jaaziel we should, omitting p, read Zechariah and Jaaziel (L Z. mbs i.), cp Ki. SBOT Chron., 1 adloc. With the omission of the initial the name appears again in i . 20 as ^N lJJ (AziEL, of[e]i>)A [BXAL]). The proper vocalisation is undoubtedly VN ?V, a reading to which the versions point.


(^T), Gen. 4zot. See CAINITES. n.


(P3\ IABOK [BADEFL], but I^BCOK [L in Josh. 122 Judg. 11 1322] ; i&B&KXOC or ioB<\KOC [Jos. Ant. i. 202]).

1. Course, etc.[edit]

The luxuriant river is the significant name of the tortuous stream which divides the hill-country of Gilead (see GILEAD, 3), and finally reaches the Jordan just above ed-Damiyeh (see ADAM, i. ), about 25 m. in a straight line N. of the Dead Sea. Like the Arnon it has a continuous stream .; the whole course, not counting the windings, is over 60 m. (G. A. Smith). It is now called (from its clear blue colour) the Nahr ez-Zerkd. It is famous in Hebrew tradition from its connection with Jacob s change of name (Gen. 3222 [23]), and also as the boundary between the kingdoms of Sihon and Og. In Dt. 3i6 Josh. 122 it is called the border of the B ne Ammon ; the phrase applies to the upper part of the Jabbok, where, circling round, it passes RABBATH- AMMON, near which are its sources. Cp Nu. 2124 Judg. 11 13 22. On the N. of the Jabbok are the ruins of Gerasa (see GILEAD, 7), between which place and Philadelphia, Eusebius (OS 263 78 130 3 o) rightly places the river. F. B.

2. The reference in Gen. 32:22 [23][edit]

At what precise part of the Jabbok the ford referred to in Gen. 32:22 [23] may be supposed to be, is uncertain. The story containing the reference is composite, and the narrators J and E appear to be not quite consistent (see GILEAD, 3). The Zerka is always fordable, except where it breaks between steep rocks (GASm. HG 584). That there is any play on the word Jabbok, as if there were some sympathy between the two tortuous courses (ibid.), is scarcely probable. We have two explanations of names in the narrative already (Israel and Penuel), and hardly expect a third. Besides, there is the possibility that in the original narrative the Yarmuk (which is the boundary between Gilead and Bashan), not the Jabbok, was the river referred to.

The word rendered 'wrestled' is another difficulty. Not improbably p3N 1 has become corrupted out of 3^*1 (S^N l), owing to the vicinity of oa. See Crit. Bib.

F. B. , I ; T. K. C. , 2.


(B3 or KT, i.e., dry ; 1 (e)ic\B(e)ic [BAL], IA.BHCOC, l&BlCOC, l&BlC [J os -]). or, more fully Jabesh-gilead i<\B(e)ic LTHC] TA^AAA, THC AAlTiAOc), the scene of Saul s first warlike exploit (SAUL, i), and the place where his bones were for a time buried (i S. lli-io 31 11-13 2 S. 21 12 i Ch. lOn/i).

1. References.[edit]

It is mentioned in the Am. Tab. (JabiSi, 23?28). The importance of Jabesh was recognised by David. By sending presents to its citizens (2 S. 26, crit. emend. ; see SAUL, 5), he sought to counteract the policy of Abner, and to promote his own candidature as king of all Israel. Very possibly, too, Jabesh was the birthplace of Shallum and of Elijah (see SHALLUM, 1 ; ELIJAH, i, n. i). It is, however, only a late post- exilic narrative (Judg. 21 8-14) which asserts that in the time of the Judges, by a combined effort of all Israel, the population of Jabesh-gilead was exterminated, with the exception of four hundred virgins who were married to the survivors of Benjamin (see BENJAMIN, 5 ; JUDGES, 13). How long did the importance of Jabesh last ? Does Josephus mean to say, in his paraphrase of i S. 11, that Jabesh was in his day still the metropolis of the Gileadites 2 (Ant. vi. 5i)? At any rate, in the time of Eusebius it was only a village (Kti}fj.T)), which is described by him as on the eastern tableland, six R.m. from Pella, on the road to Gerasa (OS 268 81 ; cp 22698, and Jer. Comm. ad Ji/d. ). The great city of Pella had risen beside it and been made capital of the province ; this probably led to the decline of Jabesh and its final ruin.

2. Site.[edit]

The site is a matter of doubtful conjecture. Robinson (BK 839) thought that Jabesh might be on the site of ed-Deir ( 'the convent' ), on the S. bank of the wady, about 6 miles from Fahl or Pella ; but this place is perched upon an eminence difficult of access, and quite off from the road leading from Pella to Jerash. 3 The ruins of Meriamin, however, which evidently belong to a large and ancient town, are not exposed to this objection ; they are at a distance of one hour forty minutes from Pella. No other site, according to Merrill, conies into competition with this (see, how ever, Buhl, 259). About Meriamin there is plenty of room for an army to operate. Robinson did not actually visit ed-Deir, which cannot be the true site. At any rate, the old name Jabesh still survives in that of the Wady Yabis, which enters the Jordan valley about 10 m. SSE. from Beisan (Bethshan), nearly opposite Ibzik (Bezek). T. K. c.

1 See NAMES, 100. The name doubtless belonged first to the wady, then to the town also (Moore, Judges, 447).

a He says lajSit S eo"rt airnj, but he continues in the historic present Tj-e /i" "

3 Merrill, East of the Jordan, 439 ; so Oliphant, Land of Gilcatl, 174. On the Roman road referred to, cp Schumacher, Across the Jordan, 277 f. Van de Velde (2349-352) and Porter {Handbook, 317) agree with Robinson ; Furrer(in Riehm, 664 a) gives his weighty authority to Merrill s site.


(B"T), father of SHALLUM [g.v., i. i], 2 K. 15ioi 3 /. (lABeiC [BAL]; inv. lo^B- [A]}. It is probable, however, that son of Jabesh means a man of Jabesh-gilead (so Klo. , St., We.). See GINATH.


(fay, II-&BHC, i-A/wec [B], IAI-BHC, pMJHC^A], IABIHC, i&BHA, idkBtelic [L]). Accord ing to the MT (i Ch. 4g/. ) jabez is like Melchizedek, without father or mother, and the place which bears his name (i Ch. 2 55) is of unknown site (Hastings, BD 25246) ; but the riddle can with some probability be solved.

3JT in fOJT (i Ch. 255) is a duplication of [ ]3B (Kr., ) ; v is a corruption of p, the first letter of nnp , m in mp fell out owing to the following in- A misplacement of words followed, and ~\SD in TflD mp was mistaken for iSD (i.e., DHSD).

Probably the true reading is iBD nnp 3B" ninBB Dl, and the families of the inhabitants of Kirjath-sepher (called Beth-gader [?] in v. 51 ). 2 The names of the families referred to alsobecame corrupted. Tir athaim 3 probably conceals c"]jv or D rnjv, men of JATTIR [<?.v. ], or of Jattirah ; Shim athim 4 should be D FiycPB K, men of Eshtemoa ; and Sucathim 5 should be Q miB , men of Socoh or Socah. 6 All the places referred to are to the SW. of Hebron, in the neighbourhood of Debir or Kirjath-sepher. The Chronicler adopted the statement which his authority gave, but seems to have been puzzled by the (corrupt) word Jabez. He probably supposed that a person called Jabez was connected with the early history of Kirjath-sepher, and pro duced a new story to account for the enlargement of the border of Kirjath-sepher in connection with the supposed derivation of Jabez (from oseb, pain ). This story is a substitute for that in Judg. 1 14 f. (Josh. 15 187^) ; there is no party feeling in it (C. Niebuhr) ; it expresses the Chronicler s perplexity, and also, in the prayer of Jabez, his piety. Probably v. 9 /. should come after v. 13 ; the brethren of Jabez should be the sons of Kenaz.

This view of the passage precludes conjectures as to the Kenite scribes of whom MT speaks (cp Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten, etc., 80, n. i). No scribes were referred to in the original text. The latter part of i Ch. 255 must be taken by itself. It alludes to the fact that the Kenites dwelt in the S. of Judah ; and it is probable that there is a lacuna in the text (cp HEMATH). T . K. C.


(pT, 53; 'He (God) perceives' ; iAB[e]lN [BNARTFL]), king of Hazor (see HAZOR, i), who warred against Zebulun and Naphtali (Judg. 427, ia/j.fiv [A] ; and i S. 12 9 [@ only] ; ta^iv [L], [eJta/Sas [BA]). He has really little to do with the narrative in Judg. 4, which in its present form has been shown to consist of a combination of the story of Jabin with that of SISERA (q. v. ) against Israel. By making Sisera Jabin's general, the two accounts have been made to harmonise roughly, and it is difficult to say how much of the original history of Jabin has been omitted in favour of that of Sisera. It may be conjectured that at the tents of Heber, Jabin met a fate similar to Sisera's at the hands of Jael.

In the less original account in Josh. 11:1-9 (ia/3eiy [BA]), due to 2 and worked over by D 2 , the war of the two tribes against Jabin is characteristically magni- fied into the conquest of all N. Canaan by Joshua and all Israel. A preliminary trace of such a scheme is seen in Judg. 42, where Jabin is already called king of Canaan who reigned in Hazor. See Moore, Judges io8/: ; and JUDGES, 7.

1 BA also gives cos yajSr/s in 4 10 (MT 3!?i 3 ; S L iv Siairriaati).


3 G njnn, apyaeLd^. [BA], 0apa0Fc [L].

4 C nypB", ora^aSifi/n [BA], -6eiv [L]. But v. 53, TOC , j)0-dju.a0ei|U. [B], -v [A], 6 cra^aSi [L].

5 C n^C , (TtaKa.0iei.ij. [BA], croux^K [L].

  • > A late editor may have supposed a connection of the

(corrupt) names with terms connected with the religious system of his day (rijnn, ~tDC , ^JP) ; cp Vg. canentes et resonantes et in tabernaculis coiitiitorantes. See We. De gent, 30 ; and cp Be. ad lac.


(^3!, God builds ; i&BNHA [AL]). i. Shortened into Jabneh (!"I3T, he [God] builds ; 2 Ch. 266 (apevvyp [B], ta/3j [A], lafivr] [L]) ; the JAMNIA and JEMNAAN of a later day. A Philistian city between Ekron and the sea (Josh. 15 n ; Xe/wa [B]) ; cp Jabni-ilu, the name of a prince of Lachish in the Amarna tablets (Wi. , 2184). According to Petrie, Thotmes III. mentions two places called Yehema, one of which is our Jabneel, and the other is the mod. Yemma, near Megiddo (Hist, of Eg. 2 327 ; cp WMM, As. u. Eur. 1 60). The Priestly Writer includes Jabneel within the limits of Judah (Josh. 15 n) ; but the earliest evidence of Jewish occupation is in 2 Ch. 266, where Uzziah is said to have taken the city and de molished its fortifications. It is next mentioned in the time of Judas the Maccabee. Two accounts have come down to us one historical, viz. , that the two generals Joseph and Azarias made an unsuccessful attempt upon Jamnia (i Mace. 555-62) ; and the other most probably a falsification of history, viz. , that Judas made a night attack upon the Jamnites, setting fire to the haven 1 (for there was a port also called Jamnia) together with the fleet, so that the glare of the light was seen at Jerusalem, two hundred and forty furlongs [stadia] distant (2 Mace. 128/).

According to Jos. (Ant. xiii. 67 ; BJ i. 2 2) Jamnia was taken at last by Simon the Maccabee. But it can hardly have become part of the dominions of the Hasmonseans (see i Mace. lOeg, 1040) until the time of Alexander Jannaeus, who subdued all the cities of the coast from the Egyptian border to Carmel with the exception of Ashkelon (Jos. Ant. xiii. 164). It became Roman under Pompey (Jos. Ant. xiv. 44; BJ i. IT), and, having apparently become greatly depopulated, was restored and repeopled by Gabinius (BJ i. 84). It was given by Herod to his sister Salome (Ant. xvii. 81), who in turn gave it to the empress Livia (Ant. xviii. 22 ; BJ\\. 9i). Strabo(xvi. 2 28) speaks of it as a village which, along with the district pertaining to it, had once been able to send 40,000 men into the field. In Caligula s time its population was principally Jewish (Philp, De Leg. ad Caiutn), and when the heathen section of the inhabitants erected an altar to the emperor it was immediately destroyed by the Jews. This, being reported to the emperor by the procurator Herennius Capito, was the occasion of the imperial order that the image of Caligula should be set up in the temple at Jerusalem (see ISRAEL, 96). In the Jewish war Jamnia was taken by Vespasian. It was to this place that Johanan b. Zakkai retired, after having been, by a singular stratagem, conveyed out of the doomed capital to the Roman camp. 2 There he formed a Sanhedrin, and so Jamnia became the religious centre of the Jewish people down to the collapse of the revolt of Bar Cochba (135 A. D.). In the fourth century it was but a 7roA.(. xn) (Onoin. 20035) ; but its bishop took part in the Council of Nicaea. 3 In the time of the Crusaders a castle called Ibelin stood on the site of the ruined city, which was supposed to have been not Jabneel, but Gath.

The statements of ancient writers respecting the position of Jamnia are very precise (see, e.g. , 2 Mace. 129, quoted above). It is represented by the modern Yebna, a considerable village, 12 m. S. from Joppa, and 4 m. in a direct line from the sea. There are ruins of the ancient port at the mouth of the Nahr Rubin (see BAALAH, 3) to the NW. The district is fertile, and traces can still be seen of the plantations which once adorned the neighbourhood of the haven.

