Encyclopaedia Biblica/Joshaphat-Judge

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



(IDGW, abbrev. from JEHOSHAPHAT [q.v.] T -. i606,>AT .

1. One of David s heroes, probably from TIMNAH [q.v.], for we can hardly help assuming a slight error in the gentilic, JrlSrr, 'the Mithnite', which should be JDnri, 'the Timnite', i Ch. Il43t (i. 6. /3ac0ai/ei [B], iwcra<as [N*] [i<o<r<wf>ar, K c a ] 6. /Seeacei [X], 1.6. ^a00ai i [A], 1.6. /naTflai/i [L]> ; see DAVID, ii a.

2. AV JEHOSHAPHAT, a Levite, temp. David, i Ch. 1624 (uaa<u$>a.r). T. K. C.


(njJJWi 31 ; probably a corruption of JOSHIBIAH), a name in David s army-list (DAVID, n[aii.]), iCh. H 4 6t(iu>c[e]iA[BNA], ccociA[L]).

LXX{BNA} favour the reading, 'Joshaviah his son' (!3E), instead MT 'Jeshaviah, the sons [ E3] of Elnaam'. Cp ELNAAM.


(riBI), according to the Chronicler a son of Heman, i Ch. 26424 B&KATA. [B], ceB& KMT&N, iecB&K(Vr&N [A], [L], fESBACASSA [Vg. ]) ; but see HEMAN.


(ratJ>It 1W), 2 Sam. 23:8 RV. See JASHOBEAM.


(H^V), 'God enthrones' [?], 31), a Simeonite (iCh. 435; AV JOSIBIAH, ic&Bi6. [BA], icoc. [L]). Cp JOSHAH, JOSHAVIAH.


and (Nu. 13:16) Jehoshua (i^i;v [iwjnrp Dt. 3:21 Judg. 2:7], ojcrovij; 1 usually explained 'Yahwe is deliverance' ; cp NAMES, 27, 84, 86 ; but see below. In Nu. 138 16 Dt. 3244 we find SOW [see HOSHEA] ; but we cannot venture to assume that ygftfl > s really a traditional form, Nu. 23 8 16 proceeding from P, and Dt. 32 44 being incorrectly read [see Driver, ad loc.f).

i. Son of NUN [q.v.], attendant of Moses, and one of his young men (Nu. 11:28 ; cp Josh. 1:1), traditional leader of Israel in the conquest of Canaan. He is said to have died at the same age as the tribal hero Joseph (110), and to have been buried in his inheritance at TlMNATH-SERAH (Josh. 24:29-30) Or TlMNATH- HERES (Judg. 2:8-9) in the hill-country of Ephraim. In Nu. 13:8-16 he is said to have belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, and to have been called Hoshea (see above), until Moses, on sending forth Hoshea among the other spies, 1 changed his name to Jehoshua. According to Budde, Judg. 1:22 states that Joshua accompanied the 1 house of Joseph in its invasion of Mt. Ephraim. Verse 19a, however, favours MT's reading Yahwe, out of which the reading Judah (touSas LXX{AL} , etc.) would easily arise. At any rate, Joshua, if correct, ought in this context to be a clan-name.

1 Whence the name JESUS [t?.v.]. From the time of the Maccabees onwards the purely Greek name JASON [y.v.] was commonly regarded by Hellenizing Jews as an equivalent of Joshua.

Perhaps Joshua is another form of AHISHUA, which in i Ch- 6:4 Ezra 7:5 is the name of the son of Eleazar, b. Aaron. Eleazar and Joshua are associated in assigning the lands of the Israelites (Josh. 19:51), and the burial-places of the two are mentioned in the same narrative (Josh. 24:29-33), are both in Mt. Ephraim, and both probably contain the name Jerahmeel (see TIMNATH-HERES ; PHINEHAS). If so, it was originally the iriestly and warlike tribe of Levi that was represented by oshua. His name is a clan-name, and should perhaps be read osheba or Abi-sheba (cp Elishua and Elisheba), where Sheba Is probably an obscure divine name (see SHEBA). This suggests a probable explanation of Joshua s patronymic, nj (NuN) may be an abridged way of writing %eru (NAHSHON), which is a Jerahmeelite name (cp Timnath-heres).

Even apart from these considerations the historical character of Joshua as an individual is doubtful. It was natural to provide Moses with attendants, and to give a name to the chief of these (Nu. 11:28), who was in training to become Moses" successor. Nor could such a successor have a more suitable name than Jehoshua cp Eliezer (Ex. 18:4), Eleazar (Ex. 6:23 Josh. 24:33), the names of a son of Moses and of a son of Aaron respectively. Naturally too he would be assigned to the tribe which had the leadership in early times, and if Joseph was originally (as Wi. maintains) a solar hero, it would not be surprising if details of solar-mythical origin attached themselves to the Joshua tradition ; note in this connection the name of Joshua s inheritance (see above), if this really means portion of the sun.

At any rate, whether the name Joshua is a pure invention or has its origin in a clan-name, the actions ascribed to Joshua are purely legendary, unless indeed the work of critics on the narratives which relate them is a failure, cp, St. GVI\i^; We. CHii6f., n. i ; Wi. 67/296-122. See ISRAEL, 7; ELDAD ; EPHRAIM, 6 ; JABIN ; JERICHO ; JOSHUA ii.

2. High-priest, Hag. 1 1 Zech. 3 if. ; see JESHUA, 5.

3. A man of Beth-shemesh ( house of the sun, cp Timnath- serah above), in whose field the ark rested, i S. 61418 (worje [B], o<n,e [L]).

4. Governor of Jerusalem, temp. Josiah, 2 K. 238 (tcuoTje [L]).


  • Name, etc. (1-2).
  • Sources (3-6).
  • Analysis (7-10).
  • Redaction (11).
  • Accounts of settlement ( 12-14).
  • Ultimate sources (15-16).
  • Chronology ( 17).
  • Text (18-19).
  • Literature ( 20).

1. Place in Canon.[edit]

In the Hebrew Bible, Joshua is the first of the four historical books (Josh. , Judg. , S. , K. ) which make up the first half of the canon of the Prophets, and are hence called the Former Prophets

In Greek manuscripts, Josh., Judg., and Ruth are frequently included with the Pentateuch in a codex (Octateuch) ; in the Latin Church the same books, with the omission of Ruth, are often similarly united (Heptateuch). In all these Josh, immedi ately follows the Pentateuch ; but in the Bible of the Syrian Church this place is given to Job (as the work of Moses), and Josh, stands next in order.

The book of Joshua, in narrating the conquest and settlement of Canaan, records the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs and the completion of the great movement of which the Exodus is the beginning ; it is thus the necessary continuation of the Pentateuch, and must once have formed part of the same historical work with the preceding five books. In recent critical investigations, therefore, the first six books of the OT (Hexateuch) are usually taken together : the separation of Josh, from the Pentateuch in the Jewish canon was due to the predominance of the legal point of view ; the books of Moses were law (Torah), while Josh, was only history. It need not be assumed, how ever, that the Hexateuch ever formed by itself a com plete historical work ending with the death of Joshua ; we know it only as part of a more comprehensive history extending from the creation of the world to the destruc tion of Jerusalem (Gen.-2 K. ), in which Josh, is hardly more closely connected with the Pentateuch than with the following books ; and the similarity of the redactional phenomena in Dt. , Josh. , and Judg. shows that this connection is not one of mere sequence.

1 See CANON, 6.

2. Title.[edit]

The book takes its title (ypiir, iHCOyc[BF]or mcoyC N&YH [A], 1 Liber Josue) from the name of the great qi-j-l j leader whose achievements it relates (cp contents the books of Samue1 )- 2 The opinion that Joshua is not only the hero but the author of the book 3 if not merely an inference from the title rests, presumably, upon a theory of Hebrew historio graphy like that set forth by Josephus (c. Ap. 18). 4 The book of Joshua begins, immediately after the death of Moses (Dt. 34), with the command of God to Joshua, who had already been appointed Moses successor (Dt. 31), to cross the Jordan; it relates the conquest and division of Canaan, and ends with the death of Joshua. The book falls naturally into two parts : the invasion and conquest (1-12), and the allotment of the land to the several tribes (13-24). The first part closes with a recapitulation of the Israelite conquests E. and W. of the Jordan (12) ; the second, with Joshua s parting charges and admonitions (23 f. ).

The contents of the book may be summarised thus : crossing of the Jordan ; capture of Jericho (1-6); operations against Ai (7-8) ; successful ruse of the Gibeonites (9) ; victory over the coalition of Canaanite kings, subjugation of the South (10) ; cam paign against the king of Hazor and his allies, subjugation of the North (11) ; recapitulation (12). Division of the land ; the trans-Jordanic tribes (13), Caleb (14), Judah (15), Ephraim and Manasseh (16-17); survey and allotment of the remaining territory to the other tribes, Joshua's own inheritance (18-19) ; designation of cities of refuge (20) ; levitical cities (21) ; dismissal of the trans-Jordanic contingent (22) ; last exhortations of Joshua (23) ; assembly at Shechem, and covenant there ; death and burial of Joshua (24).

3. Sources.[edit]

Throughout the Pentateuch - from the first promise to Abraham down to the vision of the dying Moses on Mt. Nebo - the possession of the land of Canaan is kept steadily in view as the goal to which the history is moving. The critical analysis shows that this is true not only of the actual Pentateuch, but also of all its sources, and of every stage in the redaction.


  • in JE (J, E, and RJE are all represented), Gen. 13:14-17, 15:13-16, 26:3, 28:13-15 etc. Ex.38:17, 32:13, 33:1-3, Nu. 13:17+, 14, also JE in Nu. 32 and Dt. 31
  • in D (incl. D0, RD). Dt. 31:1-8, 1:38, 3:21, 3:28, cp also 27:1-8;
  • in P Gen. 17:6-8, 28:3-4, 35:11, (cp. 48:4 ), Ex. 6:2-8, Nu. 27:18-23, 33:50-54, 34-35, Dt. 34:9.

It is not conceivable that any of these sources broke off with the death of Moses, at the very moment when the fulfilment of these promises and commands was about to begin ; the conquest and settlement of Canaan must have been more or less fully narrated in all of them. On the other hand, the book of Joshua is con nected in the closest way, both materially and formally, with the Pentateuch.

Cp Josh. 1:1-9 with Dt. 31:1-5, 23 ; Josh. 1:12-15 with (Nu. 32) Dt. 3:18-20 ; Josh. 8:30-35 with Dt. 11:29, 27:1-8, 27:11-14; Josh. 13+ with Nu.34; Josh. 14:6-15 with Nu. 14:24, Dt. 1:36 ; Josh. l7:1-6 with Nu. 27:1-11, 36:1-12 ; Josh. 20-21 with Nu. 35 (Di.).

Since, furthermore, the book is obviously composite, it is a natural inference that Josh, was compiled (in the main) from the same sources as the five preceding books ; and the critical analysis accordingly set itself to distinguish these sources. 6 The problem has proved, however, more difficult than might have been anticipated, and upon some important points opinion is still much divided.

4. D's share.[edit]

The book opens with a deuteronomic introduction (1), and has a similar close (21:43 [41]-226 23) ; evidence of deuteronomic redaction is found in both parts of the book - much more abundantly, as would be expected, in the narrative chapters (1-12) than in the statistical account of the possessions of the tribes (13+). 1 It is clear, therefore, that the basis of our book is a deuteronomic history of Joshua, as that of the following book is a deuteronomic history of the Judges (originally including Eli and Samuel). 2 Indeed, the two books are connected in such a way as to suggest that, at one stage of the redaction, at least, they were united in a single work a deuteronomic history of Israel from the invasion of Palestine to the establishment of the kingdom.

1 On the origin of this form see NUN.

2 [Athanas.] Synopsis script, sacr. ; so Theodoret and others.

3 Bdba bathrn, 14 6, and many.

4 Confirmation of the opinion, which has been maintained in recent times by some Roman Catholic scholars (J. L. Konig Kaulen), is sought in i K. 16 34 ; cp also Josh. 24 26.

5 De Wette (Rinl.P) 45) was the first to extend the analysis to Josh.; see Hollenberg, St. Kr. 47 462 ff. ( 74), Albers Quellenberichte, -$ff. Geddes and others had seen that Josh. was put together m the same way as the Pentateuch.