2. An unidentified site in the territory of Naphtali (Josh. 1933 ie(f>9afj.a.L [B]), doubtless the Id.fj.veia or Ia/jivei9 of Jos. (BJ\\. 206; Vit. 37), in upper Galilee, which from about 23 B.C. formed part of the tetrarchy of Zenodorus, and afterwards of that of Herod Philip (Jos. BJ ii. 63; Ant. xv. 10s ; xvii. 11 4 ; BJ i. 204). It must therefore be sought somewhere about Lake Huleh or in the neighbourhood of Banias. The com- bination of this Jabneel with Kefar Yama (now the ruins called Yemma, 7 m. S. of Tiberias), adopted from the Talmud by Conder (PEFAJ 1 365 ; cp Neubauer, Gtogr. 225), seems difficult to reconcile with the true border of Naphtali (see BEZAANANNIM). T. K. c.

1 For other references to the seaport see Jos. Ant. xiii. 164 ; Pliny, HNv. 1368; Ptol. v. 16 2 6.

- Gratz, Hist, of the Jews, 2326^

3 At Mahoza (Portus) Jamnia; there was still a convent of St. Stephen in the sixth century.


RV Jacan (J3V\ 54 : XIAAA [B], I&XA [A], i co AX & [ L ]). a Gadite (i Ch. 5i 3 t)-


Jachin (p ; |& X OYM [BL], -N [A], I&X6IN [J os - Ant. viii. 84]) was the name of the right-hand (i.e., southern) pillar at (Klo. , before ) the porch of the temple, and Boaz (Tl?3 ; B&&Z [L], BOOC [A], BAA&Z [B], [A]B<MZ U os -]) that of the left-hand (i.e., northern) pillar (i K. 7ai = 2 Ch. 817); see PILLAR, and cp the pillars by the posts in Ezek. 4049 (see Toy s note SBOT [Eng.] Ezek., ad loc.).

The names are enigmatical ; we cannot evade an effort to explain them. So much is clear at the outset that, like the names of the walls of Babylon (see BABYLON, 7), they must have a religious significance. The walls, and the pillars in question as well, have names because they are sacred objects. We can advance a step further by considering what these enormous pillars were. They seem originally to have been symbols of the vast mountain of the gods (see CONGREGATION, MOUNT OF) in the far N., the brilliance of which, faintly suggested by the burnished bronze of the pillars, is described by Ezekiel (28i6 ; cp Herod. 244, and see CHERUB, col. 742, n. 4). That mountain had two special features its firm strength and the abode of the Elohim on its summit. We may expect therefore to find these two points expressed in the names. Jachin will therefore express the immovable- ness of the symbolic pillar ; cp Ps. 656[7], nm j ac. 'who establishes the mountains'.

This explanation at any rate appears certain, whether or not we bring Jachin into relation to the name Akna-zapn, which Erman reads on the so-called 'Stone of Job' (rather, Stone of Rameses II.) in Hauran (see EGYPT, 58, n. i).

Boaz ought to refer to the mountain dwelling- place of the divine beings. It is difficult, however, to verify this assumption, jjn looks like a mutilation of a longer word. The initial a is a hindrance to our taking y from the root tiy, 'to be strong'. ?jn jya, by the strength of Baal, is hardly the right form ; we expect a statement such as [tyjaiy, 'strong is Baal'. This, however, would not give us the variety which we look for ; such a name would be too nearly synonymous with Jachin, and the initial a cannot be ignored. We may conclude, therefore, that the last letter j is a frag ment of a word ; the preceding letters ya are surely a mutilation of Sya (cp /3eefq3oi/\ in NB s text of the Gospels ; e.g. in Mt. 1024). 1 Looking next at the Psalm which Solomon is said to have sung on the completion of the temple, we notice that two of the striking phrases in it are ran, for the 'establishment' of the sun in his glorious mansion in the sky, and hi] n 3, for the 'high house' or temple in which Yahwe was to dwell for ever (Che. OPs. 212). The word 731 in the latter phrase is pre cisely what we want. Not impossibly, therefore, the full name of the pillar on the left hand is 'Baal-zebul' ( 'Lord of the high house' ). 2 The idea which it ex pressed was familiar to the Phoenicians ; a synonymous title was Baal - zaphon (see BAAL-ZEPHON). It was also not unknown to the Israelites (see BAAL-ZEBUL). In later times, probably, the name of the second pillar was deliberately mutilated, because of the new and inauspicious associations which had gathered round it. It was after all a Phoenician (Hiram) who had given the name ; a later age did not approve of Solomon's close connections with heathen peoples.

1 Westcott - Hort s unwillingness to suppose an accidental (Introd. 159) error is surprising. If Beel-zebul is unknown except from the NT, Baal-beth (Zenjirli inscr. of Panammu, 1. 22) and Baal-meon are not. 7?3) is the 7131 of I K. 8 13,, Ass. Mt zabal (see KA TM ad loc.).

  • See ZDPVllii 105 ; Sayce, HCM 295, n. i.

Subsequently to this pious alteration of the name, one of the supposed ancestors of David (see DAVID, i, n. i) was furnished with the name Boaz (only found late), to indicate that he was a pillar of the Davidic family (cp Tg. on 2 Ch. 3 17).

A few other conjectures may, in conclusion, be mentioned. LXX in Chron. renders Jachin <caTop0<oo-is and Boaz la-\v^. Ephrem, who is followed among moderns by Thenius, combines the two words (pointing ty2) into a prayer for the firm establish ment of the temple. EV "g- explains Jachin, 'He shall estab lish', and Boaz, 'In it is strength' ; more plausibly WRS, (KSft 208) interprets the former 'The stablisher' ; the latter, 'In him is strength'. Klostermann deals more boldly with MX ; he adopts J13% It shall stand (well), from <B ; and emends 7J 3 nto V /V3| Lord of strength = the strong (cp B s 8aA<xf). In view of the close bond which united Tyre and Jerusalem in the time of Solomon, and the fact that it was a Phoenician who named the pillars, Mr. S. A. Cook suggests that JJ73 [Boaz] may be a corruption of ?J?3, Baal," and that } : [Jachin] might have been understood to be the Phoen. equivalent of m,T(Ph. p 3) 'to be' = Heb. ,TH> .11 n). 1 T. K. C.


(P^, 'he [God] establishes' ; cp Jehoiachin ; i&xeiN [BNADL] ; in Gen. i&xeiM [A], &xte]iN [A* vid -L] : in ! Ch. 9 10 ico&xeiM [L] ; i Ch.24i 7 A veiAA[B]).

1. A son of -Simeon, Gen. 46 10 Ex. 615 (ta^ei [A]), Nu. 26 12. In the parallel text, i Ch. 424, the name is JAKIB(I). Jachinlte ( J ?^> taxivei [B], -eixt [AL]) occurs in Nu. 26 12.

2. Head of a priestly family ; i Ch. 9 10 24 17 Neh. 11 10.


is given by RV for liguriits) in Ex. 28 19 30 12, where AV has LIGURE ; also in EV of Rev. 21 20 (vaxtvdcx; ; RV g- sapphire ), and in A V of Rev. 9 r7 (ua(aV0ii>os = of jacinth, RV of hyacinth ). In Ex. 2819, RV">s- gives amber ; cp Enoch 71 2, where the streams of fire (Dan. 7 10) are likened to hyacinth (Di. and Charles).

The hyacinthus of the ancients (mentioned in Rev.) was probably our sapphire (see SAPPHIRE). It is now commonly held (see, e.g. , Riehm, ffWBW) that the Heb. Usem (\iyvpioi>) is the jacinth, for a description of which see below. This, however, appears to be a mistake. It is probable that ow 1 ? is simply a miswritten ^DDn haSmal* (see AMBER), or perhaps rather, tra^n halmis (see TARSHISH, STONE OF). This may enable us to account for the superfluous /cat apytipLov Kal xpv<riov which comes between iaffiriv and \iyvpiov in @ of Ezek. 2813 (where, apart from this, the fuller catalogue in is to be adopted). JCBTI is in fact understood by many to mean an alloy of gold and sih>er ; dpyvpiov Kal Xpvcriov seems to be a gloss on the word SBBTI or troSn (which must have stood in the true text of Ezekiel), intended to correct the rendering \iytipiov. We are of course not bound to agree with this gloss, but the word SoK n or B D^n ( white sapphire ? but see AMBER) may with some confidence be substituted for nt? 1 ?. Elsewhere (see TARSHISH, STONE OF) it has been shown that the word also appears disguised as twin, tarsis. It is no objection to this theory that tarsls and Ushem both occur in the list of precious stones in Ex. 2817-20, for this list comes from P, who makes up such lists as he best can, and does not mind including variants.

The true jacinth is a red-coloured variety of silicate of zirconium, those varieties which are yellow -brown or green being distinguished, if transparent, by the name of jargoon, while the dull-coloured varieties, more or less opaque, are termed rightly zircon. The true jacinth, when polished, is peculiarly brilliant. It is extremely rare. Probably many of the antique camei or intagli reputed to be jacinth are merely hyacinthine garnets ; garnets, however, have a lower specific gravity. T. K. C.

1 Such an interpretation agrees with E s explanation of the clivine name in Ex. 814 (see NAMES, inyC).

2 The suggestion of Bondi that leshciii may be the Egypt. rcshein is of course possible : it is adopted by Hommel (AHT 283) ; but it does not meet all the circumstances of the case.


(i) ]F\* tan (perhaps = howler ) is found only in the pi. D llFl J (the fem. form Mai. 1 3, is probably due to corruption; Stade reads 111X3, pastures [cp 66/j.ara [BKAQ], perhaps for ddifj-ara, but <S may have connected the word with jnj ; Pesh. dwellings ]); AV renders DRAGONS (but sea- monsters in Lam. 43); RV JACKALS. 2 Throughout Palestine the common jackal is by far the most common of all the beasts of prey.

It is the same jackal which is so well known elsewhere, and has spread through SE. Europe and SW. Asia as far as Burmah, as well as through N. Africa. As its name (Canis aureus) implies, it is of a reddish-gold colour, darker in the upper parts.

Jackals usually hunt in packs, but at times are seen in pairs or even alone. They are comparatively harm less to man, and, as a rule, feed on carrion ; but they also attack and kill fowls, lambs, kids, etc., and even weakly sheep and goats. They do not, however, refuse fruit, and are especially fond of sugar-cane. The cry of the jackal may be heard every night by the traveller in Palestine (cp Mic. 1 8). As a rule they are nocturnal, but not exclusively so ; they hide during the day in disused stone-quarries, caves, and especially in deserted ruins (Is. 1322 34i3 35?). Jeremiah s hearers, therefore, knew what he meant when he spoke of Jerusalem s be coming a place of jackals (Jer. 9n [10] 1022 ; cp 51s? 49 33 ).

(2) In Judg. 164 Ps. 63 10 [n] Lam. 5 18, RVmg. gives jackal as an alternative rendering for EV fox (7UW). See Fox and cp HAZAR-SHUAL, SHAALBI.M.

(3) Whether the word rendered doleful creatures (D HN, ohtm) in Is. 1821 always meant the jackal, we cannot tell. Hpughton (TSBA 6328) well compared Ass. ahu ; but whether this word really means the jackal (so Del.) is not quite certain. Jensen pronounces for the leopard ; Houghton, improbably, thought of the hyaena. Cp Del. Hcb. Lang. 34.

(4) Finally the iyyiin, D"N, of Is. 13 22 H4 14 Jer. 50 39, AV wild beasts of the island, from a supposed connection with X, an island (cp D"!, and see ISLE), RV WOLVES, mg. HOWLING CREATURES, may be compared with the Ar. banatu awa, jackals. The equiv. Syr. benath away is used by Bar Hebr. in his commentary on Job 30 29. A. E. S. S. A. C.

1 The plural (once [ iin, Lam. 43kt.) is to be distinguished from the sing. j"3H (twice in MT D iiri), of which the pi. is D J JH, see DRAGON (beg.).

2 [Aq. has (jetpiji as, Symm., Theod. dceiri /Sara in Mai.]


ppy;, but five times 2ipj?! ; | AK O)B). Son of Isaac and Rebekah, and father of the twelve reputed ancestors of the tribes of Israel ; himself also called Israel.

1. Name.[edit]

The name is explained in Gen. 25:26a: (J) 'the supplanter', 'after that, his brother came out, and his hand took hold of Esau's heel ; so his name was called Jacob', as if 'one who takes hold by the heel', from 3J3^> 'a heel'. In Gen. 27:36 (J), however, Jacob receives a fresh explanation - viz., 'deceiver' (one who slinks after another) ; so too Hos. 12:3a [4a], where render 'he deceived his brother' (see Now.). These, however, are only popular etymologies. It is the prevalent critical opinion that Ya'akob (Jacob) is really a shortened form of Ya'akob-el (Jacob-el), a name analogous to Israel, Ishmael, Jerahmeel, and admitting several explanations, such as 'God follows' or 'God rewards' (both from the Arabic ; cp Lag. Ubers. 127). This is thought to be confirmed by the place-name Y-k-b-'a-ra, found in the Palestinian name-list of Thotmes III., which probably corresponds to a Palestinian Ya'akob-el ; see JOSEPH i. and ii., and cp Gray, HPN 214.7? Pinches, too, has found on contract-tablets of the age of Hammurabi (circa 2285 n.c. ; see BABYLONIA, 54) the personal name Ya'kub-ilu, and Hommel (AHT, 61, 96, 112) says that Yakubu (cp Jacob) occurs also. This, if the tablets are genuine, appears to prove the antiquity of the name. It must not, however, prevent us from seeking an underlying earlier form.