5. P's share.[edit]

Josh. 1-12 has come down to us substantially as it was in the deuteronomic book ; the work of the priestly editors is here limited to some minor changes in phraseology and the insertion of a few verses (4:13-19, 5:4-7, 5:10-12, 7:1-9, 7:15b, 7:17-21), some of which may be derived from P (so probably 5:10-12, 9:15b, 9:17-21), whilst others are additions of RP or later diaskeuasts. In 13-24 the share of P is much larger ; the description of the territories of the several tribes in 13-19 is in great part from this source, as are also the cities of refuge (20) and the catalogue of levitical cities (21:1-42 [40]) ; 22:9-34 is of still later origin. 3

6. Older sources.[edit]

The narrative in the deuteronomic book is not itself deuteronomic. As in Judg. , it is taken from older sources, the hand of the compiler or editor appearing, aside from the introduction and close, chiefly in a consistent heightening of the colours, and in enlargements on the moral and religious aspects of the history. 4 The materials incorporated by the deuteronomic historian are not homogeneous ; in 13-19 there are considerable fragments of an account of the conquest which, like Judg. 1, repre sented it, not as the work of Joshua at the head of all Israel, but as slowly and incompletely achieved by the several tribes ; and in 1-12 (particularly in 1-9) it is possible to distinguish an older and simpler account of the invasion from a later version of the same story in which a tendency to magnify the events and exaggerate the miraculous character of the history is conspicuous. Since there is a similar relation between J and E in the history of the exodus, 5 and since, as we have seen above, both J and E must have included the conquest of Canaan, the natural hypothesis is that in Josh, also the older version of the story is derived from J, the younger from E. 6

To some critics, however, this presumption appears to be refuted by other considerations ;7 E. Meyer 8 and Stade,9 hold ing that J knew nothing of Joshua, must for this reason regard J as excluded from the greater part of Josh. 1-12. Kuenen, on the contrary, maintains that the representation of the conquest in Josh. 24:11-13 (E) differs so radically from that in 1-12 as to prevent our ascribing any considerable part of these chapters to that source. 10 Kuenen also thinks that the diverse materials have been more completely fused than is common in the Penta teuch ; in 2-5 they can in part be distinguished, but in 6-11 they are inseparable.

The reasons urged for the exclusion of J or E from the analysis do not outweigh the strong antecedent probability created by the relation of Josh, to the Penta teuch, and the impression which the composition of Josh, itself makes. It is no more improbable that the Judasan historians (J) should have adopted Ephraimite traditions about Joshua than that they should have incor- porated the legends of the Ephraimite holy places in the patriarchal story. 1 Even if we should admit that the contradiction between Josh. 24:11-13 and the representa tion in 1-12 is as irreconcilable as Kuenen thinks, E is not such a homogeneous and consistent work that such a discrepancy is inconceivable in it. The question can be decided only by the analysis itself. The difficulty of the analysis arises not so much from the intimate fusion of the sources, which are not more closely united than in many parts of the Pentateuch, the accounts of the exodus, for example, but from the fact that the two narratives were originally so much alike, and that the younger version of the story is here de pendent on the older.

1 On the deuteronomic element in Josh, see Hollenberg, I.e. 462-506, with whom the modern period of investigation begins (cp also TLZ, 91, p. 278./C) ; Kue. Hex. 7, n. 24-31 ; Di., Albers. On the deuteronomistic phraseology, Kue. He.r. 7, n. 26 (cp nn. 4 10 16) ; Holzinger, Hex. 34 ; "Dr. in Smith s DBC^} 1 i8nf.

2 See JUDGES, 14.

3 On P in Josh, see Nold. Unters. g$ff. ; Kue. Hex. 6, n. 48-53, cp >5 16, n. 12 ; Di. NDJ 440^

4 See below, u.

5 See EXODUS, 3.

P J and E are recognised in Josh, by Schr., Di., Vatke, Co., Ki., Albers, Dr., Bennett, and others.

7 See Holz. Hex. 8i/f.

9 ib. 147, GVm 1 136 161. Cp also We. CffW nS/, 35^ Against this view see Bu. Ri. Sa. y)ff.\ Kue. Hex. 13, n. 14 ; Ki. Gesch. 1 247^; Albers.

I" Hex. 8, n. 16 ; cp n. 20, 13, n. 29. See also Bu. Ri. Sa. T*/., who finds in the chapters only J, epigoni of the Yahwistic school, and RJE.

7. Analysis Chaps. 1-7.[edit]

In chap. 1, the deuteronomic introduction to the book, a kernel of older narrative (E) is contained in 1:1-2, 1:10-11. The deuteronomistic element is not all from one hand ; Albers ascribes 1:7-8, 176186 to DB (the author of Dt. 4:29-30), the rest to DA (author of Dt. 31:1-8). 2 The dependence of the latter element on Dt. is to be noted ; 1:3-5a = Dt. 11:24-25 ; 56-6:9* dep. on Dt. 31:1-8 esp. 7f.; 12-16 conn, with Dt. 3:18-20 (not Nu. 32 JE), cp also Josh. 23.

In 2, the story of the spies, the words of Rahab 96-11 are a deuteronomistic expansion, with reminiscences of Dt. 439 (cp Ex. 15) and of Dt. 2:31-8:10, cp also Josh. 5:1 ; 2:4 is also deuterono mistic. The main narrative (2:1-5 in part, 2:6, 2:8-9a, 2:12-14, 2:18-21) comes from the older source (J) ; with this is combined a second account (2:1-5 in part, 2:7, 2:15-16, 2:22-23 [E]); 2:17 is editorial (? RJE).

3:2 seems to connect immediately with 1:10-11 (E) ; the sending of the spies stood in an earlier place, perhaps before 1:1b (Albers), or before 1:10-11. In the account of the crossing of the Jordan (3-4), 3:7, 4:14, 4:21-24, 5:1 are deuteronomistic ; 4:6-7 seems to be later ; a connected deuteronomic narrative (Di.) is not to be recognised. The conflation of two sources is apparent : at 3:17 the crossing is completed, in 4:11 the narrative has only reached the same point; in 4:8 (cp 4:20) the stones are erected at Gilgal, whilst according to 4:9 they were piled up in the middle of the river. The fuller narrative is here from E ; remains of the briefer account of J are found in 3:1* 5:10a, 5:11*, 5:13*, 5:14, 5:15b, 5:16aa, 5:16b, 5:17* ; 4:3a*, 4:3b (4:6a, 4:7a {1} RJE), 4:8aa, 4:8b (? 4:17-18, 4:20* ?). Additions to both sources and harmonistic modifications may be recognised ; 4:2-3aa. seem to be displaced, the words would naturally stand (in E) after 3:8.

5:2-3, 5:8b-9 contain an account (probably from E) of the circumcision of the Israelites ; 5:3-8a are an editorial amplifica tion (later than LXX), designed to remove the natural impression of the original narrative, that this was the introduction of the rite ; 5:10-12 is from P ; 5:13-14 from J (the sequel, a plan for the capture of Jericho, is to be sought in 6) ; 5:15 was introduced by an editor (? RJE RD) from Ex. 85, in conformity with the tendency at a certain stage of the redaction to make Joshua the double of Moses.

In 6, the taking of Jericho, Wellhausen's analysis, with slight modifications, is generally adopted ; the shorter and simpler narrative, rightly ascribed by most critics to J, is found in (6:2*) 6:3*, 6:4*, 6:7 in part, 6:10, 6:11*, 6:14*, 6:15a, 6:16b, 6:17a, 6:19, 6:20a, 6:20b from ^yr\ 6:21, 6:24, 6:26*. The other version (E) has been heightened and embellished by later hands ; to E2 may be attributed 6:5, 6:7a, 6:8aa, 6:20bb (Albers) ; RJE apears in 6:15b, also (? or RD) in 6:17b, 6:18, 6:24b ; RD in 27 ; the untimely horn-blowing in 6:8-9, 6:13 is probably still later, cp Judg. 7.

Traces of post -exilic hands are found in 7:1, 7:18b, 7:25ba (probably not from P, but merely late variants to JE). The remainder of the chapter, which comes from J, exhibits some redundancies (esp. in 7:15-16, 7:24-26, cp LXX) ; but these are probably due to repeated redaction rather than to the conflation of parallel narratives ; the expansion of Joshua s prayer and the answer (7:7-12) is also to be ascribed to an editor.

1 See below. 15.

2 On the evidence of a double deuteronomistic redaction see at the end of 10, and 11.

3 See Sta. ZA TWbi^ff. ( 86). [The references to previ- ous circumcision, again, the second time, are probably due to Rn.]

4 Note the variations of in this chapter, esp. in vv. 3-5.

5 Budde ascribes this strand in a somewhat different analysis toj.

8. Chaps 8-12.[edit]

In 8-11 the views of critics diverge even more widely than in the preceding chapters ; whilst Hollenberg, Wellhausen, Meyer, and Stade make the narrative dependent on E, nearly or quite to the exclusion of J, Kuenen and Budde derive it mainly from J (and J2S ), and Dillmann, Albers, and Kittel trace both sources through the chapters.

In 8:1-29 the analysis has very slight clues to work with, and the results are correspondingly uncertain. The chief source seems to be J ; the other (E) may be recognised in 8:10 (traces), 8:11*, 8:12, 8:14ab, 8:16a, 8:17, 8:18*, 8:19ab, 8:20b, 8:24*, 8:25-26, 8:28b. The work of re dactors is seen in 8:1-2 (chiefly deuteronomistic, but not homo- geneous), 8:7b, 8:8abb, 8:22b, 8:24ab*, 8:27 (RjE Ru), 8:33 Rp.l The erection of the altar on Mt. Ebal, 8:30-35, stands in an impossible place ; LXXB, etc., introduce the passage after 9:2, but with no better connection ; Josephus and the Samaritan Joshua (chap. 21) put this ceremony where alone it is historically conceivable, after the completed conquest. The verses are a comparatively recent deuteronomistic addition to the book ; they have been enlarged and retouched by still later hands (8:33 ; the blessing and the curse, 8:34). 2

In 9, the ruse of the Gibeonites, 9:15c, 9:17-21 are of priestly character ; a deuteronomistic hand is seen in 9:1-2, 9:9 (except the first words), 9:10, 9:24-25, 9:27 in part. There is general agreement that the chief source is J ; 3 note the resemblance to Gen. 19:30+ (ob serve esp. Josh. 9:20-27), and the relation to 1 Sam. 21 @. (J). From 10 it appears that E also related that the Gibeonites made peace with Israel ; traces of this source are, therefore, perhaps to be recognised in (9:1-2), 9:3*, 9:8, 9:11*, 9:15a, 9:27*, though in themselves these verses might be editorial glosses to J.

In the history of the war in the South (chap. 10), verses 10:1ab, 10:8, 10:12abba, 10:19bb, 10:25, 10:40-43 are deuteronomistic ; slight traces of the priestly redaction are also discernible. Since in 10:15 the Israelite army returns to Gilgal, most critics ascribe 10:16-27 to another hand ; Kittel and others assign 10:1-11, 10:15 to E (slight contamination in 10:1-2, 10:10b), 10:16-27 to J ; but the obvious dependence of 10:16-27 on 10:1-11 makes strongly against this partition. Wellhausen regards 10:16-27 as secondary in JE, Budde as tertiary in J (later than 10:28-39, 10:43). It is a simpler hypothesis that 10:15, which should stand after 10:27, has been misplaced (Masius), presumably in connection with the intrusion of 10:12-14. 4 Nothing then stands in the way of attributing 10:16-27 to the author of 10:1-11 (E). The poetical prayer of Joshua in 10:12b-13a is quoted from the old book of songs ; 5 the setting in which the lines now stand is given them by RD, or perhaps E2, whose fondness for poetical pieces justificatives has often been remarked ; nothing points to J. vv. 28-39, describing Joshua's further conquests in the South, are obviously secondary, and are usually ascribed to RD, though there are no decisive indications of authorship - E2 or RJE would be possible ; an underlying source (J2) is surmised by Kittel and others ; 10:40-42 are a deuteronomistic general summary. J s parallel to the war with Adonizedek and his allies is preserved in an abridged form in Judg. 1:4-8 (cp also 1:9-15).