Ya'akob is the name, not of an individual, but of the imaginary ancestor of a tribe ; neither 'God follows' nor 'God rewards' is the sort of name that we expect as the condensed expression of the religious faith of the tribe. In the mouth of the people the original name would very likely soon be contracted or distorted. We may plausibly conjecture that Ya'akob is at once a contraction and a distortion of 'Abi-cabod' (i.e., 'the [divine] father is glory' ), the name which was also distorted into ICHABOD and JOCHEBED. If the god of the tribes of Israel was Yahwe, whose glory (originally in the storm) so greatly impressed his worshippers, and who is called in an archaistic psalm 'the God of glory' (Ps. 293), we can well understand that the reputed ancestor of the tribes might have as his second name (but cp 8 6) 'Abicabod'. It is quite true that Ya'akob looks very much like a shortened theophorous name. We are naturally inclined to regard it as analogous to Yiphtah (Jephthah)for Yiphtah-el (Jiphthah-el); but popular imagination was quite capable of reconstructing names on a new model, and we have perhaps other instances of this close at hand in ISAAC and JEKABZEEL, both of which, as they stand, are formed analogously to Ishmael, but are more probably popular corruptions. It may be added that the occurrence of the names referred to above does not prove the disappearance of the form Abi-cabod. This name (a name which may have had different independent personal and local references, and have been by no means confined to the reputed ancestor of the Israelites) may have been in use among the Israelites subsequently to the times of Hammurabi and Thotmes III., as indeed the occurrence of Ichabod in the story of Eli proves that it was.

2. Underlying traditions (a).[edit]

The story of Jacob is intertwined at the beginning with that of Isaac and of Esau, and at the close with that of Joseph. To the special articles ISAAC, ESAU, and JOSEPH we must, therefore, refer the reader to avoid repetition. The interesting reference of Hosea (if it be Hosea who writes) to the story of the infant Jacob's strife with his infant brother in the womb, which receives from him an unfavourable interpretation (Hos. 12s [4]), is referred to under JACOB, i. It is to this story and to the narrative of Jacob s deceit towards his father and his brother that the Second Isaiah is supposed to refer in Is. 4827. The difficulties of the passage, however, are not slight, and no stress can safely be laid upon it. l The traditions are given with great vividness in Gen. 26:29-34 (J) and 27 (JE), and deserve an attentive study. Here, however, we need only consider the composite narrative in 27:42-28:9, which forms the introduction to the story of Jacob's journey in search of a wife. In 27:42-45 Rebekah is represented as urging Jacob to flee from his incensed brother for a few days to her brother Laban in Haran. This is, undoubtedly, the work of JE. In 27:46-28:2, however, the visit to Laban is put forward as a command of Isaac, who, stirred up by his wife, desired to prevent Jacob from following the example of Esau in marrying a Canaanitish or, more strictly, a Hittite maiden. There can be no doubt that P (who is the writer of 27:46-28:9) gave quite a different representation of the early life of Jacob from that given by JE, and though it is usual to disparage P, yet here, as in other cases, he preserves valuable material. The danger of a Hittite wife at Beersheba was, it is true, small enough ; but it has been maintained elsewhere that the names of the non-Israelitish tribes inhabiting Canaan have suffered much from the errors inseparable from transcription of texts, and that Hittite (>nn) in this and other passages is an error for ram Rehobothite. It has been argued that Rehoboth attached its name to a larger district than the Wady Ruhaibeh, so that when Isaac, according to popular tradition, left Rehoboth for Beersheba, he may perhaps still have been in Rehobothite territory. It is more probable, however, that Beersheba was introduced out of regard for the increased veneration of Israelites for the sanctuary of Beersheba, and that the original tradition (preserved by P) represented Isaac as passing the close of his life either at Rehoboth or at any rate at a spot almost certainly within Rehobothite limits viz. Khalasah (better known to us as ZIKLAG). This view is confirmed by the consideration that in 35:27-29 Jacob is said to have come to his father to Mamre, to Kirjath-arba, that is, Hebron, where his father Isaac died, and where Esau and Jacob buried him. It seems plausible to hold that Hebron here is miswritten for REHOBOTH (q.v.)

1 Thy first father is usually explained of Jacob, but was not so understood by , and is very peculiar. The parallel phrase 1 their interpreters, if correct, does not favour this view. Prob ably, however, we should read,

Kan 1 ? ;pan UN Thy magnates were inclined to sin,
3 )y&S J Se DI And thy rulers rebelled against me.

The next line (see SBOTact lac.) probably contains a reference to 'thy princes' (T W).

3. Underlying traditions (b).[edit]

The view, which was most probably that of P (or at any rate of P's authority), that Isaac lived at or near Rehoboth, and that Jacob started on his quest of a wife from the district of Rehoboth is not less probably the ancient one. We have now to see where Jacob went. J and E say that it was to Haran ; P that it was to Paddan-aram (Gen. 2825). So at least the present text represents ; but there is strong reason to distrust its readings, and to change Haran into Hauran, and Paddan-aram into the uplands of Hauran (pin nic- ; cp Hos. 12 12 [13], below). In Gen. 29:1, however, we learn from E that on leaving Bethel Jacob went to the land of the B'ne Kedem. Probably E really wrote this, and interpreted B'ne Kedem to mean easterns ; the phrase 'the land of the easterns' might no doubt be applied to the Hauran, where, according to the earlier tradition, Laban dwelt. It is not very probable, how ever, that sons of the east ( = easterns) was really an ethnographical term ; where the phrase appears to be so used, it would seem that Kedem (east) has arisen by an easy corruption out of Rekem, which in turn may be a very old popular corruption of Jerahmeel (see REKEM, 4). The most natural inference is that E (or rather perhaps E s authority) has preserved a phrase from a very early tradition, according to which Jacob (or Abi-cabod?), on leaving his temporary resting-place, directed his steps to the land of the Bne Jerahmeel. If so, it is probable that his destination was not the Hauran but Hebron.

Both Haran and Hebron are mentioned in i Ch. (2 42 46) as descendants of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel. Hebron is probably the name of which we are in search ; among the descendants of Hebron appear three names which may be different corruptions of the name Jerahmeel (see JERAHMEEL, 4).

At Hebron (the well-known Hebron) Jacob was, according to the tradition, in the land of the B'ne Jerahmeel. The name Jerahmeel has, it is true, a fluctuating reference. All that concerns us here is the fact that Hebron could be regarded by the early narrator (whom we have no occasion to place before the time of David) as Jerahmeelite. On his way thither the traveller would naturally halt at the site now called ed-Dahariyeh, but in ancient times probably known as KIRJATH-SEPHER [?.f. ]. This may very possibly have been mentioned as Jacob s resting-place in the earlier form of the story. A glance at the map will show that from Rehoboth to Hebron the journey is as straight as possible, and that Khalasa, Bir-es-Seba (Beer sheba), and ed-Daharlyeh are convenient resting-places on the road. The early narrative must have further stated that while at Hebron Jacob married wives called respectively Leah and Rachel. Rachel (not less than Mahalath, 1 Gen. 28g) we must take to be a popular corruption of JERAHMEEL (q.v. , 4). Leah (as We. and Stade have seen) is the name whose ethnic is Levi ; the manifold connections of the Levites with the far S. have been shown elsewhere (see LEVI). The meaning of this early story is that the tribe called Abi-cabod effected a union with the Jerahmeelite tribe of Levi. Probably Winckler is right in thinking that the priestly character of the tribe of Levi is earlier than its entrance into Canaan, and it is not out of place to remark anew (cp ESAU) that in Gen. 27:15 Jacob seems to be represented as in priestly attire.

1 Thus both Jacob and Esau took Jerahmeelite wives.

4. Visit to Haran or Hauran.[edit]

As the text stands, however, it is to Haran, or rather to Hauran, that Jacob's steps are bent, and on the way he naturally halts at the famous sanctuary of Bethel. The narrator indeed represents him as having consecrated the well-known massebah which stood there ; but if Winckler's explanation of 'Luz' [q.v.] be correct ( 'sanctuary' ), the narrator unintentionally refutes his own statement. The rocky boulders on the site of Bethel must indeed inevitably have suggested the erection of a sacred pillar (see BETHEL, 2), or indeed of stone circles, in primeval times. Both J and E express their own genuine piety in the description of Jacob's sacred experiences. Whether we should have been equally pleased with the original story may be doubted ; the description of 28 n suggests the idea that the stone which Jacob took for his pillow was a sacred stone, so that DipD (as perhaps in Gen. 22a) will have the sense of sanctuary. If this view is correct, it is E who gives a harmless turn to the old story by converting the primeval sacred stone into a massebah (cp IDOLATRY, 4).

In Gen. 29:2-30 J and E describe Jacob's arrival at Haran (or rather Hauran), his meeting with Rachel and then with Laban, and his service of fourteen years for his two wives. Whether there was any Laban in the earlier form of the story we cannot tell. The Laban to whom we are introduced by J and E is certainly a worthy kinsman of Jacob. The narrators object, how ever, is not to show that trickiness was a family characteristic, but to throw into relief the divine protection which Jacob constantly enjoyed, so that the only result of Laban's craft was Jacob s ever-increasing prosperity ; indeed, as Jacob states, the advantages granted by Yahwe to Jacob were shared by Laban, so that Laban had absolutely no excuse for his attempts to overreach his nephew. This is described in Gen. 30:25-43, 31:7-12. It will be observed that the account in ch. 31, which is E's, differs from the former, which is almost entirely that of J. See LABAN.

We have an external but not independent reference to the same tradition in Hos. 12:12 [13], where a later writer (see Nowack, Wellhausen) mentions a detail in the completed story of Jacob to show the trials which the ancestor of Israel had undergone of old, and the faithful guardianship of his God.

'And Jacob tied to the uplands of Aram (D^N rnfc ; see 3 on Paddan-Aram ), and Israel served for a woman, and kept sheep'. (MT gives 'and for a woman he kept', which is unintelligible, and in conjunction with v. 13 [14] has suggested to Wellhausen the strange idea of a conflict between a good principle represented by a prophet and an evil principle represented by a woman. Read perhaps "lOB* D KOD? [or Q 3 eol] ; cp ;, Gen. 30:32.^:)

This is a specimen of the way in which Jewish piety nourished itself on the legends of the past. It has an interest as such ; but it supplies no confirmation of the supposed facts of the story. It is with pure legend that we have to deal, and it is pure legend which asserts that Jacob had eleven sons (besides daughters) born to him in Haran (Hauran), who became the ancestors of as many Israelitish tribes. All this part of the legend is late ; it can have arisen only when the union of the tribes had, under David, become an accomplished fact, and when Aramaean influence upon Israel was so strong that the Israelites themselves were ambitious of being thought to be related to the Aramaean race (cp Dt. 26s, 'a lost Aramaean was my father' ). One of the most interesting points in the narrative is that four of the sons Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher are said to have been the children of hand maids, the two former of Rachel s handmaid Bilhah, the two latter of Leah's handmaid Zilpah. The origin of the latter name at any rate is transparent ; Zilpah = ZELOPHEHAD = Salhad. When the Israelites conquered Salhad, they must have become fused with the Aramaean population.

There are, indeed, several clear indications that even such early writers as J and E were not unconscious of Jacob s representative character. The clearest are in 31:22-54 (note especially brethren fellow -clansmen, 31:23-54). It is not unworthy of notice, however, that in E's account of Jacob s second name (32 :28 [29]) it is said, 'for thou hast contended with a god and with men, and hast prevailed', where it is impossible to put the struggle of wits in which Laban and Jacob were engaged on a par with the physical struggle related in 32 23 [24]^: No complete justification of the phrase can be given but on the hypothesis that tradition knew of a struggle between the Laban-clan and the Jacob-clan in which the latter represented itself as having been successful.

Here we see the influence of later historical circumstances, and still more in the remarkable narrative, 31 18 [i9]-322 [3] (JE, but chiefly E), to understand which a right keen textual criticism has to be resorted to. The results are given under GILEAD, nor have we space to repeat them here, except so far as to remind the reader that it is there maintained that a later editor, through unfamiliarity with the early importance of Salhad, has converted it into Sahadutha, Galeed, and Gilead, and has also seriously interfered with the geography of the next section (823-31 [4-32]). On the peculiar type of marriage (the so-called beena ) represented in this part of the legend, we must also refer elsewhere (KINSHIP, 8) ; on the wrestling with Elohim see JABBOK.

5. Danger from Esau.[edit]

Another clan that of ESAU \_q.v.~\ now becomes dangerous to the Jacobeans. Behold, Esau came (from Seir), and with him four hundred men (Gen. 33:1; cp32:6[7]; 'I fear him, lest he come and smite me, the mother with the children' (32:11 [12]). It is at present superior in strength to the Jacob-clan, 'thus shall ye speak to my lord Esau' (32:3 [4]). Whether this narrative fits in perfectly with the preceding one may be doubted, even if we assume that J made Jacob cross not the Jabbok but the Jordan (see GILEAD). If, however, we may assume that according to the earlier tradition Jacob's sojourn was not in Hauran but at Hebron, we can understand the danger to which he was exposed from the Edomites. * It may be added that Succoth is elsewhere (see SALECAH, SUCCOTH, PENUEL) identified with Salhad. Evidently there is some great con fusion in this part of the record of tradition, and if the same confusion begins to be visible even earlier, we need not feel any surprise.

1 It is very difficult to suppose with Winckler (Gesch. 255, n. i) that E represented Esau as coming upon Jacob from a place in the N., somewhere near Dan, where Abraham and Isaac dwelt, and whence Jacob fled to Laban in Haran.

2 It is strange that Dinah should be of marriageable age ; but, of course, the story once circulated as an independent tradition.