Chap. 11, a counterpart in contents and form to 10, relates the conquest of Northern Palestine. To the deuteronomistic author are attributed 11:2-3, 11:12, 11:14-15, perhaps also 11:6, and touches in 11:8-9; 11:21-23 are of later origin. The chief source in 11:1-9 is E ; fragments of J's parallel to the war with Jabin -are combined with the history of the struggle with Sisera in Judg. 4. vv. 10-20 seem to be a secondary addition to 11:1-9 (as 10:28-39 is to 10:1-27), prob ably by E2 or RJE, subsequently worked over, with the rest of the chapter, by RD.

Chap. 12 is a resume of the conquests E. and W. of the Jordan; 12:2-6 depend on Dt. 8:9-12, 8:14-17 (cp 1:3); cp Josh. 13:8-12 ; the superscription of the following catalogue of cities resembles 11:17. Both parts of the chapter are late and without historical value.

1 Note in this chapter also the variations of LXX.

2 See Hollenberg, St. A r. 47 478-481 ( 74); Kue. Th.T 12315- 322 ( 78), Hex. 7, n. 30 f., 14, n. n.

3 Di. is an exception.

  • y. 15 is repeated in 43 ; it was originally lacking in both

places in 05 , hexaplar MSS introduce it sub ast.

5 See JASHER [BooK OF], i.

6 Onl7see Kue. Th. 7-11484 .^( 77); I. Sack,^7276i-6 9 ( 93).

9. Chaps 13-19.[edit]

In 13-19 we find some fragments of J ; 13:13, 15:13-1963, 16:10, 17:11-13, 17:14-18, 19:47 (LXX). These are plainly taken from a context similar to Judg. 1, and were inserted in their present connection by a late redactor.

13:1 was the introduction in JE to an allotment such as in twice redacted form we have in 18:2+; 8-1214 (cp Dt. 18:1) are deuteronomistic, cp Dt. 3, Josh. 12:1-6 ; the description of the unconquered territory in 13:2-6 is also apparently deuteronomistic, whether by the same hand as 13:8+ or not (cp Judg. 3:3) ; so prob ably 7 (cp LXX). Verses 15-32 (with the title 14b LXX ) are from P and Rp ; 13:21-31 has been worked over. 14:1-5 is from P (cp Nu. 34, esp. 34:13-17), probably preceded by a general title which now stands in 18:1 ; the corresponding subscription is 19:51, cp 13:14b (LXX) 32 ; 6-15, in its present form deuteronomistic, and related to Dt. 1:19-36, has perhaps a basis of E ; cp 15:13-19 (J).

15:1-12 defines the boundaries of the tribe of Judah, 15:20-62 enumerates the cities and towns in its several regions ; the list is probably based on an older (JE) list, traces of which still appear here and there.

In 16-17 {6} (the territories of Joseph), 16:10, 17:11-13, 17:14-18 are from J ; 16:1-3, 17:1b, 17:2, 17:8, 17:9ab are at variance with the presumptions of P, and must in substance be derived from JE (E) ; the re mainder is from P, with additions by Rp (16:4, 17:5-6).

The incompleteness and confusion of chaps. 16-17. compared with 15 (Judah) and 18 (Benjamin), or even with the description of the territories of the Northern Tribes (note the absence of the list of cities in Ephraim and Manasseh), must be attributed to late abridgment ; similar abridgment may with good reason be suspected in the account of the conquest (2-11), where we now find nothing about the conquest of Central Palestine. 1

Chap. 18-19 contain a survey of the land and allot ments to the remaining tribes.

18:1 (P or R P ) originally stood before 14:1 (see above) ; 18:2-10 (18:3b, 18:7 secondary) conflict with the presumptions of P ; the obviously un- historical character of the transaction has led some critics to ascribe the verses as a whole to RJE (Kuenen) or DA (Albers) ; but the representation is not D's, more probably the passage is derived substantially from E (Dillmann, Kittel, etc.) ; the original scene of the transaction was Shechem, which has been supplanted in 18:1 by P's Shiloh (cp LXX in 24:1). The idea of a division of land by lot (before the conquest) comes from J (Judg. 1, see below, 13), and is successively heightened by E and P ; it may even be conjectured that traces of J's representation have been pre served in 18:5b ; in the present form of the verses both RJE and R11 may have had a hand. In what follows (18:11-19:51), the older source (E) may be recognised, especially in the titles (18:11b, 19:1-17, and others), further, in 19:9 and 19:49-50; but it is not possible to partition the material in the lists between E and P, probably because P is here directly dependent upon E ; it can only be said that E's description of the territories of the several tribes was in the form of a catalogue of cities (18:9, DTk?S). v 51 is P's closing formula for the whole, corresponding to 18:1.

10. Chaps. 20-24.[edit]

Chaps. 20-22 are composite.

The appointment of the cities of refuge in 20 is from P, supplemented in 20:3*, 20:4-6a, 20:8 by a very late hand from Dt. 4:41+ 19 ; cp LXX 2. Chap. 21:1-42 [40], cities assigned to the priests and Levites, is also from P ; 20 and 21:1-42 [40] correspond to the two parts of Nu. 35, cp Josh. 14:4. vv. 43-45 [41-43], D's conclusion to the occupation of the land, originally followed 19:49+; 22:1-6, also deuteronomistic, and dependent on Dt. 8:18-20 (cp Josh. 1:12-15), is the continuation of 21:43-45 [41-43], perhaps not wholly by the same hand ; 21:7-8 is of much later origin. 3 Chap. 22:9-34 belongs to the most recent stratum in the Hexateuch ; its resemblance to P2 in Nu. 31, 32:6-15 and to Judg. 20 has often been pointed out ; cp also the late working over of Gen. 34 and Ex. 16.

Chap. 23 is the close of the deuteronomic book of Joshua, and originally followed immediately on 21:43 [41]-22:6. It not only corresponds in position to the parting exhortations of Moses, Dt. 4:29-30, but so closely resembles them in thought and diction as to raise the question whether they are not by the same author ; 4 cp also the farewell address of Samuel (1 S. 12).

Chap. 24 contains the similar conclusion to E's history of Joshua.

This conclusion has reached us only in deuteronomic redaction, which may most certainly be recognised in 24:1ba (cp 23:2), 24:13 (cp Dt. 6:10), and 24:31 (cp Dt. 11), and in slighter touches of deuteronomistic colour in several other verses ; the seven nations in 11 are editorial (? RJE or RD); 24:2ab, 24:26a. are later glosses; 24:9b 24:10a, 24:10ba. are perhaps also secondary.^

The chapter must have been omitted by the author of 23, and restored by a later deuteronomistic editor (cp the case of Judg. 1 9 17-21). Its resume of the Elohistic history is of great value. vv. 29-30 concludes E's narrative; 32-33, from the same source, is a natural appendix. (LXX contains further additions ; see below, 18.

1 We. (CH(-) 133) with much probability conjectures that this mutilation had its motive in hostility to the Samaritans ; CD Kue. Hex. 16, n. 12.

2 On 20 see Kue. Tk. 7-11467-478 ( 77); cp We.

5 Mention should be made of Holzinger s conjecture, that the covenant referred to in 24 25 (cp 26 f.) was made upon the Book of the Covenant, Ex. 21-23 (in its original form) ; see Hex. 179.

11. Redaction.[edit]

J and E appear in Josh. 1-12 to have been united, not by the deuteronomistic author (RD ) himself, but, as in the , Pentateuch, by an earlier redactor (RJE ) ; it is not improbable, however, that RD , like the author of the introduction to Dt. , had E separately, and used it, to the exclusion of J, in 10-12, 13+. As in the other deuteronomistic histories, the religious comment and pragmatism which RD introduced invited expansion by similarly-minded editors or scribes ; and the presence of a secondary deuteronomistic element in the book is generally recog nised, though it is not always possible to distinguish it with certainty. This secondary stratum is akin to the younger parts of Dt. (esp. 4:29-30). A peculiar deuteronomistic colour belongs also to the very latest redaction of Josh. The union of the deuteronomistic Josh, with P was the work of RP ; nothing in the method of combination militates against the supposition that it was effected by the same hand as in Nu. , though this can hardly be proved. A late addition of haggadic character cognate to Nu. 32-33 etc. is found in Josh. 22:9-34 ; cp 20. Still more recent, probably, is the mutilation of 16-17. To what stage in the redaction the restoration of 24 and the interpolation of the fragments of J in 13-19 belong cannot be determined. Slight additions and changes in the text continued to be made even after the time of the Greek translation.

12. History in P.[edit]

The small fragments of P preserved in Josh. 1-12 lead us to suppose that in P the conquest of Western Palestine was narrated summarily without detail, as was that of Eastern Palestine (P in Nu. 21+ - the war with the Midianites in Nu. 31-32, is later than P) ; as in the history of the exodus, P supposes readers familiar with the older narratives. From 18:1 we see that the whole land has been subdued. The congregation (my) then assembles at Shiloh, and sets up the tabernacle ; Eleazar and Joshua, with the heads of families, divide the land by lot to the nine tribes and a half (14:1). The boundaries of the tribal territories, beginning with Judah, are minutely defined, in dependence on an older description with which P is here combined. P's doomsday book has not been preserved intact ; for Ephraim and Manasseh little more than the skeleton remains (see above, 9). It is characteristic that the priest Eleazar everywhere takes precedence of Joshua.

13. In J.[edit]

The older of the two chief sources of the deuteronomistic history of the conquest (in our analysis, J) gives substantially the following representation. From Shittim, E. of the Jordan, Joshua sends spies to Jericho.

The spies take lodging with Rahab, who saves their lives and receives in return a pledge of protection when the city is taken. The Israelites encamp on the banks of the Jordan ; Joshua orders them to purify themselves for the holy war, and predicts that Yahwe will work wonders for them. They cross the river, the waters being miraculously stayed in their course, so that they pass over on dry ground. See JERICHO, 4. At Joshua's command they take twelve stones from the midst of the river and set them up at their first halting-place (Gilgal). Joshua has a vision of the Captain of Yahwe s host, who reveals to him a plan for the capture of Jericho. The fighting men march round the city without any demonstration, and return to camp ; this manoeuvre is repeated for six days ; on the seventh, Joshua gives the signal for assault.

The Israelites storm the city, which is taken by surprise and falls into their hands ; l they slaughter the inhabitants - sparing only RAHAB (q.v. ) and her house hold - and burn the city.

Spies sent to Ai report that it will be easy to take the place ; but the division sent against it is badly defeated ; Yahwe's anger has been provoked by the Judaean Achan s appropriation of part of the spoils of Jericho, the contagious herein has infected the whole people ; the guilty man is discovered by lot and put to death.

Ai is then taken by a familiar stratagem (cp Judg. 20). The Gibeonites deceive the Israelites by pretending to come from a great distance, and secure the protection of a treaty.

Thus far, in this source, as in later representations, Israel acts as one body, under the leadership of Joshua ; after the destruction of Ai the army returns to Gilgal, which is the scene of chap. 9. The remains of J in Judg. 1 (and parallels in Josh. 13+) represent the conquest of Canaan as the work of the several tribes independently Judah and Simeon in the S. , Joseph in the central highlands. There also, however, the tribes set out for the subjugation of the interior from the same point in the Jordan valley (Gilgal, Judg. 2:1 ; cp Jericho,

1:16) ; it is assumed that the region which each is to subdue has previously been determined by lot (Judg. 1:3), and the order in which they shall invade their several territories is decided by the oracle (Judg. l:1-2). Judg. 1 must, therefore, have been preceded by an account of the crossing of the Jordan by the united tribes and the taking of Jericho, and there is thus no conflict between the oldest narrative in Josh. 1-6 and Judg. 1. The operations against Ai (7-8) present greater difficulty ; for, as that city was in the immediate neighbourhood of Bethel, the war against it would seem properly to belong to the particular history of the conquests of Joseph (cp Judg. 1:22+). Although, however, the historical probability that the taking of Ai was accomplished by Joseph alone must be conceded, it is a hazardous inference that our oldest source must have so narrated it ; in fact, both 7 and 9 show that J represented it as the work of all Israel.

As has been already noted, J in Judg. 1 supposes that their territories had been assigned to Judah and Joseph, at least, before the invasion ; it is possible that this source originally contained a brief description of these territories ; the enumeration in Judg. 1 (and parallels in Josh. ) of the cities which the several tribes were unable to reduce may be thought to presume such a description. Fragments of J's account of the war (of Judah and Simeon) with the king of Jerusalem and of the war (of Zebulun and Naphtali ?) with the king of Hazor are preserved in Judg. 1 and 4 ; the conquests and settlements of Caleb, Simeon, and the Kenites in the S. , and the taking of Bethel by Joseph, are related in Judg. 1 (cp Josh. 17:14-18) ; and it can scarcely be doubted that this source also contained at least brief and summary accounts of the movements of the northern tribes (cp Judg. 1:30+}. The narrative may have closed with a general statement of the incompleteness of the conquest such as underlies Judg. 2:23, 3:2 (see JUDGES, 5).

1 Precisely the same stratagem is said to have been employed by the Roman general Domitius Calvinus at the siege of Luna, a fortified town of the Ligurians ; see Frontinus, Stratagemata,

14. In E.[edit]

In Joshua, as frequently, the earliest written account has determined all the subsequent representations. The second chief source of the deuteronomistic history of Joshua is manifestly dependent on the older narrative, whose representation it consistently heightens. 1 Thus, the conquests of Judah and the kindred clans, and of the Galilaean tribes, are ascribed to all Israel in two great campaigns ; the gradual sub jugation of the Canaanites by the several tribes as it appears in J becomes the complete conquest of Western Palestine by Joshua (corresponding to that of Eastern Palestine by Moses in the same source), and at least in the later strata of E the annihilation of the whole native population. For the determination by lot, at Gilgal, of the region to be invaded by the several tribes (J), we have a formal survey, and division of the conquered land, at Shechem, to the seven tribes and a half. 2 The miraculous element in the history is exaggerated, and takes on a more magical form, as in the crossing of the Jordan (cp JORDAN, 2 [6]), and especially in the account of the taking of Jericho, where a military stratagem is transformed into a religious procession, and the walls of the doomed city crumble into dust at the blast of the sacred trumpets and the shouts of the people (see JERICHO, 3). The relation of the younger narrative to the older one here is entirely similar to that which we find in the history of the Egyptian plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea (see EXODUS ii., 3 [ii. iv.]) ; and this fact strengthens the presumption that the secondary version in Joshua also comes from E. Elements of independent historical value, derived from sources other than J, are not to be discovered in the younger narrative. The special Ephraimite interest appears in the increased prominence given to Joshua.

The redactors naturally adopt E's conception of the history, and exaggerate its unhistorical features, the deuteronomistic author in particular never failing to emphasise the unsparing thoroughness with which Joshua obeys the command to extirpate the Canaanites. The disposition to make Joshua a double of Moses has also been noted.

1 From the point of view of historical criticism, it is therefore of no consequence whether the second source be E or J->.

2 It is possible that for this last also there was some point of connection in J.

15. Ultimate sources.[edit]

Behind the oldest account of the conquest (J) lies, as in Gen. and in Ex.-Nu. , not a specifically Judaean tradition, but the common Israelite tradi- tion, the product of a fusion which doubtless began in the time of the united kingdom, in which the Ephraimite element naturally preponderates over that which is distinctively of Southern origin. In Josh. 2-9 the ultimate basis is probably in large part the local tradition of Gilgal (Stade). (The particular Judaean interest is only occasionally to be discerned, as, e.g. , in 15:13-19). In this tradition the Ephraimite hero Joshua is the successor of Moses and the leader of Israel in the first period of the invasion ; all the tribes cross the Jordan at one time and place ; l Judah and the allied clans enter their territory from the NE. ; the Galilasan tribes were perhaps thought of as following in the wake of Joseph and reaching their seats through the highlands of Ephraim.

The question how far this representation corresponds to the actual facts is one for historical criticism. It is not only antecedently more probable that Caleb and its kindred clans, as well as the Kenites, entered the country from the S. ; traces of such a tradition seem to be preserved, e.g. , in Nu. 13-14. Whether the same is true of Judah and Simeon (Graf, Kue. , Land, Tiele, Doom. , and others) is more doubtful. The lower fords of the Jordan, opposite Jericho, may have been the place of some memorable passage by Israelite tribes ; but it is in the highest degree improbable that they all crossed there. The invasion was not even in its first stage a concerted movement ; it was a series of irrup tions, with varying success, as the catastrophe which befell Simeon and Levi in their attempt on Shechem (Gen. 34, 49:5-7) proves.

Thus even the oldest account of the invasion cannot be accepted without question as embodying a sound historical tradition ; it shows very plainly the working of that process of concentration which is observed in all legend, the tendency to ascribe to one man, one generation, one stroke of arms what was in fact the result of a long development. 2

16. Date of J.[edit]

Of the age of J there are few definite indications in Josh. The curse laid by Joshua on the site of Jericho (6:26) is connected with something which happened (see HIEL) in the reign of Ahab (circa 875-851 B.C. ; 1 K. 16:34) ; the treaty with the Gibeonites is older than the time of Saul (2 S. 2:1), and may be probably referred to the period of the south ward expansion of Joseph (formation of Benjamin) in the preceding century ; the imposing upon Gibeon of the supply of wood for the temple which was, we may surmise, the original meaning of 9:23, cp 9:27 would be long to the time of Solomon, who imposed various charges upon the subject Canaanites (i K. 9:20-22) ; cp Judg. 1:28, 1:30, 1:33, 1:35, and see GIBEON.

1 This, it should be observed, was a necessary consequence of the representation in the Pentateuch, in which Moses leads all Israel to the plains of Moab.

2 An instructive parallel to Josh, is found in the Greek legends of the Dorian invasion of the Peloponnesus ( return of the Heracleidffi ), partition of the land by lot, etc.

17. Chronology.[edit]

In striking contrast to Judg. the Book of Joshua has no chronological scheme. We are not told how many years were consumed in the subjugation of the land, nor how long Joshua lived after the end of the wars ; in both cases we read only that it was a long time (11:18, 23:1). From 14:7, 14:9-10, it may be calculated that from the crossing of the Jordan to the assignment of Hebron to Caleb (after the conquest was completed) there had elapsed seven years ; or if, with Josephus, following LXX in Josh. 6:5, we allow forty full years from the sending out of the spies from Kadesh-barnea to the crossing of the Jordan, five years. Other computations are based upon i K. 6:1 (480 years from the exodus to the building of the temple) ; in this way there were reckoned out for Joshua by the early Christian chronologists 27 years ; in Seder Oldm, 28 ; by Josephus, 25 ; by Eupolemus, followed by Africanus, 30. More probably the author of i K. 6:1 allowed Joshua 40 years ; but there is no trace of this system in Josh.

18. Text.[edit]

The Hebrew text of Josh, is fairly well preserved. Certain consistent variations in its orthography (inn; Pent, irry ; N .i fern. , Pent, xirt) 2 show that the text of Josh, was edited by different hands from the Pentateuch. The Greek version of Josh, was not made by the translators of the Pentateuch ; 2 it is not conspicuously inferior to that of the Pentateuch either in knowledge of Hebrew or in fidelity of render ing. The Hebrew text from which LXX was made was not very different from MT ; but it was free from some of the latest glosses in MT (cp 5:4-7, 6:3-5, 20:4-6), and some times had an intact text where there is now a lacuna in Hebrew (e.g., in 16:59, where the names of eleven cities have fallen out from Hebrew, and 21:36-37 [MT between 35 and 36] where many Hebrew codd. and edd. also insert the missing levitical cities in Reuben) ; in varia tions (5 not infrequently exhibits the better reading. LXXs additions at the end of chap. 24 are of some interest, especially the last, which seems to show that the author had a book of Judges which began with the story of Ehud (the same connection is made in the Samaritan Josh. chap. 39 ). 3

19. Samaritan Joshua.[edit]

The Samaritans possess an uncanonical Book of Joshua in Arabic, professedly translated from a Hebrew original. 4 It begins with the consecration of Joshua as Moses successor (Dt. 31), after which is narrated (from Numbers) the story of Balaam and the war upon the Midianites (in which Joshua is the commander of the Israelite army). Then, with a new title ( 'Here begins the Book of Joshua the son of Nun' ), it relates in its own way the conquest and division of the land, to the death of Joshua, and continues to the death of Eli. Setting aside the great interpolation (Shobek, chaps. 26-37), and the appended chapters 45-47 (Nebuchadrezzar, Alexander, Adrian), the chronicle is based solely on the biblical narrative, which it sometimes reproduces verbally, often freely embellishes, and occasionally especially in the history of Eli and Samuel, whom it makes the arch-apostates wholly distorts.

This Joshua is a mediaeval production and its only value is to the student of the Samaritan sect under Moslem rule.

20. Literature.[edit]

For the titles of works on Introduction, see DEUTERONOMY, 33. For the history of criticism see HEXATEUCH.

i. Commentaries. Andreas Masius, 1574, reprinted in Critici Sacri; Jo. Clericus, 1708; Maurer, 1831 ; Kn., 61 (KGff),V), by Di. Deut. Nu. u. Jos., 86; Ke., 63, ( 2 ), 74, ET by J. Martin, 68 ; F. R. Fay, 7 (Lange s Bibelwerk), ET by G. R. Bliss, 72; T. E. Espin, 72 (Speaker s Coii.) , E. Reuss, La Bible, 3, L histoire sainte et la loi, 79 ; Das alte Testament, 3 ( 93) ; J. J. Lias, 81 (Pulpit Comm.) ; J. Lloyd, 86; S. Oettli, 93 (KGK).

2. Criticism. C. H. van Herwerden, Disputatio tie libri Josute auctore, 26 (fragment hypothesis) ; L. Konig, A Tliche Studien, 1, Authentie des Buches Josua, 36 (the book a unit ; Joshua its author) ; Himpel, Einheit und Glaubwiirdigkeit des Buches Josua, in Theol. Quartalschrift, 64 f.\ Kn. Comm., 61 ; Ew. GVI 2323 ff. ( 65); E. Schrader in De Wette, inl.( 8 ) 69; No. AT Unters,, 69; Colenso, Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, 6258-297 343-360 ( 72); Joh. Hollenberg, Die deuteronomischen Bestandtheiledes Buches Josua, St. Kr. 47462-506 ( 74); A. Kayser, Das vorexilische Buch u. s. w., 102 ff. ( 74); We. C77(2) 118-136 ( &&lt;)=JPT, 76); A. Kue. Th.T 114-57-478 ( 77), 12 315-323 ( 78); Bu. Ri. Sa. 1-83 ( 90 = ZATW, "&Tf.); Ki. Geschichte der Hebrcier, 1238-281, esp. 2517?- ( 88); ET History of the Hebrews, 1262-311 ; E. Albers, Die Quellenberichte in Josua, 1-12 ( 91); Spcin and Kautzsch in Kautzsch, HS, 94 (analysis in the margin) ; W. H. Bennett, The Book of Joshua in Hebrew, 95 (SBOT; analysis in colours), The Book of Josh, and the Pentateuch, JQK, 10 649^ ( 98); G. A. Smith, art. Joshua in Hastings DB 2 779-788 ( 99) ; J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, 1900. Q_ p M

1 See Di. NDJ 439 ; Konig, Rinl. 250.

2 See Egli, ZWT 676-96 287-321 ( 62).

3 On the Greek version of Josh, see Hollenberg, C/tarakter der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth (Programm), Moers, "76 ; cp ZA TIf

4. Chronicon Samantanuiti . . . cm titulus est Liber Josua. Ed. Juynboll 48.


(irWiO [nK>N\Zech. 610], God supports [Ges. ] ; [for another derivation see Hommel, AHTK-i, ; cp Exp.T%& (May 97)]; iooc[e]lAC). The last king of Judah (639-608) before the rapid decline and fall of the state (2 K. 22-2330 2 Ch. 34/. ). If the numbers in 21 19 and 22 1 are correct, he was only a boy of eight when the people of the land (i.e. , perhaps the men capable of bearing arms) ! placed him on the throne in succession to his father Amon.