3 The assignment to E is not undisputed.

6. Shechem and Bethel.[edit]

Here is another proof of the tribal reference of the name Jacob. Were he an individual, he would naturally return at once to his father, at Beersheba or Rehoboth (contrast 28:21). Instead of this he goes to Shechem and purchases a piece of land from the clan called b'ne Hamor (33:18 [19], E ; on 48:22 see SHECHEM). It is worth noticing that the words 'Shechem s father, for a hundred kesitahs' are corrupt (see KESITAH). Still more clearly marked is the tribal character of Jacob in the strange narrative of Shechem's endeavour to obtain Dinah (Jacob's daughter) as his wife, 2 of the amalgamation of the Shechemite and the Jacobean communities proposed by Hamor, and of the vengeance taken by Simeon and Levi on the whole city for an act of shameless impropriety (nSa: I see FOOL) committed by Shechem. Why does Jacob acquire rights of property in Shechem ? and why are the b'ne Yaakob so strict in their requirement of purity of blood in the civic community ? Because Shechem became the centre of the confederation of the northern Israelitish tribes.

It is remarkable, however, that the clan does not yet receive the name b'ne Israel. According to E (see Dillmann) Jacob's name was changed to Israel 3 when he crossed the Jabbok (32:27-28 [28-29]). It is probable that J, as well as P, represented the change as taking place at Bethel, whither Jacob repaired after leaving Shechem, because from this point in his narrative he, like R, uses the name Israel instead of Jacob (see 35zi/. 37313 43 6 8 ii, etc. ). How J explained the name Israel we are not told. There is nothing to prevent us from supposing that he adopted some different explanation which did not please the redactor as well as E's. It is possible that, like the marriage of Abraham and SARAH [y.v.]i the supposed change of Jacob's name really symbolises a fusion of two tribes, the tribes in this case being an Israel tribe from the N. and a Jacob (Abicabod) tribe from the S.

The origin of the ethnic name Israel has been much discussed. ^K-\ef occurs several times on the Moabite Stone, and the ethnic sir-la-ai on the monolith of Shalmaneser II. (KB liyz). Sayce (PSBA 2123 [1900]) cites the name Isarlim (= Israel) as king of Khana (E. frontier of Babylonia) in the time of Hammurabi. At least as old as Jerome is the interpretation rectus doinini (as if from 12 , cp JASHER, 4 ; JESHURUN); Jerome also gives vir videns deum (as if from 7K niO E* N ; cp Gen. 33 10). More attractive philologically, and yet not plausible on other grounds, is a connection with Ass. asru, 'place', as if = 'place of El.' The favourite modern explanation is 'El rules' (from TTUp ; cp rnlwp, Is. 9 sf.) , but to convey this idea we should rather have expected Malchiel ; nor is the root nit? as well established as one could wish. Gen. 3228 (cp Hos. 12 5 [4]) suggests El strives, or, as Driver (in Hastings DB 2 5303), on grounds of Arabic usage, prefers El persists or perseveres (in contending). This view must be admitted to be ancient ; but the sense is hardly satis factory. Let us make a fresh start. It is perhaps unsafe to start from the traditional form SNTB", there being no early personal or local names in the genealogies or elsewhere which confirm it, with the single exception of nife , which has presumably the same origin (cp SARAH), and must therefore be provisionally set on one side. There are, however, names some what resembling Isra'el, which may help us, viz.

  • (1) Jizre'el (JEZREEL), which is both a personal and a local name, and is found both in the centre and in the S. of Palestine ;
  • (2) ^J"BXi ASAR'EL, the name of a son of Jehallelel probably = Jerahmeel ;
  • (3) rriT, ZERAH, which is given as a Judahite, a Simeonite, and an Edomite name.

Of these names (3) is the most helpful. Jizrah-el ( 'God shines forth' ) is a highly probable clan- name, and might at an early date be corrupted popularly both into *?K$nT i Jizre'el, and into NIB , Jisra'el. Turning now to the story of the change of Jacob's name to Israel (which has prob ably been altered), we notice the statement (Gen. 32:32 [31]), which in such a context cannot be merely picturesque, that as he (Jacob) passed by Penuel, the sun shone forth upon him I 1 ? mn)- A reference to our explanation of the story of the covenant between Jacob and Laban (GALEED, i) will show that the place from which Jacob came was called, not Galeed (Gilead), but Salhad or SALECAH (<?.v.). The prominence of this strong fortress in Israelitish legend and history has been too long overlooked. To the other illustrations of this fact we may now add that Salhad (Salhar) not improbably derived its name from the clan, or confederation of clans, which, after leaving the Haunln, found its way to the land of the b'ne Jerahme'el (Gen. 29 1, a case of the confusion of legends, see above, 3) in the far S. of Palestine. If the transformations of names that have elsewhere been assumed be held to be probable it will not be thought improbable that in ?! (Salehad) or riD^D (Salecah) has arisen, partly by transposition, and partly by corruption of letters, from Sttt]miM> Jizrah-el. Cp the parallel corruption jxiE" for Sjnt i 2 S. 17 25 (see ITHRA). It need hardly be said that there were in early times both northern (north-eastern) and southern Israelites. The southern Israelites appear to have joined the Jerahmeelites at Hebron (or rather Rehoboth). The above view is no more than a hypothesis ; but it seems to be more in accordance with analogies than the rival theories, and what appears to be an obvious explanation of a primitive tribal name noun is very likely to be wrong.

Several details in chap. 35 deserve attention. Thus in vv. 2-4 Jacob's household give up all their heathenish objects (cp 31 18 [19] 52 [53] Josh. 242 14). In v. 8 Rachel s nurse Deborah receives the highest funeral honours ; in reality, however, it is Dinah, Jacob s eldest daughter, who dies ; the text needs criticism (see above, col. 1102, n. i). This means perhaps that the Dinah-tribe had perished ; hence the mourning of the parent-stem. In w. 16-19 Rachel dies on the way to Ephrath (but see below). Her child has two names BENONI and BENJAMIN.

The extracts from J and E give us no very clear idea where Jacob or Israel settled after the death of Rachel ; J tells us indeed ( 35 21 ) that Jacob encamped beyond Migdal Eder : but where was Migdal Eder ? Probably it was not far from Beeroth, which name should probably be substituted for Ephrath in w. 16 19 and for Hebron in 37 14 (see EPHRATH). P, however, states (v. 27) that Jacob came to his father Isaac at Kirjath-arba (see REHOBOTH, SODOM).

7. Close of life, etc.[edit]

The remainder of Jacob's life is inseparable from the story of Joseph ; its events need not be recapitulated here. (See JOSEPH ; ABEL - MIZRAIM ; MACHPELAH -). It is natural for modern readers, approaching the narrative from the point of view of psychological development, to find traces of a mellowing in Jacob s character. If there be anything in this supposition it must be due to the fact that the narrators have put more of themselves into the latter part of Jacob s life, where its threads intertwined with those of Joseph's, than they could venture to do in the former. It is, however, to the popular traditions that we must turn for the truest symbols of Israelitish character as it was in the days of the two great narrators J and E. The elaborate Blessing ascribed to Jacob cannot be treated as a part of the biography ; it is, apart from later elements, a splendid monument of early Hebrew literature (see POETICAL LITERATURE), and historically too is of the utmost importance. Even though the text has suffered much corruption, in the special articles on the tribes frequent occasion has been found to utilize its details. See also ISRAEL.

8. Mythology.[edit]

Winckler's mythological explanation of Jacob as (originally) the moon in its relation to the year, corresponding to Abraham the moon in its relation to the month, is ingeniously and plausibly worked out (Gesch. 2 57 ff.\ That there are somewhat pale mythological elements in some of the biblical narratives may be admitted ; but to many minds Winckler's proof of his hypothesis will seem almost too laboured to be convincing. Cp also Winckler, ib. 82 ; and cp Stucken, Astralmythen ( Jakob ), whose treatment of parallel mythic details is extraordinarily clever.

See further Staerk, Studien zur Religions- und Sprach- geschichte des AT\ 77-83 2 1-13. T. K. C.




(i&KOyBoc [A]), i Esd. 9 4 3 = Neh.8 7 , AKKUB (q.v., 3).


(1?T ; I&A&6 [BA]), a name in the Jerahmeelite genealogy ; his mother was Atarah and one of his sons was Jether ; i Ch. 22832 (v. 32, |AOYA<\ [B], ieAA&e [A], v. 28 om., v. 32 IA.AA, [L]).


(1T, Kr. p) p Ezral0 4 3, RV Iddo. RV m e-Jaddai. See IDDO, ii. 2.


(WT, 56 ; or according to Lag. Uebers. 113, INT).

1. Signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i. 7) ; Neh. 10 21 [22] (ifSSova [N c - a L], teSSovx [A], om. BN*).

2. b. Jonathan, three generations below Eliashib, was the last of the high priests mentioned in the OT (Neh. 12 1122; taSov [BKA], ie"SSou [L] ; aSova [K* vid.] and ifioua [*?] in v. 22). According to Jos. (Ant. xi. $4_/C ; taSSous), who adds much that is doubtful, he was in office at the time of Alexander s invasion of Judaea [332 B.C.]. See NEHEMIAH, i.

3. See BARZII.LAI, 3.


AV Addus (lAAAoyc [B] etc.), i Esd. 538f=Ezra26irt, BARZILLAI, 3.


(pT, abbreviated form, cp NAMES, 53 ; BNA om. ; i&pei [L]), the Meronothite, in the list of wall-builders (see NEHEMIAH, if., EZRA ii. 16 [i], is</), Neh.3 7 .


(TflJ, 68 ; mountain-goat ; )AH A [BAL] ; Jos. IA.AH ; JAHEL). A Bedouin woman, of whom Sisera, when flying defeated from the field of battle, asked water, and by whom, as he stood drinking the refreshing soured milk (Ar. leban), he was beaten lifeless to the ground. Upon this deed a high encomium is pronounced by a contemporary Israelitish poet, Judg. 624-27 (i77\[A]). And rightly, from his point of view, if Jael was a Kenite (see below), for by this bold deed she recognised the sacred bond of friendship between the Israelites and the Kenites (cp Judg. 1 16 4 n). Sisera was out of the pale of charity for an Israelite ; therefore also for a Kenite. The act by which Jael gained such renown was not the murder of a sleeping man, but the use of a daring stratagem which gave her a momentary chance to deliver a courageous blow (WRS OTJCW 132). A later writer, however, whose version of the story of Sisera appears on the whole to be independent of that in Deborah's Song, employed all the arts of a graceful style to represent Jael as having killed Sisera in his sleep (Judg. 4:18-21). Jael invites the tired fugitive into her tent, covers him up with the tent-rug, and then, when he is sleeping soundly, takes one of the tent-pegs, and strikes it with a hammer into his forehead. She thus violates the double sanctity attaching to Sisera as a guest and (see DAVID, i, col. 1023, n. i) as a sleeper, and seems deserving of a curse (Doughty, Arabia Deserta,\$f>} rather than a blessing. The narrator, it is true, does not in express terms commend her ; but a hardly re pressed enthusiasm is visible in his description (vv. 2if.). Which tradition has the better claim to be regarded as his torical? Obviously not the second. The refined treachery which this account assumes is inconceivable in a Bedawi, and the absurdity of transfixing a man's skull with a tent-peg is so great that one is compelled to conjecture that the passage of the song relative to Jael s deed (Judg. 5:26) lay before the narrator in a corrupt form. Moore and Budde have set forth the present position of textual criticism, and it is one of baffled perplexity. Yet the remedy is perhaps near at hand (see Crit. Bib.). The true text should most probably run thus :

Her hand to the coffer she reaches,
Her right hand to a flint of the rock ;
With the flint she strikes his head,
She smashes she cleaves his temple.

The bowl in which Jael presented the soured milk was not a bowl of the mighty (n TiM hso) t> ut a bowl of bronze, Ass. urudil ; cp COPPER, 2. The nail, or rather tent-peg (in ) should be the coffer which, as Doughty says, every Bedawi housewife has, and which contained among other things flints for striking fire (WpV or Wp^)- The workmen s hammer (c^DJJ mS^n) an impossible rendering should be a flint of the rock (i/?D EJ pSn). It only remains to remark, after Moore, that the words in the days of Jael (Judg. 56), and the wife of Heber the Kenite (5 24) are glosses which overload the stichi in which they occur. See DEBORAH, i ; HEBER, i ; JUDGES, 7 ; SISERA. T. K. C.


0-ir ; ACCup [B], lAfOYP t AL ]>- a Judahite city on the border of Edom (Josh. 1 5 2if). Cp KABZEEL.


(HIT, cp MAHATH, NAHATH, TAHATH ; ie9 [BA], I&A.9 [L]), a well-known Levitical name which has associations with Judah (see i, below) and Edom ; see GENEALOGIES, 7 [v.].

1. b. Reaiah b. Shobal, a Judahite, i Ch. 42 (om. A*, icuaO [L]). A comparison with i Ch. 252 suggests a possible connec tion with Manahath (MT nimp). In view of the vicissitudes of this name (see below) it is to be observed that Shobal is prob ably the parent of the forms Shebuel and SHUBAEL [g.v.], and that a variant may plausibly be found (see Jastrow, JBL 19 102 [1900]) in the familiar Shemu el (Samuel).

2. A Levitical name, i Ch. 620 [5] (ief0 [B]), 43 [28] (nx* [B], i0 [A]), 23 10 (uriijA. [L]), 24 22 (iva.0 [BA]), 2 Ch. 34 12 (ie [B], taeO [L]).t In tracing back the Levite Samuel to Korah (the Kehathite), the Chronicler introduces the analogous names Mahath, Nahath, and Tahath (i Ch. 6 23 26 [cp v. 34], 35 37) ; cp with these, the Kehathite Jahath (b. Shelomoth b. ins ) 1 in i Ch. 2422. But Shelomoth (b. Shimei) is Gershonite in 23 9 (as also is Shebuel [cp i, above], ib. v. 16), and in agreement with this we find an important Gershonite division, Jahath b. Shimei, 2 in v. 10. Further, Jahath the father of Shimei, and Jahath b. Libni reappear in the genealogies of the Gershonites Ethan, Ethni, and Asaph (i Ch. 643 [28]), and Jeatherai ( = Ethni? ib. v. 20 [5]) respectively. Finally, not only Jahath (2Ch. 34 12), but also Libni and Shimei (i Ch. 6 29), are used as Merarite names, to which division even Ethan (see ETHAN, 2, 3) himself is finally ascribed. S. A. C.