1. Early administration.[edit]

Of the first years of his reign we know nothing. Probably the earlier events recorded in the annals did not, from the redactor s point of view, deserve to be remembered. Of course Assyria was no longer troublesome ; but we should like to have been informed as to the nature of the cultus in the temple, and as to the Scythian invasion referred to by Herodotus 2 (1:103-106). In the eighteenth year of Josiah s reign, however, something occurred which affected the redactor very deeply : it was not so much the attention given by the king to the fabric of the temple (the royal sanctuary ; cp Am. 7:13), as the finding of a book called rrnnn 1ED ( 'the book of direction' ) in the house of Yahwe. See DEUTERONOMY, 2/

The account of this finding and of the effect it produced on Josiah is very disappointing. The section, 2 K. 22:3-20, contains some passages which were certainly not, as they now stand, in the original narrative ; also, it is silent as to various points about which we feel a legitimate curiosity. The next section (23:1-25), which describes the details of the reformation, is much fuller, but by no means free from difficulty. Without an elaborate investigation, we could not adopt from either section more than this that long after Josiah's accession a recast and development of Yahwistic laws was brought from the temple to Josiah, and that the king adopted it and imposed it by force upon his people, having first of all pbtained an endorsement of the authority of the book by a prophetess of high repute (see HILKIAH, i ; HULDAH).

The thirteen years which followed the reformation were monotonously peaceful. No foreign exactions hampered the industry of the subjects, and the king won the highest praise as a just and God-fearing ruler (Jer. 22:15-16).

2. Foreign policy.[edit]

This prosperity, however, arose from circumstances which could not last, and in 608 a storm burst upon the little kingdom. It was the imminent partition of the Assyrian empire that was the cause. Neco II., the young and enterprising king of Egypt, had not forgotten the glories of Thotmes and Rameses, and started soon after his accession to reconquer Canaan, Phoenicia, and Syria. His first object was to lay his hand on the northern territories ; the strong southern fortress of Jerusalem he meant to leave till his return. Josiah also, however, appears to have had political plans of a far-reaching character ; he was probably not such a pure enthusiast as he is represented in the Old Testa ment. The mortal sickness of Assyria may have given him hopes of restoring the old Davidic kingdom ; it is said that at the time of the reformation he exercised sovereign rights in Bethel and the cities of Samaria (2 K. 23:15-20). This is not impossible, though fuller evidence would be desirable. We may also presume that he was subject to a sad illusion relative to the earthly rewards of righteousness. He had the courage (alone or with allies) to meet the Egyptian king, and we have two accounts of what took place.

1 Kittel, however (Hist. 2379), explains, the party of the country people ; he supposes that the murder of Amon was committed by friends of the reform movement, which ultimately produced the original Deuteronomy.

2 On this subject and on the possible allusions to the Scythians in the Books of Jeremiah, Zephaniah, and Ezekiel, see JEREMIAH ii., 20 (i.) ; SCYTHIANS; and cp Che. Jeremiah s Life and Times, 30-38 ; Guthe, GVI 215-217.



The father of history tells us (from Hecataeus) that Neco made war by land on the Syrians and defeated them in a pitched battle at MayioAov [magdolon] or Ma-ySajAoi/, after which he took Kadytis, a large city of Syria (Herod. 2 159). Herodotus must, however, have misunderstood his informants, for Magdolos is obviously the Egyptian MIGDOL [q.v.], whither Josiah is not at all likely to have gone to seek Neco. Apparently Herodotus confounds Megiddo with Magdolon, just as he confounds Cadytis-Gaza with the Syrian Cadytis-Kadesh.

The earliest Hebrew account is in 2 K. 23:29-30. It states that Neco was on his way to meet the king of Assyria (see Schr. CI l^ff.} at the Euphrates when Josiah went to meet him and fell in battle at Megiddo. The account is strangely short, and is unfortunately not free from corruption. 1 A later writer (2 Ch. 35:20-25), however, gives a fuller narrative. Neco, it is said, sent an embassy to Josiah, explaining that he had no quarrel with Josiah, and that he had been directed by an oracle to go to the Euphrates to battle ; Josiah s fate, if he makes opposition, will be due to his own folly. Josiah, however, was bent on war, and though Neco s words were dictated by the true God, he hearkened not to them. A battle ensued in the plain of Megiddo (Jos. Ant. x. 5 1, says uevd-q [mende] [>./., ^S^]). 2 The archers shot at Josiah, and wounded him fatally. He was brought in his second chariot to Jerusalem.

3. The account in 2 Ch. 35:20-25.[edit]

An inspection of this narrative of the Chronicler shows that v. 21-22 (down to 'from the mouth of God' ) are parenthetical, and the analogy of similar passages suggests that they must have been inserted from another source. Was that source a trustworthy one ? No ; it is too clear that the insertion is midrashic and imaginative. The idea of the embassy of deprecation is taken from 2 K. 14:9-10 ; that of the oracle is characteristic of the Chronicler and his circle ; that Neco should be represented as in communication with God would not be strange in an age which nourished itself on Jeremiah (cp Jer. 27:6); but more probably Neco is supposed to have heard of a prophecy of Jeremiah (see 3 Esd. 1:28), just as Cyrus is supposed to have done in 2 Ch. 36:23. The speech ascribed to the wounded king is modelled on i K. 22:34 (see CHRONICLES, 8). 3

What were the exact circumstances which seemed to justify Josiah in encountering the Egyptian army, we do not know.

W. M. Miiller ventures on the conjecture that the "Assyrian prefect of Phoenicia and Palestine summoned Josiah and other vassal princes to unite their contingents, and meet the Pharaoh (who had reached Philistia) N. of Carmel. But was Assyria strong enough to give such an order? It would be safer to suppose that independently several Syrian and Palestinian princes combined against Neco under the leadership of Josiah, and that on the plain of Megiddo or Esdraelon they tried their fortune. The bare possibility must, however, be allowed for, that the armies clashed at a spot nearer to Mujedil (one of the Migdals, SW. of Yafa and Nazareth), on the N. of Esdraelon, than to Lejjun (Megiddo) on the S. ; Lejjun may have been the place where the hapless king died. This allows us to suppose that Herodotus was correctly informed as to the name of the place of the encounter. Reinach's view (Rev. arch. 27:366) that the battle of Magdolon was a slightly earlier one (the opponents of the Egyptians being neither the Jews nor the Philistines, but the Svpoi [Assyrians]), which transferred the western Asiatic Empire to Egypt, and Winckler s defence (GI 1 103, 11. 2) of the statement of Herodotus, 4 are on different grounds highly improb able. 5 Whether Neco went by land or by sea to the neighbour hood of Carmel is disputed : the latter alternative has been generally adopted, but unwisely. 8 Why Josiah encountered Neco at Megiddo also is doubtful. Probably it was because of the rapidity of Neco s movements, and because he had effected a junction with N. Palestinian allies.

The scantiness of our information is to be regretted. Fe equally tragic events are recorded in the history of Israel. Probably there were circumstances (not those which Josephus [Ant.x. 5:13] imagines) which it cut the ancient historian to the heart to mention. Whether the mourning of HADADRIMMON (q.v.) in the valley of Megiddo (Zech. 12:11) refers to the lamentation for the death of Josiah is disputed. At any rate the Chronicler s statement that lamentations were held every year for Josiah seems to be trustworthy (cp the contrast in Jer. 22:10-18), even if we hesitate to believe that Jeremiah composed the first funeral dirge. See LAMENTATIONS, 12.

2. b. Zephaniah, one of the representatives of the Babylonian Jewish communities who brought silver and gold to Jerusalem, temp. Zerubbabel (Zech. 6:10-14, according to necessary emendations of those texts). On the whole passage (Zech. 6:9-15) see ZERUBBABEL.

The words, 'and come thou the same day, and go into the house of' have grown out of a single corrupt or illegible word, the original of which was doubtless nKDV. Several attempts were made to read this corrupt word ; these were put together by an editor, and some apparent sense made by the insertion of 'the same day, and'. So first Wellhausen, who in A7. Proph.W further tacitly emends the name 'Josiah' into 'Joshua'. His reason must be that ben Zephaniah is obviously added to distinguish the person intended from some well-known living personage of the same name (presumably the high priest Joshua).

T. K. C.

1 irm inina O3 ?rp;i is evidently wrong, inx at the end has been written twice over. We may conjecturally restore 1,TB7K VV1 B3 D JS INTTl l, and they looked each other in the face (2K. 14 1 1) by Megiddo; and they shot at Josiah . . . The corrupt inrTD v ) is partly produced by the neighbourhood of no (v- 30).

2 fievSri of course = -|3D = n:D- Josephus, therefore, had before him an incorrect Hebrew text. Cp WMM Studien z. vor- derasiat. Gesch. 54, n. i in Ml/G, 98, 3.

3 A scribe has already indicated this by the substitution of disguised himself for encouraged himself in 2Ch. 8622 (cp 2 Ch. 18 29). See <B, and i Esd. 1 28.

4 So, too, Hound, Gesch. des alien Mfirgcnl. 152.

6 Against Winckler, see WMM Studien zur vorderasiat. Gfsch. 5=yC ( 98) ; against the latter, PraSek, Forsch. zur Gesch. des Alt. i-t,/.

8 On one side, see GASm. (HG 405, n. 2) ; on the other, Che. Jeremiah, 96 ( 88) (who mentions the other alternative, however, and supports it by the historical parallel of the inarch of Thotmes


(i) (eciAC [B]). i Esd. 833 AV=Ezra 87, JESHAIAH, 4. (2) (io><r[e]ias [BAL]), i Esd. li, etc., Mt. lio RV JOSIAH [q.v.].


i Ch. 4 3 st, RV JOSHIBIAH. JOSIPHIAH (H^pr, 27 53, Yahwe increases ; !60Ce4>[e]iA [BA], iecce<}>l6. [L]), a name in one of the post-exilic lists (EZRA i. 2, ii. 15 [i] d), Ezra 8jo= l Esd. 8 3 6 JOSAPHIAS (|COCA(t>IAC[BA], |OGCed>l6. [L]).


(nnt?;, leceBAA [B], IGTAXAA [A], | T e- B&6& [L]), the native place of Haruz, father of Meshul- lemeth ; 2 K. 21 19. On the analogy of Jotapata (once nnG" 1 , see Jastrow, Lex.) we may safely regard Jotbah as a popular corruption of Jiphtah (God) opens (the womb). JIPHTAH [g.v.~\ was a place in the Shephelah, Josh. 1643. T. K. C.


(nrQtp^ ; cp JOTBAH), a stage in the wanderings in the wilderness (Nu. 8833^ ; eTeBA.0& [B ab L], ereB. and TAB. [F], cereB. [B*]. I6TABA9AN [A]; Dt. 10 7 , AV JOTBATH ; TAIBA0& [B], I6T6.B. [A], ireB. [F], ereB. [L]). See WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF.

1 Cp Che. Jeremiah, wjff.

~ That irv.-idb ig are a late amplification, is pointed out by Frankenb. (Cotf. des dcut. Richterbuches, 27) and Bu. (Richter, 72).


(Dfl V, perhaps 'Yahwe is perfect' (sincere), 38 ; cp Gray, *HPN 154 ; icoAGAM [BKAQFL]).

i. (iwadav [B], ia.6a/j. [A in v. 5], iwda/j. [A in v. 21, L v. 57]). The sole survivor of the massacre of Jerubbaal's (or rather Gideon's) sons of whom he was the youngest at Ophrah (see GIDEON, i) ; author of a fable (Judg. 9:5-21). Strictly, however, the author of the fable of the trees who sought for a king and the sole survivor of the house of Gideon are different persons, the former (of whose name we are ignorant) being more historical than the latter. The writer who first collected the historical tales about Abimelech, king of Shechem, probably knew nothing about Jotham. A subsequent editor, however, wishing to account for the calamities which befel both the people of Shechem and their king Abimelech, represented one of Gideon s sons as having escaped, and as proclaiming a parable in the hearing of the Shechemites (see GERIZIM, 2), who had assembled to make Abimelech king. To this editor v. 5b (escape of Jotham), 6 (popular choice of Abimelech ; superfluous after vv. 4:51a) 7-16a, 19b, 20-21. most probably belong. 2 His object was to impress upon his readers that the calamities of Abimelech and the Shechemites were a divine retribution, and this he makes still more evident by putting into the mouth of Jotham a curse upon both the guilty parties (v. 20). This done, he gets rid of Jotham by making him flee to Beer (an unknown locality) for fear of his (half-)brother Abimelech (v. 21).