1 We may perhaps associate ins with the name njnx (Zorah) which is brought into connection with Jahath, i, in i Ch. 2 52 f. 4 2 (for another view see GENEALOGIES, 7 [v.], col. 1666).

2 Considering the way in which genealogical lists are built up, it is possible that <yoty 3 fin 11 is the same as <js>oy a flDD (iCh. 6 35 [20] 2 Ch 29 12).


( , iT, Is. 15 4 Jer. 48 34 [Mesha s inscr. //. IQ/.]; nSiV or ni"P, Nu. 2l2 3 Dt. 2 3 2 Josh. 13i8 21 3 6 Judg. Il2o "jer. 48 21 i Ch. 6 63 [78]).

has iao-0-o. [BN*AFQL], but eitrcra in Nu. [B*], Patrav in Josh. 13 [B], ia)p [?] in Josh. 21 36 [BAL ; cp v. 39], lacra [B], iTjA. [A] in Judg. 11 20, lao-a [Q n &] in Is. 164, pc</>ac [BA], pa<j>a6 [N*], pao-as [Nc.a] i n Jer. 4821 ; for v. 34 see Swete).

Jahaz was the scene of the decisive battle between the Israelites and Sihon, king of the Amorites (Nu. 2123 Dt. 232 Judg. 11 20). It was assigned to Reuben (Josh. 13 18 P) and to the Levites (Josh. 21 36 P). Mesha, king of Moab, refers to it as taken by himself from the Israelites.

The site is uncertain. It was near Kedemoth (Josh. 13i8 21s6) and the wilderness of Kedemoth (Dt. 226, cp Nu. 2123), and it was N. of the Arnon. This points to the extreme SE. of Sihon s territory ; Oliphant s suggested identification with Yajuz is therefore out of the question. Eusebius (OS 264 94) informs us that Jahaz (ie<rcra) still existed in his time, and that it was situated between Medeba and Dibon (5i;/3cws). There seems to be some mistake here ; the position thus assigned to Jahaz appears too central. Possibly MTjSa/Sa is corrupt. At any rate we may plausibly hold that the important ruins of Umm er-Resas (cp (fN c - a Jer. 4821) are on the site either of Jahaz or of Kedemoth. This spot is two hours and a half NE. of Dibon, towards the desert (see KEDEMOTH). T. K. c.


RV JAHZEIAH (nnrV, 32; Yahwe sees ), b. Tikvah, one of Ezra s opponents (Kosters, Herstel, ngf.) in dealing with the mixed marriages, EzralOis (A<\zeiA [BN*], - C [N a ]- IAZI- [A] Az . [L]) = i Esd. 9 14, EZECHIAS (RV Ezekias, ezei&C [B], ezeKi- [A], IAZIAC [L]). See AHASAI.


(^TIT, 82 ; God sees, cp iTJIV and H^TPI, iezmA[AL]; Pesh. nearly always ^. JjuJ). 1

1. One of David s warriors (i Ch. 124, ie]A [BN]).

2. A priest, temp. David (i Ch. 106, om. N*, of[e]ir;\ [BNc.amg.A].

3. b. Hebron, a Kehathite Levite, i Ch. 23 19 (ofirjA. [B], in^irjA [AL]), 2423 (ux<nj [B], iaii)A [AL]) for whose name we should possibly read UZZIEL (g.v. i).

4. An Asaphite Levite, b. Zechariah, introduced in the story of the Ammonite invasion; son of Zechariah, who rose up temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 20 14 o[e]oj\ [BA]). Cp HAZIEL, a Ger shonite name, and on the relation of Asaph to Gershon see GENEALOGIES i., 7 (be).

5. The father of Shechaniah of the b ne ZATTU (y.v.) (Ezra 85, om. B, arjA [AL]), so also Pesh. and i Esd. 832 QEZELUS ; ieSri\ov [B], leiftAov [A], a^irjA. [L]), in place of MT s of the sons of Shechaniah, the son of Jahaziel . . . .


C^iT [Ba.] or ^!T [Gi.], from v mn to lead, 1 cp Sab. [DJHn? mco^ [ B ]. lAA&i [A], -ei [L]). the head of a family of six abruptly introduced into the genealogy of Caleb (i Ch. 247). The context suggests that a concubine of Caleb is intended. Perhaps we should read nn.T, Jehudijah (cp i Ch. 4i8), the six sons mentioned would then be half-Judahite.

T. K. c.


(bxnnV El is glad or gladdens, 35, cp JEHDEIAH ; leAemA [B ; A and A confused], ieAl- [AL]), one of the chiefs of Manasseh-beyond-Jordan (i Ch. 5 24 f).


(HIT; cp JAHDIEL; loypei [B], ieAA<M [A], leAAco [L]), a Gadite (i Ch. 5i 4 t).


PN?!T, probably corrupt), a son, that is, family or clan, of Zebulun ; Gen. 46 14, P (<\AOHA [A], HA [Dl AIHA [L]); Nu. 2626, P UAAHA [BAL]; ethnic Jahleelites, ^gn, &AAHA[e]i

Perhaps, like JAHZEEL, a corruption of ?Nit?rr, God 'delivers'.

T. K. C.

1 In Syr. 3 is the preformative of the impf. Another similar formation is seen in ^J^aj f r n ??!. Jephthah.


[B], ie/v\oy [ A l- [L], lEMAi}, 1 an Issacharite clan-name (i Ch. 7 2).

Analogy suggests that -an s an abbreviated theophorous name (cp WRS in COT 2301), perhaps for hh Orr, cp Sab. jxorr 6x and DH ). 2 , r ocl protects, or (since the v/nan does not appear to be used in Heb.) for [lln ^Drr, which has actually been found upon a Heb. seal. S. A. C.


Jer. 482, RV. See JAHAZ.


(bxyiT, God halves ? 38; *c[e]iH\ [A/JFL]), a son of Naphtali ; Gen. 46 24 (ia<r|3i)A [LD; Nu.26 4 8 (o-a^X [B*], acnjA. [Ba.b]). i Ch. 7 13 has JahZiel [KVJ or rather jAHAZiEL(V*rV; iet<riT)X[B],iac7-iT)A[A],ia<r(m)ML]). Nu.26 4 8 has the patronymic Jahzeelites CfKXn_*ri; o-arjAet [B*], aorjAfi [Ba-b], a<rii)A.i [AFL]). Rather a corruption of TUf^i cp JAHLEEL. T. K. C.


(nnrr), Ezra 10 15 RV, AV JAHAZIAH. JAHZERAH (rnT.rP), i Ch. 9iat- See AHASAI. JAIR (~)W. He [God] enlightens, 53; i^eip [HAFL]). i. After the main body of the Israelites had settled down W. of Jordan various Manassite clans migrated to the E. , and, having dispossessed the Amorites, founded settlements in Bashan and N. Gilead. Among them was (the clan of) Jair : Nu. 32 4 i (iarip [A], Dt. 3 14 i K. 4 13 [om. BL] lapeip [A]). In the above-mentioned passages Jair is called the son of Manasseh ; but in i Ch. 221-23 (v. 22, aeip [A]; v. 23, ffo-fip [B* ; a a dittograph], iapeip [A]) he is made to be of mixed descent, namely from Hezron, a Judahite, on his father s side, and from Machir on his mother s side. 3 In Judg. 103-5, mention is made of Jair, a Gileadite (aeip [A in v. 5]), and it is very probable that Jair may have been placed by one tradition in the age of Moses and by another in the age of the Judges. He is said to have had thirty sons, who rode on thirty asses and had thirty cities called HAVVOTH-JAIR (q.v-)- The notice of the thirty colts may be a gloss based on 12 14 and facilitated by the similarity of the words for cities and colts (the parono masia in any [cities] and n Tj| [colts] is retained also in (5 TruXeis . . and wwXovs). The expression in Judg. 10s and Jair died, and was buried in CAMON (f.v.) leads one to suppose that the seat of the clan was at j that place. See JKPHTHAH, zf.

2. The father of Mordecai, Esth. 25 (6 rov laeipou [BXL] ... I larpov [A]). In the Apocrypha (Esth. 11 2) his name appears as JAIRUS.

1 Pesh. v, r >ft~\ is hardly a safe support in favour of the reading t Offo* aa which see ELHANAN, 2.

2 Cited in Ges. Lex.W.

3 This post-exilic representation probably means that there was a clan made up partly of the tribe of Judah and partly of that of Manasseh, which occupied the region where the Havvoth-jair were situated (cp Be. Chron., ad Inc.).


("VIP- He (God) awakens, so Kr. and Pesh. ; Kt. , however, "IW, Jer. films salt us, i.e. , TIP, with i defect. ), the clan-name or the name of an ancestor of ELHANAN [t/.v.~\, i Ch. 20s (i&eip [BL], dAeip [A]). In the parallel passage (2 S. 21 19) we find the form JAARE-(OREGIM). See ELHANAN, 2.


CnXn), 2 S. 20 2 6. See IRA, 3.


(lAeipoc [Ti. WH]; probably 0/=the Jair of OT), a ruler of the synagogue, whose daughter Jesus restored to life just after her death (Mk. 622^ Lk. 841 /.). The narrative is specially important, because the restoration to life to which it refers is the best attested of the three marvels of this class related in the Gospels, being given in Mt. (9i8^), Mk. , and Lk. , not, however, without differences.

Of these differences, which are outweighed by the points of agreement, one is the non-mention of the name of the ruler (not ruler of the synagogue ) in Mt.'s account. Indeed, the Codex Bezae (D) is without the name in Mk., and (originally) in Lk. also.

That the narrative in some form belongs to the earliest stratum of the Gospel tradition is further supported ( i ) by the profound saying The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth, which occupies a central position and is quite in the manner of Jesus, and (2! by the interweaving of another narrative which expresses one of the popular superstitions so forcibly that it must be as old as any in the Gospels.

The earliest form of the story of the ruler is that given in Mt. 9i8/. 23-26. As Weiss has pointed out, the earliest traditional narratives were not much con cerned about details, but aimed at connecting the remembered sayings of Jesus with the facts which formed (or, it was thought, must have formed) their true setting. Whether Weiss is right in ascribing all the picturesque details in Mk. to a Petrine tradition, is at best doubtful ; he is at any rate most probably quite wrong in adopting Mk. s report of the ruler s appeal to Jesus viz. , My little daughter is at the point of death (etrxaTuj ex el )- For this evangelist represents the feeling of a later time that it was too much to believe that the ruler could at once have risen to the height of faith implied in Mt. 9i8; he assumes that the ruler must at first have been afraid of such a bold request as that Jesus would raise the dead. Mt. s account, however, rightly understood, makes this assumption unnecessary. The ruler s faith, though great, is not heroic. He has the superstitious idea that the soul is still hovering about its former receptacle, and craves of Jesus that by a magic touch of his hand the scarcely parted soul and body may be organically reunited. Another point in which Mk. s account is certainly inferior to Mt. s is the injunction to secrecy (Mk. 543). This is in place in the story of the blind men which follows in Mt. (927-32), but not in the story of the ruler, according to which much people had heard the unhappy father s appeal to the Master. Whether even the words TALITHA CUMI [g.v. ] may be accepted from Mk. is doubtful. Certainly the name Jairus is the spontaneous invention of a pious and poetic imagination. Tradition (except in Mk. ) does not record the names of persons in the crowd who were cured by Jesus, 1 and the origin of the name is manifest, viz. not TN T he enlightens, but (Nestle, Chajes) TJT he will awaken (from the sleep of death).

Whether the raising of the dead maiden is historical is another question. That Yahwe was regarded even in the older period as the lord of life and death, and there fore as one who might on special occasions raise the dead, is undeniable. But how could any special occasion arise, now that the belief in the resurrection had become so general ? For by this belief the conception of death was transformed ; men could not sorrow as those who had no hope. Nor did Jesus himself consider it to be within his ordinary province to raise the dead. It has indeed been said (e.g. , by Weiss) that Mt. 11 s (Lk. 722) proves that more instances of the raising of the dead occurred than are reported in the Gospels. But this implies a misinterpretation of the message to John the Baptist, which is certainly allegorical ; tha words, 'the dead are raised up', are explained by the next clause, and the poor have the glad tidings brought to them. 3 That Lk. misunderstood the words (Lk. 7 21 ; cp NAIN) renders it not improbable that Mk. did so too, and that all three evangelists (whose idea of Jesus was marred by recollections of Elijah and Elisha)^ misunderstood that deep saying of Jesus, 'She is not dead, but sleepeth'.

They have at any rate preserved the saying for us, even if the setting which they have produced is not the right one. See Keim, Jtsu von Nazara, 2471-475 ; Weiss, Das Leben Jesu, 1552-565; Reville, Jesus tie Nazareth, 268/1; Plummer, St. Luke (International Comm.), 233^ None of these writers gives complete satisfaction ; even Dr. Plummer thinks that we may be content, with Hase, to admit that certainty is unattain able as to whether the maiden was dead or in a trance. On the originality of Mt. s narrative, Badham, St. Mark s Indebted ness to St. Matthew ( 97), 47-50, is excellent ; but it is a mistake to admit that the name Jairus looks original. See, further, GOSPELS. T. K. C.