It is the fable which interests us ; Jotham is a mere shadow. Some scholars (e.g. , Moore) think that it was written by the author of vv. 7-21, with reference to the circumstances of Abimelech. The fable, however, is applicable to Abimelech only in so far as such a bad man was sure to bring misery on himself and on his subjects. To do it justice we must regard it as an independent production, and disengage it from its setting. It is no objection to this that v. 15b forms a somewhat abrupt conclusion (Moore). We must not expect too much harmony in a Hebrew apologue ; besides, the true closing words may have been omitted. The proof, however, that the fable is not by the author of its setting is in the imperfect parallelism between v. 15b and the application in vv. 16a, 19b, 20. If in good faith you anoint me to be king over you, come and enjoy my protection ; but if not, beware of the ruin which I shall cause you ; this is the (present) close of the fable. If you have acted in good faith and integrity, making Abimelech your king, much joy may you have from your compact ; but if not, then beware of the ruin which Abimelech will cause you, and let him beware of the ruin which you will cause him. The bramble-king is self-deceived ; he thinks that he can protect others, and threatens traitors with punish ment. Jotham, however, speaks at first ironically. He affects to believe that the Shechemites really trust Abimelech, and wishes them joy of their bargain. Then he changes his tone. He foresees that they will soon become disloyal, and threatens them with punishment, not, however, for their disloyalty, but because they con spired with Abimelech to commit murder. That the fable, moreover, is inconsistent both with 8:23 and with 9:2, is also manifest. The idea of 8:23 is that Yahwe s king ship makes any human sovereign superfluous ; that of 9:2, that the practical alternatives are oligarchy and monarchy, and that monarchy is better. On the other hand, the idea of the fable is that kingship is a burden which no noble-minded man will accept, because it destroys individuality. Each noble-minded man is either a cedar, or a fig-tree, or a vine. By developing his natural powers in his allotted sphere he pleases gods and men ; it is alien to him to interfere with others. 1 Compare this fable with that of King Jehoash in 2 K. 14:9. See ABIMELECH, 2.

2. b. Azariah, first regent (see UZZIAH) and then king of Judah (2K. 15:5 tuadav [A and v. 32], 32-38 iwvaSav [B and v. 32], luvadav [A v. 30], 2 Ch. 26:21-23 luvadav [A], 27). The only facts derived from the annals are that he built the upper gate of the temple i.e., perhaps, the upper gate of Benjamin (cp. jer. 20:2 Ezek. 9;2) and that in his time Yahwe began to despatch against Judah Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah (cp ISRAEL, 3i/, ISAIAH, 3). The Chronicler states that Jotham fortified cities and built castles (see FOREST), and, as a reward for his piety, makes him fight with success against the Ammon ites (cp AMMON, 5). In i Ch. 8:12 iua6ai> [B], luvadav [A], iw0a/u. [L]. On the chronology of Jotham s reign, see CHRONOLOGY, 35.

3. One of the b ne Jahdai, belonging to Caleb (i Ch. 247). T. K. c.

1 See Smend, A T Rel.-gesch.V} 64.


("QTV, i.q. , JEHOZABAD [y.v.]; icoz&B&A [BXAL]).

1-3. The name of a Gederathite (see GEDERAH), and two Manassites, warriors of David; i Ch. 124 (JosABAD [AV], Haafrpap [BN]) ; v. 20 (riofa/Safl [BN], and i<o<ra/3at0 [B], -j3e0 ful, uoa)3eS [A]) ; see DAVID, it fa iii.].

4. An overseer in the temple : 2 Ch. 31 13 (ca/3a0 [B], i<o. [A], iu>aa/3aS [L]) ; perhaps the same as

5. A chief of the Levites : 2 Ch. 35 9 (oafa|3a6 [L]) ; in i Esd. 1 9 JORAM (icopafx [BA]).

6. b.Jeshua, a Levite, temp. Ezra (see EZRA i. 2, ii. 15 \i\<?), Ezra833 = i Esd. 863 JOSABAD, RV JOSABDUS (& v. 62 i<uo-a/3ees IB], -/3Sos [A]).

7. One of the b ne Pashhur, a priest in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end), Ezra 1022 (ix/3afi [L])= i Esd. 9 22 OCIDELUS (ajKcuA^Sos [B], a>Kei6)A.os [A]).

8. A Levite in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., send), Ezra 10 23 = i Esd. 923 (JOZABDUS, iwa/35os [B A]) per haps identical with (6) and the two following.

9. Expounder of law (see EZRA ii., 13 [f.] ; cp i., 8, ii., 16 [5], 15 [i] c), Neh. 87 ( tw aj3eS [L], om. BNA)=i Esd. 9:48 (JOZABDUS, 3).

10. Neh. 11 16 in the list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (EZRA ii., 5 [*], 15 Ma) (t<oo;8a5 tK c - am 2- SU P-1, om. BN*A).


(|60ZABAOC [BA] ; see above).

1. i Esd. 923 RV = Esra 1023, JOZABAD, 8.

2. i Esd. 9 29 (ct/3Sos [B], a>faj3a6o [A]), RV ; AV JOSABAD = Ezra 1028, ZABBAI, i.

3. i Esd. 948 RV, AV JoAZABDU3 = Neh. 87, JOZABAD, 9.


RV JOZACAR pDTr, Yahwe 'remembers' ; cp Zechariah ; "I2ji\ Jozabar [Ginsb. following some MSS and edd.] ; iezei\&P [B] ; IOGZ&X&P [AL]) b. Shimeath, one of the murderers of joash (2 K. 122i [22]). In 2 Ch. 24 2 6 (ZABAD ; 131, perhaps for ZACHAR, 137 ; cp Ki. SBOT ; z<\BeA [B, cp ZABAD, 5, ], -Be6 [A], -B<\0 [L]) ; BA makes Jozachar himself, not his mother, an Ammonite (see SHIMEATH). See JEHOZABAD.


(p*JVV), Ezra 82 8 etc. See JEHOZADAK.


, Gen. 4:21. f See CAINITES, ii.


1. Principle and procedure.[edit]

According to Lev. 25:8-55, at the completion of seven sabbaths of years, the trumpet of the jubilee is to be sounded throughout the land, on the tenth day of the seventh month i. e. , on the great day of atonement. The fiftieth year thus announced is to be hallowed, i.e. , liberty (TITI) is to be proclaimed every where to every one, and the people are to return every man unto his possession and unto his family. The year in other respects is to resemble the sabbatical year ; there is to be no sowing, nor reaping that which grows of itself, nor gathering of grapes (Lev. 25:8-12). To come to fuller detail, as regards real property (Lev. 26:13-34), the law is that if any Hebrew under pressure of necessity shall alienate his property he is to get for it a sum of money reckoned according to the number of harvests to be reaped between the date of alienation and the first jubilee year ; should he or any relation desire to redeem the property before the jubilee, this can always be done by repaying the value of the harvests between the redemption and the jubilee. The fundamental principle is that the land shall not be sold so as to be quite cut off, for it is mine, and ye are strangers and sojourners with me. The same rule applies to dwelling-houses of unwalled villages. The case is different, however, as regards dwelling-houses in walled cities. These may be redeemed within a year after transfer ; but if not redeemed within that period they continue permanently in possession of the purchaser. An exception to this last rule is made for the houses of the Levites in the Levitical cities. As regards property in slaves (Lev. 25:39-55), the Hebrew whom necessity has compelled to sell himself into the service of his brother Hebrew is to be treated as a hired servant and a sojourner, and to be released absolutely at the jubilee (vv. 39-43) ; non-Hebrew bondmen on the other hand are to be bondmen for ever (vv. 44-46). The Hebrew, however, who has sold himself to a stranger or sojourner is entitled to freedom at the year of jubilee, and further is at any time redeemable by any of his kindred, the redemption price being regulated by the number of years to run between the redemption and the jubilee, according to the ordinary wage of hired servants (vv. 47-55). In addition to these enactments Lev. 27:17-25 gives a supplementary law regulating the price of a piece of land that has been dedicated to God according to the distance in time between the date of the dedica tion and the jubilee year, and also denning the circum stances in which such a piece of land in the jubilee year either reverts to the original owner or permanently belongs to Yahwe. One further reference to the year of jubilee occurs in Nu. 8:64 in the law as to inherit ance by daughters.

2. Origin, date, etc.[edit]

As to origin, the law is plainly a growth out of the law of the Sabbath. The foundations of Lev. 25 are laid in the ancient provisions of the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 21:2+, 23:10+) and in Deuteronomy . The Book of the Covenant enjoined that the land should lie fallow and Hebrew slaves be liberated in the seventh year ; Dt. required in addition the remission of debts (see SABBATICAL YEAR). These regulations are in Lev. 25 carried over to the fiftieth year and amplified. The choice of the fiftieth to be the sacred year is evidently in parallelism with the feast of Pentecost which is the closing day after the seven weeks of harvest.

As to the date of the law, this much at least has to be observed, that no evidence of its existence has reached us from pre-exilic times. Certainly in Jeremiah s time the law acknowledged by the prophets was that described in Deut. 15, according to which the rights of Hebrew slave-holders over their compatriots were invariably to cease seven years after they had been acquired. This appears to follow from Jer. 34:14 ; where note that Jeremiah uses the term TITI (vv. 15:17, cp v. 8). Another important passage is Ezek. 46:16-17, where there is indication of a law according to which the prince is at liberty to alienate in perpetuity any portion of his inheritance to his sons ; but if he give a gift of his inheritance to any other of his subjects, then the change of ownership holds good only till the year of liberty (li-pin rnty), after which the alienated property returns to its original possessor, the prince. Now since Jeremiah makes use of the same expression (i rn) with reference to the liberation of the slaves in the seventh year it is exceedingly probable that Ezekiel also by -ii"nn ruiy means the seventh year.

This view of the case gives additional probability to the conjecture of Kuenen (Hex, 6, n. 28 d) and Wellhau- sen that originally Lev. 25:8+ also had reference to the seventh year. For the law in its present form proves (cp Kue. I.e. ) on careful examination to be a revision of an older form which probably belonged to H. Thus this last, besides the injunction about the year of fallow (Lev. 25:1-7), contained also a precept about the year of liberation (TITI.} rutf, Lev. 25:88+), by which it under stood the seventh year as Jeremiah had done. That in the year of jubilee in its present form we are dealing with a purely theoretical development of the sabbath idea which was incapable of being reduced to practice becomes evident from the simple reflection that in the event of such a year being observed there would occur two consecutive years (the 49th and the 50th) in which absolutely nothing could be reaped, and a third (the 51st) in which only some summer fruits could be ob tained, sowing being prohibited in the fiftieth. This difficulty, which was perceived even by the author of Leviticus 25 himself (cp v. 22), has led many scholars to make the impossible assumption that the forty-ninth year is the year of jubilee (so, e.g. , Ew. Ant. Isr. 375, and Saalschiitz, Arch, 2229, following older writers such as Scaliger, Petavius, and others). In order to meet the difficulty Riehm (HWB, 1 75 iff.) regards the com mand about the land lying fallow as one that was originally foreign to the law of the year of Jubilee and one that was never in force. This last character, how ever, belongs to the whole institution, not merely to this particular part of it. For the post -exilic period also we have evidence of the non-observance of the law. The Talmudists and Rabbins are unanimous that although the jubilee-years were reckoned they were not observed.

As regards the meaning of the name 'jubilee' (Sai .l rUC*, or simply 73V, cviavrbf a</>Vea>? or d^eais, annus jubiliei or jubilcfus), authorities are not agreed. According to Josephus (A nt. iii. 12 3), it means cAeu0epi a ; but the use of the word ja 1 , in Ex. 19:13 Josh. 6:5, makes it probable that the name is de rived from the trumpet sound with which the jubilee was to be proclaimed ; and it is not impossible that the old Jewish tradi tional view is right when it says that ^y means a ram for which there is a probable confirmation in Phoenician and then, by abbreviation for ^y pp, a trumpet of ram s horn. See Dillmann on Ex. 19:13. /3Vn rue* would thus mean the year that is ushered in by the blowing of the ram s horn (Lev. - ""..).

For the earlier literature see Dillm. Ex. u. Lev.ft) 603; Winer, RWB, art. Jubeljahr ; and PRE,zrl. Sabbatjahr. Recent authorities are Saalschiitz, Arch. 2224^; Bahr, Synth. 1y>r)ff. boiff.; Ew., Ant. of Isr. 372 ff. ; De Wette, Artt.Gf iS; Keil, Bibl. Arch.V) ( 75); Welih. Prol.M 116 y:( 95); Oehler, art. Sabbatjahr, in PRE; Riehm, HWBV), art. Jobeljahr ; Benzinger HA 474 [ 94]; Nowack, HA 2165- 172 [ 94]- W.R.S. I.E.


(S?-V), Jer. 38 1. See JEHUCAL.


RV Judah, City of (Lk. 1 39 ). See JUTTAH ; ZACHARIAS, 10.


doyAA [Ti. WH]), i. Mk. 63, RV JUDAS (q.v.).

2. (I<uSa [Ti. WH]) Lk. 3 26, RV JODA.

3. Lk. 3 30, RV JUDAS (q.v.).

4. Lk. 833, RV JUDAH. See GENEALOGIES ii., $/.


(lOYA&lA [BNA, etc., cod. 87 V; Ti. WH^nn-liT 1 in Ezra 1 2 AL ; "I-IJT in Ezra and in Dan. [<] and Dan. [Theod.] ; in Macc, as well as in Ezra-Neh. we find both ioyA<M<\ and loyAdi)- The name of the region occupied by the reorganized Jewish community in the Persian, Greek, and Roman periods, but extended by Lk. to the whole of W. Palestine (Lk. 4:44 [?], 23:5 Acts 2:9, 10:37 etc. ).

The limits of Judaea as a province varied at different periods. In the time of Jonathan the Maccabee (145 B. C. ) three tetrarchies of Samaria ( Aphaerema [see EPHRAIM, ii.], LYDDA, and RAMATHAIM) were added to Judaea (i Mace. 163038 1134); Judas himself had already expelled the Edomites from Hebron ( i Macc. 5:65). According to Josephus (BJ iii. 3 5), Judaea ex tended from Anuath-Borkaeos (AvovaOov Bop/ccuos, now Berkit ; PEFQ, 81, p. 48) in the N. to a village called Jordas (Tell Arddl) near Arabia on the S. , and from Joppa on the W. to the Jordan on the E. The sea-coast, as far as Ptolemais (Acre], with the exception of Jamnia and Joppa, belonged to Judaea, and according to Ptolemy (v. 16 9) some districts beyond Jordan. The latter statement, however, is not to be adduced in illustration of Mt. 19:1 ( the borders of Judaea beyond Jordan ), J because here Mk. 10:1 (Ti. WH) contains the obviously correct reading, Ko.1 irtpav rov lopSdvov, that is, [first of all] 'the region beyond Jordan' (cp Mk. 11:1, 'unto Jerusalem and unto Bethany' ). It should be noticed, too, that Josephus mentions no trans-Jordanic toparchy. On the death of Herod, Judaea, with Samaria and Idumasa, fell to the lot of Archelaus, as ethnarch ; but on Archelaus deposition his territory was annexed to the Roman Province of Syria (see ISRAEL, 89). In the fifth century Judaea became part of the division called Palaestina Prima.

Four of the eleven Judaean toparchies mentioned by Josephus and Eusebiusare referred to in the Talmud, Daroma, Geraritica, Gabalena, and Sarona. 2 Daroma, which corresponds to the biblical Negeb (see Onk. Dt. 34 3), had for its centre Lod or Lydda, so that the name Daroma is often used in the Talmud instead of Lod. The Arabs limited the application to a place near GAZA \q.v.} the Daroma of the Crusaders. The meaning of the other names is clear.

The Judaean table-land is otherwise known as the hill-country of Judah ; but Judaea is not confined to this high region ; there are districts outside of it which can boast of more varied scenery and of hardly less historical interest. 1 There is first that wonderful de pression which bounds Judaea on the E. the lower Jordan valley and the Dead Sea, beyond which rises the precipitous wall of the mountains of Moab. The three roads into Judaea on this side start from the three oases, Jericho, Ain Fesha, and Ain Jidi.

Next, the southern border must be studied, not, however, here, but in dealing with that extensive and but lately explored region the NEGEB (q.v. ). Then, for the western boundary we have ideally the Mediter ranean but really, except at intervals, the edge of the great plateau itself. The low hills of the ShSphelah [low land] are separated from the compact range to the E. by a long series of valleys running S. from Aijalon. This is the western barrier of the hill-country. It is penetrated by a number of defiles, which provide excellent cover for defenders, and opportunity for ambushes and sur prises. The importance of Beth-zur (cp BETH-ZUR, KIRJATH-SEPHER) arises from the fact that it is the one fortress on the W. flank of Judaea, S. of Aijalon, which the physical conditions make possible. In conclusion, the last ten miles of the Judaean plateau on the north form a frontier which was the most accessible side of the Judasan territory, but was well protected by the fortresses of Benjamin. See further, JUDAH ; JUDAH, HILL COUNTRY OF ; BENJAMIN, JORDAN, NEGEB, SHEPHELAH, PALESTINE.

1 As in Hastings DB 2 792 a.

2 Neub. Gfogr. du Talm. 62 ff.


(irPirV; ioYA&(c) [BADEL] ; Ass. la- u-du). For the gentilic see JEW.

1. Name.[edit]

i. Judah (Yghudah), the eponym of the tribe of Judah, is represented as the fourth son of Jacob by Leah, born at Haran (Gen. 29:35). J explains the meaning thus, And she said, " Now will I praise Yahwe" ; therefore she called his name Judah (Yehudah) ; the saying in Gen. 49:8 starts from the same favourite Volksetymologie. We may presume, however, that the name (like Isaac, Jacob, and Israel) is a popular adaptation of some fuller form, perhaps Abihud or Ahihud (whence Ehud). It does not, so far as we know, occur in the Amarna tablets. Tiele, indeed, thought we might read it in a letter of Rib-addi of Gebal 2 (Am. Tab. no. 8642) ; but Winckler reads here Jada.

2. Legends in Genesis.[edit]

One of the most striking characteristics of J is the interest which this writer, or school of writers, takes in Judah. That in J Judah takes the place assigned to his brother Reuben (closely connected with Judah, see 3) in E in the Joseph-story, has been noticed elsewhere (see JOSEPH ii. , 3). According to Gen. 38, Judah went to Adullam (?) and married the daughter of a Canaanite (?) named Shua ( = Sheba) ; his three sons were called, Er, Onan, and Shelah. The first-born was married by Judah to Tamar (?) ; but Er and Onan were wicked, and were slain by Yahwe. As Tamar was not given to the third son Shelah, she found an expedient to become the mother of two sons, Peres (?) and Zerah, by Judah. The other legends relative to Judah (Judges, Samuel) will be most conveniently referred to in 3. The genealogies of Judah in i Ch. 4:1-23 will not be considered here. There is indeed much to reward a critical examination of the puzzles which they contain ; but to condense the results of the special articles in a really fruitful way would occupy too much space. See as specimens, BITHIAH, CHARASHIM, HAZELELPONI, JABEZ, JASHUBI-LEHEM, SHOBAL.

1 See GASm. HG chap. 13.

2 Wildeboer, Theol. Studien, 1900, pp. 26i./I

3. Origin and history.[edit]

It is usually thought that by a special piece of good fortune we have in tne legend of Gen. 38, just now described, a tradition respecting the early development of the tribe of Judah. Reading the passage ethnologically we learn that Judah had established itself on the W. side of the Hill Country of Judah " in the district of Timnah and Adullam, that the tribe allied itself to the Canaanites, but did not nourish till it united with the tribe of Tamar, which dwelt more to the south. 2 According to Winckler, a however, the story records in legendary form the conquest of Baal-tamar, where was the sanctuary of the original tribe of Benjamin, by David, the leader of the Judahites. Baal-tamar, he thinks, was the place afterwards called, by a strange distortion of the name, Kirjath-jearim. This brings us face to face with more than one deep and difficult problem which this scholar has treated in a strikingly original manner (see KIRJATH-JEARIM, SAUL, TAMAR). We shall return to Gen. 38 later ( 4, end) ; it is enough here to repeat that Tamar (i0n, a word which in some other passages too has arisen through textual corruption) as a woman's name is most probably a corruption of some popular shortened form of Jerahme'el, just as Ir-hat-tamarim (EV 'the city of palm-trees' ) in Judg. 1:16 is probably a corruption of Ir-jerahme'el (see JERICHO, 2). It was union with the Jerhameelites (a tribe of Edomitish affinities) that gave vigour to the clan or tribe of Judah ; a similar cause seems to be assigned for the expansion of the Jacob-tribe (see JACOB, 3), and also for the growth of the Isaac-tribe, Abraham representing the Jerahmeelites of Rehoboth, Sarah the Israelites or perhaps Jizrahelites (see JACOB, 6). In the earliest times indeed Judah, Jerahmeel, Caleb, Kain (Kenites), and Simeon must have closely resembled each other, and probably we should add to the list Reuben, which (cp Gen. 46:9-12 i Ch. 4:1-63) had clans closely connected with those of Judah. It was not therefore altogether unnatural for the editor of Judg. 1:10-11. to ascribe to Judah the conquest of Hebron or rather REHOBOTH [q.v. ] and of Debir or rather Beth-zur (see KIRJATH-SEPHER) ; in reality these were the achievements of CALEB [q.v. ], which did not become one with Judah till the time of David. (On Judg. 1:16 see KENITES. ) All the tribes mentioned, including Judah, seem to have adhered for a long time to a nomadic or semi-nomadic mode of life ; a large part of the Jerahmeelites remained nomads quite late (see AMALEK, HAM ii. , JERAHMEEL, SAUL). It may be remarked here that Reuben (Reubel? see REUBEN) very possibly derives its name from Jerahme'el.

1 Cp Wildeboer, 2597:

2 C/2io 4 .

4. David.[edit]

The leader who brought about, at least to a considerable extent, the union of these different clans (so far as they were in his neighbourhood at the time of his operations) all of which were outside the Israelitish territory, was David. The steps by which he reached his proud position at the head of a great inland Palestinian kingdom require renewed in vestigation. He was himself probably a Calebite of Bethuel or Beth-zur i.e. , Debir or KIRJATH-SEPHER [q. v.]. His sister Abigail bears the same name as the former wife of Nabal, which probably is really a tribal name ; this might suggest that David's family was aware of a connection with another family called Abigail (or Abihail) settled near Carmel ( = Jerahmeel) and Jezreel (cp DAVID, i, n. 2, SAUL, 4, and see below), though it is true that Abigail and Abihail are ultimately traceable to Jerahmeel. If so, like his sister, David strengthened the connection with Jezreel by marriage (see NABAL). In spite of all this neither Caleb nor Jerahmeel supplied the name of the great tribe produced by a combination of smaller tribes -but Judah. No doubt Judah had already been extending its influence (cp Gen. 38), so that David only recognised and acted upon accomplished facts. But it was at first only a small Judah that accepted David as its leader and prince (cp 1 S. 30:26-31, where note thatthe conquest of Hebron or rather REHOBOTH is presupposed), nor can we say with documentary precision how David became possessed of the territory between the original southern border of Benjamin and the northern limit of the Negeb (see NEGEB). We need not therefore hesitate to accept Winckler's very plausible view that the present narrative of David's adventures during his outlaw period is based upon earlier traditions of a struggle on David s part for the possession of the later Judahite territory. Winckler's interpretation of the details will of course be liable to criticism, partly from the inherent difficulty of the historical problems, but chiefly from the fact that his textual criticism is not as thorough and methodical as could be wished.