1. Even Mk.'s Bartimaeus is perhaps not really a personal name ; 'Timaeus' may very possibly be a Greek substitute for the Aram, 'samya', blind. Son of the blind would mean one of the company of the blind a numerous company in Palestine. Cp BARTIMAEUS. Mary Magdalene is of course altogether excep- tional.

2 See the forcible argument in BARTIMAEUS, g i (small type paragraph). . ,

3 Just as the idea of St. Francis soon became blurred in the minds of his biographers.


(\\)y\ 54; RV JAAKAN), a name in the Horite genealogy (i Ch. l42f).

In the || list in Gen. 8627 it appears as and AKAN (jpyi for Jpy X f which B S reading (icai uivav) in i Ch. is a corruption. L combines the readings (Gen. KCU lOUKa/u, i Ch. xai taaxav), the latter being perhaps the original form in both cases ; see BEEROTH ii.). A s text is conflate (Gen. itouica^ [D has tecou- leap] <cai OVKO.V [AE] ; i Ch. iiaoucav ai ovKa/ji [A]).


{i1i, some MSS NJ5*, according to Delitzsch scrupulously pious i.e. , euXa/STjs, cp Ar. wakd, viii. ) father of AGUR (q.v. ) ; Prov. 30 1.

The Midrash (ad loc. and elsewhere) does not, as we might have supposed, identify Jakeh with David, but takes ben-Jakeh to be a description of the poet called Agur (i.e., Solomon), as one who is free from all sin and iniquity. T. K. C.


(D 1 ^, 86, 53; he [El] raises ; cp ELIAKIM, AI.CIMUS ; IAKCIM [BAL]).

1. The name of one of the twenty-four post-exilic priestly courses : I Ch. 24 12 (eAiaxet/u [A]).

2. b. Shimei (v. 13, Shema) in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., 9, ii. jS); i Ch.8i 9 . See/(?/v Ilio 3 , i.

3. In AV m - of Mt. In Jakim represents the i<ocucetju. inter polated by some late Gk. and Syr. MSS (apparently also by Irenaeus and Epiphanius ; see WH) between the names of Josiah and Jechomah in the genealogy of Jesus. See GENEALOGIES ii., 2 and cp JEHOIACHIX.


l), Gen. 36 5 RV ; AV JAALAM.


(flA AMCON [B], i^AcoN [AL]), b. Ezrah (cp EZER ii. , i), one of the b ne HUK ; i Ch. 4?. BAL suggests pW, AIJALON (q.v. , i, and note readings there cited). This, however, seems too far N., and considering the positions of the other places mentioned, we should possibly read jiSa, Gilon = Giloh (on the form cp Driver, TBS 241).


(i<\/v\BpHC [Ti. WH]), 2 Tim. 38. See JANNES.


(rather JAMRI)

An Arab clan or tribe, residing in MEDEBA (q.v. ), which attacked John the brother of Jonathan (the Maccabee) as he was on his way to the NABAT^EANS, and carried him off with all that he had (i Mace. 9 35^ : ol viol ta/j.[3pet.v [A], . . . a/u/3pei [N], ta/jL/ipei [V] ; v. 37 viol ia.fj.ppu> [A], ia.fi.ppi [N*V], a/x/3pt [Jt CAC -< id -]). From w. 38 42 it appears that John was slain ; what happened to the women and children of the Jews is not stated. To avenge his brother s death, Jonathan and his brother Simon crossed the Jordan, and sur prised and discomfited the b ne Jamri (Amri) as they were escorting a bride with a great train from NADA- BATH (q.v.), ib. v. 37. Josephus (Ant. xiii. 124) tells the same story ; he calls the hostile tribe ol Ap.apa.iov TrcuSes. Ajiiapcuoj, like A/napivos, in Jos. Ant. viii. 12s, seems to represent npy, Omri (for the (g readings of which name see OMRI). Since, however, the name ncjr has been found in an Aramaic inscription at Umm er-Resds, about 12 m. SSE. from Medeba (see CIS 2 no. 195 /. 3), it seems best to retain the form Jamri. T. K. C.


(i<\KO)Boc. Jacobus), the name of three persons prominently mentioned in the NT- James the Son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphaeus, and James the brother of Jesus.

1. Son of Zebedee.[edit]

The first two of these are included in the lists of the apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts(Mt. 102/. Mk. 3 1?/. Lk. 6i 4 /. Acts Ii 3 ). The former of this pair was a brother of John ; their father a Galilean fisherman, probably a resident of Capernaum is re presented in the first two Gospels (Mt. 4 21 Mk. 120) as having been present when his two sons were called by Jesus to be his disciples, although in the legendary account of this event in the third gospel the presence of Zebedee is not implied, their call being made inci dental to that of Peter, who is said to have been a partner of theirs. It is a usual inference from Mt. 27 56 and Mk. 1540 that Salome was their mother, although this cannot be proved. The call of James to be a disciple was followed some months afterwards by his appointment as one of the twelve apostles. His prominence in this band is indicated by the fact that, in all the four lists referred to above, his name is mentioned among the first, along with Peter, Andrew, and John, who are distinguished, together with him, not only by the position which is accorded to them in the lists (cp APOSTLE, i, table), but also in the record of several important events (Mk. 637 183 Mt. 17i 2637, and parallels).

Mk. [very enigmatically] relates that the brothers, James and John, were designated by Jesus, Boats/ryes, which is explained 'sons of thunder'. l

That this name was bestowed upon them by Jesus prior to a manifestation of certain qualities of character is as improbable as that it was given without a reason. Besides, the part which tradition may have had in attributing to them the name and to Jesus the bestowal of it is indeterminable. We may conjecture that they earned the name, either from Jesus or from some other source, on account of a certain impetuosity, manifested, perhaps, in the incident referred to as mentioned in Lk., and in their rash answer to Jesus question: 'Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?' The request which called forth this solemn question may also be regarded as indicating qualities of char acter which might have given rise to the designation in question. [Further than this on the track marked out by the older criticism we cannot go. It is time, perhaps, to strike out a new path, calling in the aid of philological and textual criticism. Can lioavTjpyeg be right V]

The last appearance of James the son of Zebedee in the gospel -history is in Gethsemane at the agony of Jesus (Mt. 2637 Mk. 1433). He is mentioned in Acts (Ii3/. ) among the apostles who, after the resurrection, remained in Jerusalem continuing steadfastly in prayer." The cup which he had so impetuously professed himself able to drink was early prepared for him. At the passover of the year 44 he was distinguished as the first martyr among the apostles by Herod Agrippa I. who, acting, perhaps, in the interest of Pharisaic zealots, undertook a persecution of the Christians. In the language of the writer of Acts (12 if. ), Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. The prominent position of James in the church is perhaps indicated by his selection for this baptism of blood.

The legend that he went as a missionary to Spain, where in 829 his wonder-working bones were found, and where his apparition in luminous armour struck with terror the infidel hosts in the war with the Saracens, was reconciled with the history in Acts by the supposition that, returning from Spain to Jerusalem, he was slam by Herod, and his body carried back and buried by his Spanish travelling-companions.

1 [The name is evidently a compound, and as it stands can not be explained with certainty (see BOANERGES). For a conjecture see GIRSHITE.]

2a. Son of Alphaeus.[edit]

Of James the son of Alphaeus, called in Mk. 1640 James the less (6 [i.i.Kpbs, minor, younger) little is recorded in the NT. According to the same passage, his mother was a certain Mary who is there mentioned as a witness of the crucifixion. The translation of 'Judas of James' ("lot /Sas loJCtASov I Lk. 616 Acts 113) as 'Judas the brother of James' is of doubtful propriety.

2b. Distinct from brother of Jesus.[edit]

The apostle Judas was probably the son of a James otherwise unknown (see JUDE, 7). The question whether James the son of Alphaeus was identical with James the brother of Jesus must be discussed before proceeding to the consideration of the latter.

Doubtless in early times, and perhaps latterly, a prepossession in favour of the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus has had an influence in determining some scholars to maintain the affirmative of this question.

It is argued that from Mt. 27 56 Mk. 1640 and Jn. 1825 the inference may be drawn that Mary the mother of Jesus had a sister Mary who was the wife of Clopas, and that she was the mother of two sons, James the little (6 /u.ixp6s) and Joses. More over, since James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon are men tioned in Mt. 1855 and Mk. 63 as brothers of Jesus, and since in Lk. 6 16 and Acts 1 13 a James and a Jude are included among the apostles, it has been argued that these latter were identical with the James and Judas mentioned among the brothers of Jesus, yet that they were not his brothers, but his cousins. In support of this hypothesis it is maintained that the James called the brother of Jesus, mentioned explicitly by Paul in Gal. 1 19 as such, and frequently elsewhere as simply James, and always indicated as holding a prominent place in the church at Jerusalem, was no other than James the son of Alphaeus who is identified by the hypothesis with the Clopas of Jn. 1025. Thus he would be shown to have been a cousin of Jesus, being the son of a sister of Mary, Jesus s mother, and one of the original apostles.

This argumentation is, however, beset with insuper able difficulties. If the apostle Lebbaeus (Mt. 10 3 ; but RV and WH Thaddoeus) who is called Thaddreus in Mk. 3 1 8, and who by the hypothesis was identical with the Judas of James of Lk. and Acts, was by the first evangelist known to have been a brother of James the son of Alphaeus, it is improbable that this writer would not have indicated this fact after the analogy of Simon and Andrew his brother and James and John his brother. It is no less im probable that, if Judas and Simon were sons of Alphasus and the Mary in question, they would not have been mentioned along with Joses in Mt. 27 56 and Mk. 1640.

It is also evident from the attitude of Jesus s brothers toward him according to Mk. 821 31, that they could not have belonged to the friendly apostolic group. For they are here represented as standing without, and were probably of the his friends (ot Trap aiiroO) who went out to lay hold on him because he was, they thought, beside himself. (Cp Jn. 7s-) In this con nection the fact is important that wherever they are mentioned in the NT they are distinguished from the apostles (Mt. 12 46 Lk. 819 Jn. 73 Acts 1 14 i Cor. 95; the other apostles [besides Paul] and the brothers of the Lord ). Besides, there is nowhere an intimation that any one of the apostles was either a brother or a cousin of Jesus. The attempt to show from Jn. 192$ that Mary, the so-called wife of Clopas (identified by the hypothesis with Alphasus), was the sister of the mother of Jesus and that hence James the son of Alphaeus was his cousin is hazardous. For it is doubtful whether Clopas and Alphaeus are the Aramaic and Greek forms of the same name, since the Syriac version uniformly transliterates them differently (Cleopha and Halpai), and whether Mary of Clopas (Mapi a y TOV KAujra) is really in apposition with the sister of his mother (17 a5eA<>j) nijs /u.>)Tpo ain-oO). The opinion that four women instead of three are mentioned here has the support of the Syriac version and of many of the highest authorities (see Meyer on the passage, and Wieseler in St. Kr. 40, p. 650). Besides, the position is quite tenable that according to the prevailing usus loquendi, Mary of Clopas (Mapi a q TOV KAuijra) means Mary the daughter of Clopas, in which case Clopas would be known only as the father of the Mary mentioned in Jn. 192$ (see CLOPAS). Thus in any case the improbable supposition that in the same family there were two sisters of the same name is obviated. Still, even if it could be shown that James the son of Alphseus was a cousin of Jesus it would not follow that another James was not his brother, since better reasons than those given by Lange and Meyrick are required to justify the abandonment of the natural meaning of afieAc^or. Nor is it necessary to resort to the supposition of step-brothers ; for, according to the obvious sense of first-born (TTPWTOTOKOS ; Lk. 2 7 Mt. 125, Sin. Syr.), Mary was the mother of other sons than Jesus.

It is questioned whether in Gal. 1 19, other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord s brother ( ^Tfpov dt TUV diroffToXuv OVK eldov et fj,Tj laKCd/Jcw TOV ddf\<j>bi> TOV Kvplov), James is included among the apostles. The affirmation is thought to carry with it the identification of the apostle James the son of Alphasus with the brother of |esus. The passage, however, may be correctly rendered, Another of the apostles [save Peter] I did not see, but only James the brother of the Lord.

t fijj ( 'save' ) finding its exception in the negative OVK f Sov ( 'saw not' ) and irepov r. a. ( 'other of the apostles' ) referring to Peter (v.i 8). For a similar construction see Rom. 14 14 i Cor. 84 Gal. 2 16 Mt. 124 24 36 Lk.426/: So interpret Fritzsche. Credner, Bleek, Winer, Holtzmann, and others.

It is not necessary to suppose with Meyer and Lipsius (who object to such an exception to Paul s use of el ny elsewhere) that James is here included among the apostles in the wider sense. The conclusion is legitimate that whenever Paul refers to James he has in mind the one mentioned in this passage, not the son of Alphoeus. A James who is not called the brother of Jesus, and is not specifically designated, is conspicuous in Acts ; but his identification must be controlled by the prominence given by Paul to the brother of the Lord (d5eX<ds TOV Kvpiov ; Gal. 1 19, cp 2912). For want of space, dis cussion of the patristic and other early testimony on this point must be omitted. Suffice it to say that the view that there were three Jameses is supported by Hegesippus, the pseudo- Clementine literature (Horn. 1135, Recogn. 435) and the Apostolic Constitutions (255.612 746 835), whilst Chrysostom, Jerome, and Theodoret are quoted for the opposite opinion.

3. The brother of Jesus.[edit]

James, surnamed the Just, although sharing with the brothers, of whom he was probably the oldest, in their opposition to Jesus during his public ministry, appears to have been converted to his cause soon after the resurrection. According to 1 Cor. 15:7 he was a witness to one of the manifestations of the risen Christ, indeed, to two, if he may be included in the all the apostles (TOIS dwcxrroXoiS iraaiv).

An Ebionite ideal picture of James the brother of the Lord is given by Hegesippus (Eus. HE 2 23) who, after saying that he received the government of the church with the apostles, continues thus : This apostle was consecrated from his mother s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. . . . He was in the habit of entering the temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees, ... so that his knees became as a camel s in consequence of his habitual supplication. The position assigned to him in the church by Hegesippus accords with the statement in the pseudo-Clementine writings that he was the bishop of the holy church, the bishop of Jerusalem, episcoporum princcps, and archiepiscopus.

According to Gal. Ii8 2$, Paul finds James (see CHRONOLOGY, 73/1 ) holding a prominent place in the Christian community in Jerusalem along with Peter and John, and with these three, reputed to be pillars, he came to an arrangement respecting his mission to the Gentiles. So great was the influence or the authority of James that Peter was controlled by him at Antioch in the matter of eating with the Gentiles. For when certain from James came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision (Gal. 2 12). From this fact and from Paul s statement that, yielding to the emissaries from James, the rest of the Jews dissembled, and even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation, the inference is obvious that this brother of Jesus was the acknowledged head of the Jewish-Christian party in the church of Jerusalem and a zealot for the strict observance of the Jewish law. Paul s vehement argument with Peter at Antioch reveals no less clearly the attitude of James and his faction, than the position of Paul himself. The question was that of the validity of the Jewish law for Christians, and Paul exposes the kernel of the matter when he says : I do not make void the grace of God : for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought (Gal. 2ai). This is the historical account of the affair. The writer of Acts, however, whose aim it was to present the original apostles and James in a favourable light with reference to Paulinism, records events which would render the occurrences at Antioch improbable (11 1-12 2117-25 ; see, however, ACTS, 3).

The testimony of antiquity leaves no doubt that James died a violent death at the hands of Jewish zealots about the year 63. For the dramatic account of his martyr dom given by Hegesippus see Eus. HE 223. Josephus relates that, during the interregnum between Festus and Albinus, Ananias the high priest (see ANNAS [end]) called the Sanhedrin together, and having summoned James, secured his condemnation to death by stoning an act for which he suffered the censure of the influential Jews, and was deprived of his office by Albinus.

Important discussions of this subject may be found in Mayor, The Epistle of St. James; Alford, Greek Testament, 4; Davidson, Intr. ; Arnaud, Reckerches, etc., 51 ; Lightfoot, Essay on the Brethren of the Lord ; Lumby, art. James in EBW ; Hilgenfeld, Einl., 75; Meyer s Commentary, 15; Holtzmann, ZWT, 80, and BL 3; Wieseler, St. A>., 42; Keim in BL 1, art. Briider Jesu, 69; Lange in PRE*\), art. Jakobus, 56; Immer in NT Thcol. 282; and Credner, Einl. tfif. ( 36). O. C.


1. Contents.[edit]

The object of this writing, which is with doubtful propriety called an epistle (see, however EPISTOLARY LITERATURE, 9) is to emphasize the importance of practical Christianity and to encourage and strengthen its readers in their trials.

The writer exhorts his readers to receive trials with joy, letting patience have its perfect work, and asking in faith for wisdom of God who giveth liberally (1 2-8). External conditions are without real significance. The man is blessed who endures temptation ; but temptations are from within, and God tempts no man (lo-is). Every man should be swift to hear and slow to speak ; but the doing of the word is of paramount importance (1 19-27). Distinctions between the rich and the poor shown in the churches to the disadvantage of the poor are censurable. Love of the neighbour as one s self according to the royal law should be kept, and men should speak and act as they who are to be judged by a law of liberty (2 1-13). Faith without works is dead and can save no one, and by the examples of Abraham and Rahab those are shown to be in error who argue to the contrary (2 14-26). Inquisitive conceit of wisdom, the unbridled tongue, jealousy, and faction, are severely rebuked, and the wisdom that is from above is commended (3). The pleasures that war in the members are condemned as the source of contention in the churches, together with adultery, worldliness, and envy (4 i-io). Calumny and censoriousness are rebuked, and the eager pursuit of gain is shown to be folly in view of the brevity and uncertainty of life, which should be lived in a constant sense of dependence upon God (411-17). The rich are threatened who have heaped up corrupted riches, while the cry of the poor whom they have oppressed has entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth (5 1-6). The brethren are exhorted to patience in view of the coming of the Lord (mipovcrio. TOV Kvpiov) which is at hand (5 7-11). Swear ing is forbidden, and prayer is recommended, which, if offered in faith, will save the sick (5 12-18). Finally, he is felicitated who converts a sinner from the error of his way (5 *<)f.).

The different parts of the writing are without logical connection, and it has been well characterised as for the most part a loose joining of sayings which are not thought in this connection, but brought into it ready made (Weizsacker).

2. Address.[edit]

The address, to the twelve tribes who are of the dispersion (cp i Pet. 1 1 ) may be at least regarded as in accord with the general Jewish-Christian character of the epistle, although its meaning and purpose are indeterminable. The twelve tribes qualified by of the dispersion (&/ ry diaffiropq.) can literally mean only the Jews living outside Palestine ; but that the writer had Christians, not Jews, in mind is evident (2 1 07). Some expositors have sought to resolve this incongruity between the address and the contents of the epistle by assuming that the persons addressed were Jewish Christians, since Jewish Christians are called Jews in Gal. 2 13 and Hebrews in the superscription of the Epistle to the Hebrews and in patristic literature, just as Paul (Rom. 11 13) designates the Gentile Christians as i-Ovy. Whilst, however, the Jewish-Christian tendency of the epistle is unmistakable, it is difficult to find in it decisive evidence that it was addressed especially to Jewish Christians.

There is no probability that there were churches composed wholly of Jewish converts to Christianity in the dispersion, and nothing in the epistle indicates that it was addressed to a faction of the believers in general. The citation of examples from the OT and the mention of Abraham as our father (2 21-25) proves nothing in view of Paul s usage (Rom. 4 i 12 16 Gal. 3 16 29 ; see also Clem. Rom. 31 4). The use of crui ayioyrj for a Christian assembly (22) was not confined to the Jewish Christians, who, according to Epiphanius(//i?r. 30 18), employed it instead of KicA.r)o-ia. Here it may mean no more than crrtcrui o-ywyTJ in Heb. 1025 ( see Harnack, ZWT, 76, p. IO4./C).

It is very improbable, moreover, that a writer addressing Jewish Christians should not only ignore the Mosaic Law and ritual, but also give prominence to the perfect law of liberty, evidently contrasting it with the former, and to the implanted word (1 21 25 2 12), without any attempt to show the relation of these new conceptions to the ancient economy (see von Soden, HCm. 2i6i),

Another incongruity between the address and the contents appears in the fact that whilst the former is general, there is in the latter constant reference to local and special conditions, as if the writer really had in mind a particular Christian assembly (crwayuyri) with whose errors and needs he was personally ac quainted.

The circumstances which he depicts in detail cannot be supposed to have existed throughout an extended territory, such as is indicated in the address (1 zff. 13 ff. 2 iff. 3 iff. i^ff. \-iff. iiff. bT.ff. 14).

If, on account of these incongruities the address be not judged to be fictitious and without significance in relation to the contents, it must be regarded as including Christians in general as the true Israel, as the new, greater people of God, who have taken the place of the old (Gal. 616; cp Barn. 46 1813 2 Clem. 22). The words of the dispersion may be, as Pfleiderer con jectures, an imitation of i Pet. 1 1 with the omission of the local limitation.

3. Relation to other writings.[edit]

The relation of the epistle to the other NT writings and to early patristic literature is instructive with reference to the question of its date and authorship.

a. The epistle contains many reminiscences of the sayings of Jesus, principally of those collected in the First Gospel, in the Sermon on the Mount. (Ii 7 Mt. 7 ii ; 120 Mt. 622; 122^: Mt. 72I./; 2s Mk.l23i; 2 13 Mt. 67; 4 12 Mt. 10 2 8; 5 12 Mt. 634).

The points of contact with the Synoptic Gospels do not indicate a literary dependence upon them or an accurate knowledge of the words of Jesus.

If the author was acquainted with our written Gospels, he cannot be said to have quoted from them, and he never refers to them or to Jesus as the source of the moral apophthegms in which his writing abounds. It is certainly a very vague and limited knowledge of the evangelic tradition that can be affirmed (with Holtzmann) on the ground of 1 6 compared with Mk. 11 22-24, an d 5 14 compared with Mk. 6 13. The most that can be said in this relation is that the moral teachings contained in this tradition had made an indistinct impression upon the mind of the writer.

b. That the writer of James was acquainted with Rom., i Cor., and Gal., there is little reason to doubt, though he makes no mention of these writings, and does not directly quote from them.

Acquaintance with them is shown in faint reminiscences of their terminology and forms of expression and in declarations which are in apparently intentional opposition to teachings contained in them (1 zf. Rom. 5 $/. ; 1 13 i Cor. 10 13 ; 1 21 Rom. 13 12; 1 22 Rom. 213; 2 10 Gal.~53; 2 19 i Cor. 84; 2 21 Gal. 36 Rom. 43; 2 24 Rom. 3 28 Gal. 2i6; 4i Rom. 613723; 44 Rom. 87; 4 5 Gal. 5 17 ; 4 n/I Rom. 2 i 144). The writer shows no com prehension of the leading doctrines of Paul, and it is probable that the subtleties of the apostle were so foreign to his thought, that he could not understand them. Of the Pauline conception of the Messiahship of Jesus, his atoning sacrifice, and his resur rection (in which was the hope of the resurrection of believers at the Parousia), and of the profound Pauline mysticism, there is no trace of even a reminiscence in the epistle. There is only a reference to the Parousia which shows a merely external apprehension of it (5 7 f.).

c. Acquaintance with the Epistle to the Hebrews is not improbable.

This may be argued on the ground of 2 17 20 26 compared with Heb. 6 i 9 14 (r eKpa dead applied in the one case to faith and in the other to works), of 3 18, compared with Heb.

12 ii (xapTrbs Sucaioavvris fv eipjji/r) the fruit of righteousness ... in peace and (capTrbs etpqi/iKos Siicaiocrvn)? the peaceable fruit. . . of righteousness ), and of 2 25, the example of Rahab, compared with Heb. 11 31. Other points of contact with Heb. are found in 1 17 (cp Heb. 12 9), 3 i (cp Heb. 5 12), 4 15 (cp Heb. 6 3), 5 10 (cp Heb. 13 7).

d. The relation of James to 1 Pet. necessitates the hypothesis of a literary dependence, and it is a disputed question to which the priority should be accorded.

Cp 1 i with i Pet. 1 i, 1 2/. with i Pet. 1 6/., \ 10 with i Pet. 1 24, 1 18 with i Pet. 1 23, 1 21 with i Pet. 2 i f., 2 7 with i Pet. 4 14-16, 4 6-10 with i Pet. 5 5-9, 5 8f. with i Pet. 4 7, 5 20 with i Pet. 4 g). Expositors have generally maintained the dependence of 1 Pet. upon James ; but W. Bruckner has shown with probability the priority of the former, by a careful study of the parallel passages (ZH T, 74, p. 533 ff.), and has been followed by Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, and von Soden. (See also Urimm, St. A r., 72, p. 692^".)

e. Dependence on the Apocalypse is at least probable.

Cp 2 5 with Rev. 2 9, 1 12 with Rev. 2 10, 5 9 with Rev. 3 20. Pfleiderer decides for the priority of the portion of the Apocalypse (dating from the time of Hadrian) which contains these passages, and thinks that the writer of James in appealing to the divine promise (1 12) must have had Rev. 2 10 in mind (Das Urclirist. 867). Volter, however, reverses the relation (Die Entsteh. d, Apok. 183).

f. The contacts with i Clem, do not show incontestably the use of James by the author of that epistle.

The two most important passages are found in i Pet. which may have been a common source for the writers of James and i Clem, (cp Clem. 30 2 with i Pet. 5 5 Jas. 46, Clem. 49 5 with i Pet. 4s Jas. 620); i Clem. 10 20 (cp Jas. 223) is explicable from Rom. 4 3 ; and 38 6 and 17 if. do not necessarily presuppose an acquaintance of the writer with Jas. 2 23 and 5 10. If, however, the use of James in this case be conceded, the indeterminable date of i Clem, (probably 93-125) excludes any conclusion for the early composition of the former.

g. The points of agreement between the Shepherd of Hermas and James necessitate the conclusion that one of them is dependent upon the other ; but it is not clear to which the priority should be assigned.

Pfleiderer is perhaps too positive that it probably belongs to Herm. (cp 4 7 with Herm. Mand. 12s; 4 12 with Herm. Mand. 12 6 Sim. 9 23).

h. The author of James was acquainted with the LXX, but not with the Heb. text of the OT. Theile has shown him to have been familiar with Ecclus. and Wisdom, and probable points of contact with Philo have been pointed out.

4. Doctrine of Justification.[edit]

The acquaintance of the author with some of the Pauline epistles, the particulars of which have already been given, must be regarded as incontestably established by the criticism of this writing in regard to which so many disputed questions still remain unsettled. The most indisputable point of contact with Paulinism occurs in the short section in which the writer discusses the doctrine of justification (2 14-26). The twofold prepossession against admitting that the canon of the NT contains pseudonymous writings and contradictory teachings has led to the confusion of a problem which would otherwise have found an easy solution. For if the same critical method should be applied here that is employed in similar cases from the consideration of which such prepossessions are absent, there can be no doubt that a general agreement among scholars would result. The case in question is not a vague allusion to faith and works in general, which might be accounted for on the ground of Jewish ideas and terms known by the writer of the epistle without dependence upon Paul, but a pointed reference to a distinctly Pauline doctrine and the employment of the apostle s terminology and very words. Paul declares explicitly : We reckon therefore that a man is justified (SiKaiovcrdai) by faith apart from the works of the law (Rom. 828) and a man is not justified by the works of the law . . . even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (Gal. 2i6). He cites the case of Abraham, and affirms that this patriarch was justified not by works, but by faith (Rom. 4i Gal. 36). On the contrary, the writer of James declares that a man is justified (diKaiovTai) by works, and not by faith only (224), and as if to reply to the advocates of Paulinism by employing the very example adduced by their master he affirms that Abraham was justified by works (221-23). He also turns to his purpose the case of Rahab employed in an opposite sense by the Pauline writer of Heb. In the declaration that a man is not justified by faith only (fi.6vov} is implied the doctrine of the co-operation of faith and works in justification, which is expressed in the words regarding Abraham ; 'Faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect' (2:22). This is essentially a justification t $pyui> in opposition to the Pauline xupis fyrycop, according to the declaration concluding this section ; For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works (X W P S i-pywv, the Pauline terminology) is dead. To Paul, however, the Gospel was the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, i.e., faith in itself or X U P L * fy>7w had a saving efficacy (Rom. 1 16) an affirmation which is pointedly denied in James (fti) dtivarai -f] TriVrtj trcDeroi avr6v, 214). Paul could never, like our author, as Kern has pointed out, have made salvation depend upon faith and works, because faith in his sense included works i.e., a new life.

The difference of the two points of view has been well stated by Schwegler : With Paul faith because it justifies is the source of good works ; with James faith because it is the source of good works and shows itself alive in them has a justifying efficacy. With Paul justification is conditional upon faith, or better, justification and faith are present at the same time within the man, and works proceed out of the justification in faith ; with James justification proceeds from the works in which faith shows itself to be alive. With Paul justification comes between faith and works ; with James works come between faith and justification (Nachap. Zeit. \ 429).

Nothing could have been further from Paul s thought than to depreciate good works ; but he did not think that the justifying judgment of God was determined by them, for as Luther, rightly apprehending the Pauline thought, says, faith lies at the bottom of the heart, and God looks to the bottom of the heart. (Cp W. Grimm, 7,\VT, 70, p. 379.) However, the different views of faith and justification entertained by the two men are not of special importance for our purpose. (An admirable statement of them has been made by von Soden in JPT, 84.) Whether the author of James wrote for readers who, as he supposes, misunder stood Paul s teachings, or whether, as is more probable, he did not himself correctly apprehend them, the important fact is that he betrays unmistakably a dependence upon Rom. and Gal. Holtzmann is not too positive in saying that there is no more direct sort of polemics than the verbal citation of a formula (8iKaiov(r6cu tK iriaTews /j,6vov, 2 24), supplied with a definite negation (Einl.W 509). If the expedient of Weiss, adopted from Neander, be allowed, that the writer of James was in this section combating a Jewish- Christian prejudice rather than a Pauline doctrine (the epistle being assumed to have been written before the time of Paul), the conflict of teaching would still remain. There is, however, scarcely a probability in favour of this supposition in view of the employment in James of the unique Pauline terminology.

5. Date and authorship.[edit]

The composition of the epistle in the apostolic age, and, as is generally supposed by those who assign it to this period, by James, the brother of Jesus, is rendered very improbable by several internal features, which have been repeatedly pointed out. The legalistic point of view of James, one of the pillars of the church in Jerusalem, is not indicated. The question of the relation of Jews and Gentiles, which agitated the early church, is not re ferred to. The Judaistic controversy seems accordingly to have died out and the vbfjLos r^Xeios 6 rijs e\tv6fpia.s [ perfect law of freedom ] (1 25) to have been actually identical with the new and transformed law of a Christianity already becoming Catholic. The lament able condition of the churches which is depicted too much teaching, the unbridled tongue, worldliness, deference to the rich and scorn of the poor, an eager ness for trade and gain, jealousy and faction, wars and fightings, and the absence of the wisdom that is from above is not by any means that of primitive Christianity.

An indication of a late date is found in 5:13-15, where supernatural healing of the sick is effected through the elders, that is, the official body of presbyters ( i Tim. 4:14

In the earlier church the power to effect healings and the working of miracles pertained to believers indiscriminately (i Cor. 12:97^). The embodiment of the function in an official class indicates a considerable development of ecclesiastical organisation. Cp SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

The writer was not, moreover, familiar with primitive Christianity on its doctrinal side. He mentions, indeed, as before remarked, the Parousia, and calls Christ the Lord of Glory (2i). The Christological question, how ever, included much more than this in the early Church the life, the atoning death, the resurrection of Jesus, and the testimony of the OT to his Messiahship. That the brother of Jesus, 1 living at the time when these doctrines were taking form, should not have referred to them even in a hortatory epistle is scarcely probable. Moreover, the good Greek style of the epistle, despite Schleiermacher s strictures upon it, is hardly such as could be expected of the son of Joseph and Mary.

Spitta has recently undertaken to show that the epistle is not a Christian, but a Jewish, work (Der Brief ties Jakobus, 96). The only specifically Christian passages, <eai Kvpiov Irjcrou XpioTou ( and of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 1) and rifiiav Iijerou Xpicrrot/ ( our [Lord] Jesus Christ, 2i), are regarded as inter polations, and the interpretation of the entire book is conducted with reference to parallels drawn from the Jewish literature. The hypothesis of interpolations, however, is somewhat arbitrary ; the section on faith and works (2 14-26) presupposes the Pauline doctrine and an acquaintance with Paul s writings, as has been shown in the course of this article ; and the relation of the epistle to the NT literature is adverse to the early date assigned to it by Spitta. Moreover, the terminology in reference to eschatology is unmistakably Christian. See ews nrjs Trapovo-t a? rov xvpiov ( until the coming of the Lord, 67), and TJ jrapovcria TOU Kvpiov riyyiKev ( the coming of the Lord is at hand, 58). The parallels referred to in Knoch do not contain this terminology. Spitta s hypothesis, though defended with great learning and acumen, can hardly be regarded as established.

Von Soden (in HC, 98), rejecting Spitta s hypothesis, pre sents a new one of his own. The two sections, complete in them selves, 3i-i8 and 4n-56, show no sort of accord with Christian writings or ideas. The former might be regarded as an essay of an Alexandrian scribe, and the latter as a fragment from a Jewish apocalypse. Although they may have come from the same pen, they betray a different mind in tone, language, and manner of apprehending things. Other parts of the epistle give the impression that sayings elsewhere formulated are grouped on the ground of a general relationship of their contents or of their reference to that with which the author was occupied. Whilst Christian tones are wanting in the sections referred to, in the others notes of accord with Paul and i Pet. are frequent (cp 12-4121821 215814-26 4i-6io). Of the forty words in James foreign to the NT there are outside 3 1-18 4n-56 only six : pvirapia. and e^K^uros in 1 21 ; xpucroSaK-rvAios, rrpo<riu- 7roAijjii7m)s, aye Aeos, ec^ij/aepos in chap. 2. It is probable, there fore, that in combating the improprieties in Christian circles known to him, the writer called to his aid reminiscences out of his Jewish period, while he contributed of his own only some thoughts chiefly found in chaps. 1 and 2, showing here, how ever, the influence of his Jewish materials in choice of words, tone, and style. Parallels to this procedure are found in the Didache, the epistle of Barnabas, the reception of apocalyptic fragments in Rev., and the Pauline anthologies from the OT. From this point of view it is believed that justice will more easily be done to the epistle, the loose connection and the defective arrangement will be less censured, and the absence of specifically Christian expressions, as well as the retirement of the book as soon as Greek influence prevailed in Christendom, will be better understood.

The epistle is poor in doctrinal expressions. The author, indeed, does not conceal his repugnance to doctrinal disputations, and the judgment is well grounded which finds that the episode regarding faith and works was written not so much with a doctrinal purpose, as to enforce the fundamental practical object of the writing to recommend the wisdom that is from above as more desirable than riches and earthly knowledge. If the Christianity which the author defends has, as Hilgenfeld maintains, an Essene colouring in such teachings as those regarding mercy (213), the oath (5 12), riches (lio/! 2s), trade (413), and governing the tongue (lig %lff-}, an Ebionite tendency is more certainly shown in his predilection for the poor and his opposition to the rich, and in his disinclination to teaching, worldly wisdom, and theories of faith. (See the Ebionite points of agreement with the Clem. Horn, in Immer, NT Theol. 428). Whether his points of contact with the Shepherd of Hermas prove his use of that writing or not, the similarities of the two works, which Pfleiderer has pointed out, give great weight to this scholar s opinion that certain it is that both writings presuppose like historical circumstances, and, from a similar point of view, direct their admonitions to their contemporaries, among whom a lax worldly-mindedness and unfruitful theological wrangling threatened to destroy the religious life (Das Urchrist. 868). Holtzmann characterises this as the right visual angle for the judgment of the epistle (Z WT, "92, p. 66). The latter scholar concludes that in his formulation both of the conception of the law and of that of Christology the writer s thought reaches in its objective points into Catholic Christianity.

It may be regarded as far more probable that the epistle is a product of the second century, perhaps later than i Peter, than that it was written in the apostolic age by the brother of Jesus. Perhaps in his polemic against faith the writer had in mind an ultra-Pauline Gnosis which he may or may not have discriminated from genuine Paulinism.

The place from which the epistle was written is indeterminable ; but the opinion that it originated in Rome has great probability in its favour on account of the contacts with Heb. , Clem. Rom. , and Herm.

6. Canonicity.[edit]

The epistle did not fare well as to recognition in the earlier Church. The Canon of Muratori omits it. The earliest trace of an acquaintance with it is found in Irenaeus, who refers to Abraham as the friend of God (Jas. 223) ; but he does not mention the epistle. From Tertullian's silence regarding the epistle it must be concluded that he either was unacquainted with it, or knowing it, regarded it as spurious. Eusebius, in writing of it as an historian, classifies it among the controverted books, and says that it is reckoned spurious, and that not many of the ancients have mentioned it. Yet in his commentary on the Psalms he quotes it as the holy apostle's. Doubt ful traces of its use by Clem. Alex, are found in his writings, although he is said by Eusebius to have written commentaries on all the Catholic epistles. Good reasons, however, for doubting his acquaintance with it are given by Salmon (Infrod. to AT 449). Origen knew and quoted an epistle of which he spoke doubtfully as said to be James s (<pepo/jifvr] TJ la*. TTiffTO\ri). Jerome, while acknowledging its genuine ness, remarks that it was said to have been published by another in the name of James, though it gradually acquired authority. It is contained in the Pesh. , and Kphrem accepted it as the work of James, the brother of Jesus.

7. Literature.[edit]

The most important commentaries on the epistle are those of Schneckenburger ( 32), Theile ( 33), Kern ( 38), Ewald ( 70), (Erdmann ( 81), v. Soden ( 98), and Mayor ( 92). Special investigations are contained in the Einll. of Credner, De Wette, Holtz mann, Hilgenfeld, Zahn, and in the Introductions of Salmon and Davidson. Noteworthy articles on the epistle are those of Kern (Tub. Z.f. Tkeol., 35, also printed separately), Grimm (ZWT, 70), Hilgenfeld (ib., 73), W. Bruckner (ib., 74). Holtz mann (it., 82, 92), Klopper (ib., 85), von Soden (JPT, 84), Haupt (St. A>., 83), Usteri (*5., 8q), Schwartz (ib., 91), and \V. C. van Manen, Th. T 28 478-496 ( 94), on the age of the epistle. o. C.


(PP^ ; on name cp BENJAMIN ; only in P and post-exilic writings ; I<\M[G]IN [BADFL]).

1. b. Ram, a Jerahmeelite (i Ch. 227, <,a/3e(.c [A]). See JERAH- MEKL, 2.

2. b. SIMEON (Gen. 46 10 Ex. 6 15, ta/aeifx [L}, Nu. 26 12 i Ch. 424) ; Jaminitos, Nu. 2612, rpvr ; 6 ux;u[eMe]t [BAL]).

3. A Levite(?) present at the reading of the law under Ezra, Neh. 87 (om. BNA)=i Esd.9 4 8, ADINUS [q.v.} (laSMti/os [BA], UljLL))! [L]). 1

1 (gBAt finds a place-name Jamin in Josh. 17 7 (iaju|ju.ejii>) where MT has J C*!T(~ I 7N) > and inserts it as a proper-name be tween Abner and Abiel in i S. 14 51 (vibs [e]ia.|ueii/, cp the question arising out of Saul s genealogy in i S. 9 i). Cp also (D s reading for DC H in Gen. 8024 (see ANAH, 3).


(*$?!?! [God] gives dominion, 53, but cp JERAHMEEL, 4 _/ ), a Simeonite chieftain, temp. Hezekiah (i Ch. 4 34 : le/woAox [B], AMA.AHK [A],


(ia,MN[e]lA[AKV]; i Mace. 4i S , lANNeiAC [A], IA.MINCIAC [N*]; 5s8 (AMNGIAN [N* I precedes]; 106g 1540 2 Mace. 128 4 o; Judith 228, ie/v\NAA [N c - a ], -N [B] [see JEMNAAN] ; IAMNCIA, Jos.; cp Jamnites, IA.MNITAI [AV], 2 Mace. 128 f.), 1 the Greek name of Jabneh, is derived from the form H3O\ found in the Jerusalem Talm. (Frankel, Yorstudien zu der Sept. 104, 108). See JABNEEL, i.


(W), i Ch. 5 12 RV, AV JAANAI.


(D 11 ^), Josh. 15 53 RV; AV, following Kt., JANUM.


RV JANNAI (IANNAI [Ti. WH]), an ancestor of Joseph, Mary s husband (Lk. 824). See GENEALOGIES ii. 3.