According to Winckler the Cherethites and Pelethites are those semi-nomad gentcs of the Negeb to which David by his origin belonged ; their chief town was Ziklag, from which as a centre they went about making raids under David s leadership. This can hardly be accepted. Though temporarily on friendly terms with the Cherethites and Pelethites David (a searching textual criticism suggests) was afterwards at war with these tribes (i.e., confederations of clans); at a later time again he made friends with them (see PELETHITES). Nor does the text we adopt favour the view that Ziklag was the chief town either of the Cherethites or of the Pelethites. Winckler is also of opinion that in the present narrative of David's earlier career (which is admittedly of composite origin) there have been brought together two widely different legends, one of which gave Adullam (a place in the later Judahite territory) as David's original base of operations, and the other Ziklag in the land of Musri (see MIZRAIM, 2/;), to which region Achish (who is represented as having been for a time David's liege lord) must also have belonged. Of these two traditions the latter, Winckler thinks, is the original and sole authentic one.

Independently, the present writer has arrived at similar but much more definite conclusions on certain points, and the same method which has enabled him to reach greater definiteness on these points has led him to conclusions on points of detail which seem adverse to other parts of Winckler s theory.

As we have said, David was probably not (as Winckler represents) a Musrite, but a Calebite ; not Ziklag (Halusah), but Debir (see above) was his home. We cannot put on one side the Bethlehem-tradition quite as readily as Winckler does. Bethlehem must spring from some more possible name ; that name is found it is Bethuel.

It may be left an open question, however, whether both Bethlehem and Bethuel (or Bethel) are not broken down forms of a primitive Beth-Jerahmeel. This would account for Ephrathite in i S. 17 12, on which name ( = Jerahmeelite) see RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM.

Similarly, though 'Adullam' is certainly not David's true starting-point, the name did not spring from the brain of a tradition-monger; ch~\y, Adullam, may be a corruption of ^cro, Carmel. Carmel was in a region friendly to David s family ; it is surely a plausible view, that David, if he was a native of Debir (Kirjath- sepher), and closely allied with the clans of Jezreel and Carmel, took Carmel as his earliest base of operations. Nor is there any inconsistency between this tradition and the Ziklag tradition. Until David gave practical effect to his aspiration after the imperial throne of an expanded Israel there was no reason why he should not be on the most friendly terms with the chieftains of Musrite tribes like the Cherethites and Pelethites. There is a striking little narrative in i S. 22 3-5 which throws some light on this (and so indeed, rightly under stood, does the story in Gen. 38). From the fort (not cave) of Carmel (not Adullam) David, we are told, took his father and mother to Mizpeh of Moab (rather to Misrephath of Musur, see ZAREPHATH), and confided them to the care of the king or, as we might say, chieftain (see KING). There his parents found a safe asylum, all the time that he was in the fort of Carmel. It should be noticed that Carmel is already a Judahite place. Abide not in Misrephath (read, not mixD, but nBixD) ; depart, and get thee into the land of Judah, says Gad the prophet (see GAD ii. ). So David leaves Musur, and proceeds to the fort of Carmel ( Adullam ) ; see HARETH.

We must now return to Gen. 38, assuming here the corruptions of the text mentioned under TAMAR. A Judahite family settles at Carmel 1 (not Adullam). A fusion with the Maonites was attempted, but had less prosperous results than a Jernhmeelite alliance. The two clans which arose in consequence were called respectively Sarephath and Zerah. This seems to be a record of the friendly intercourse between David when at Carmel and the Musrites of Sarephath.

5. David's progress.[edit]

We conclude then that David made Carmel his base of operations for the conquest of territory for an enlarged tribe of Judah. He established himself for a time in Ke'ilah, but found it necessary to retire, first to the wilderness of Ziph, and then to that of En-kadesh (not En-gedi ; see KADESH), where he was certainly in the land of Musri. From Kadesh we may presume that he made his way to REHOBOTH \g.v.~\, by favour of whose chieftain Achish, or perhaps rather Nahash (who, be it noted, worships Yahwe, i S. 296), he found new headquarters at Halusah (see ZIKLAG). It was fr.om this place that he obtained his great warrior Benaiah (see JEKABZEEL) and raided those parts of the Negeb which did not belong to the Rehobothites and Zarephathites. Mean time the Zarephathites were doing great mischief to Saul s kingdom by their incursions (cp especially i S. 2828 28 1/ ), and, if our treatment of the text is sound, Saul met his death bravely struggling with them on the ridge of hills near Carmel or Jerahmeel (see SAUL, 4). It is possibly to the following period that David s acquisi tion of a chieftainship in the Carmelite district 2 is to be assigned ; this helps to account for his elevation to a greater position at Hebron 3 (the reading Hebron may be safely accepted). This, however, was not agreeable to the Zarephathites, and a fierce conflict broke out between them and the new-made king. David, however, became the victor, 4 Gob and Gath in 2 S. 21:15-22 being corrupt fragments of Rehoboth, 5 and Rephaim and Baalperasim in 2 S. 5:18 20 22 of Jerahme'elim and Baal-Sarephathim respectively; see also Judg. 1:10. After this, the Rehobothites and the Sarephathites became David's faithful servants ; in this character their names have come down to us as Cherethites and Pelethites. See PELETHITES, REHOBOTH, ZAREPHATH.

It required doubtless a harder struggle to overcome the resistance of Abner, the general of Ishbosheth (or rather perhaps Mahriel ; see MEPHIBOSHETH, i), whom Winckler, perhaps rightly, regards as having been in the first instance king of all Israel (28.29). The conquest of JERUSALEM [y.v. , 13^!] was the neces sary preliminary of this. Being taken by David himself from the Jebusites, it formed originally no part of the tribe of Judah ; but its possession secured the continuance of the family of David on the throne of Judah, and in Josh. 15:63 (RJE) it is represented as half-Judahite, half-Jebusite. On Solomon s supposed exclusion of Judah from the departmental division of his kingdom see SOLOMON, TAXATION, and cp Kittel on i K. 4:9-10.

The tribe of Judah is referred to twice in the NT (Heb. 7:14 Rev. 7:5); but the references require no comment.

1 Note that Timnah (v. 12) is mentioned in Josh. 1655-57 n the same group with Maon, Carmel, and Ziph (which name underlies Chezib in Gen. 38 5).

2 He was probably prince of Abihail (i S. 263, crit. emend.). See NABAL.

3 The supposed reference to David as head of Caleb after he had removed to Hebron can hardly be maintained (see NABAL). Tradition rightly describes him as a tneUk ( king, chieftain ).

4 This may be implied too in the story of PEREZ-UZZAH and OBED-EDOM the Gittite (Rehobothite) in 2 S. 6. Perhaps too the Rabbath-bne-Ammon of 2 S. 12:25+ should rather be Rehoboth-bne-Jerahmeel (cp REHOBOTH, and see Crit. Bib.).

6 In this connection it may be noted that in the earlier and much briefer story on which i S. 17 is probably based, Goliath of Gath was probably Goliath of Rehoboth, the valley of Elah (nSxri) was the valley of Jerahmeel, and Bethlehem- judah was Bethel-judah.

6. Characteristics : geographical.[edit]

[map of Judah and Judaea goes here]


Parentheses indicating ayticles that refey to the place-names are in certain cases added to non-biblical names having no biblical epuivalent. The aphabetical arrangement usually ignores prefixes : 'ain (' spring'), beit (' house'), bir (' well'), dir (' monastery '), ed-, el- (' the '), khan (' inn '), khirbet ( ' ruin'), nahr (' river'), viis ( ' summit '), tell (' mound'), umm (' mother'), wady (' valley ').

der Aban, Dz Achzib, Cz . Adora or Adoraim, Dz ascent of Adunimim, EI khan el-+mar, Er (ADUMMIM) Kh. beit 'Ainun, Dz Kh. 'Aifan, C3 (ETAM, 2) Kh. 'AjlHn, Bz (EGLON) Kh. wady 'blin, Cz (ENAIM) 'Anata, Er Anathoth, EI Anim, D3 Arad, D3 tell 'Arad, D3 'Arak Ismah, DI (ETAM, 2) 'Aiara, C4 Aroer 3, C4 wady 'Arrab, D2 Artuf, Dz wady Artas, Dz (ETAM, I) 'Artuf, CI (ETAM, 2) Aruboth, Dz Ashdod, BI Ashkelon, Bz 'Askalan, Bz 'ain 'Atan, Dz (ETAM, I) Kh. 'Attir, D3 ' Azeka ' ? Cz (GATH, $2)

der el-Balah, A3 (GAZA) wady el-Bassah, Ez (BETH-BASI) Beersheba, C4 Berachah (Valley), Dz Kh. Bereikut, D2 wady Bereikut, Dz Beth-anoth, Dz Bether, Dz Beth-haccerem, DI Bethlehem I, D2 Beth-shemesh, CI, 2 Beth-tappuah, Dz Bethzacharias, D2 Beth-zur, Dz wady el-Biar, Dz (CONDUITS) Bittir, Dz

Cabbon, Cz Chesalon, DI

ed-Dahariyeh, C3 (KIRJATH-SEPHER) Dakin, Dz (EPHES-DAMMIM) Dannah, Cz Dead Sea, EI, z, 3, 4 Debir, C3 Kh. ed-Dilbeh, Cz (ACHSAH) Dura, Dz Eglon, BC2

Elah (Valley), C2 Eleutheropolis, Cz Emmaus, DI En-gannim, C2 En-gedi, E3 Kh. 'Erma, DI (KIRJATH-JEARIM) Esdud, BI Eshtaol, DI Eshtemoa, D3 Elshb, DI Etam? Dz

Faghtir, Dz beit Faged, Cz (EPHES-DAMMIM) 'ain el-Feshkha, Ez ris el-Eeshkha, Ez (DEAD SEA, 5 3) J. Furedis, Dz (BETH-HACCEREM)

Gath, Cz Gaza, Az Gederoth, Dr Ghazza, A2 wady Ghazza, A3 (GERAR) wady Ghuweir, E2 'ain el-Ghuweir, Ez Giloh, Dz GhuwEn el-Foka, D3 Ghuwen et-Tahta, D3

el-Habs, DI Hachilah, D3 Halhul, D2 el-Kuds, DI Halhal, D2 Kuldniyeh, DI wady Hagageh, Ez (EMEK-KEZIZ) tell el-Hasi, Bz wady el-Hasi, Bz (GAZA) Hazor 3, D3 Hazor 4, D3 Hebron, Dz 'ain el-Had, EI (EN-SHEMESH) Hudereh, D3

Kh. 'id el-ma, C2 (ADULLAM) Idhna, C2. el 'Isawiyeh, DI wady beit Iskahil, D2 (see BEIT-KAHIL) wady Isma'in, DI (ETAM, z)

beit Jala, D2 (GILOH) Kh. Jala, Dz Jarmuth, Cz Jeba', Dz Kh. Jedireh, CI Kh. Jenneta, Cz Kh. umm el-Jerrar, A3 Jerusalem, DI beit Jibrin, Cz (ELEUTHEROPOLIS) 'ah Jidi, E3 Juttah, D3

beit Kahil, Dz (KEILAH) 'ain Karim, DI Karyat el-Inab, DI Kh. el-Karyaten, D3 Kerioth-Hezron, D3 Kesla, DI ain el-Kezheh, Cz el-Khalil, Dz Kharas, Dz (HARETH) Kh. Kharstun, Dz (ADULLAM) Khureisa, D3 (HORESH) Kidron, Ez Kh. Kila, D2 (KEILAH) Kirjath-Jearim, DI el-Kubeibeh, C2 el-Kurmul, D3 (MAON) Kussabeh, C3 (ACHZIB) Kh. Kuweziba, D2 (ACHZIB)

Lachish, Bz heit Lahm, Dz Kh. el-Lahm, Cz Lahnian, C2 Laishah, DI Lifta, DI bahr Lut, EI, 2, 3, 4

tell Matin, D3 el-Maliha, DI (MANAHATH) Maon, D3 Mareshah, Cz el-Mejdel, B2 Meiash, Cz Middin, Ez Migdal-gad, Bz Kh. el-Milh, D4 (JESHUA) wady el-MiW, CD4 (ARAD) el-Mineh, A2 Kh. Mird, Ez Kh. beit Mizza, DI Mozah, DI W. Mukelik, EI J. el-Munfar, A3 (GAZA)

deir Nakhkhas, Cz (IR-NAHASH) wady en-Nar, Ez beit Najib, C2 (KEILAH) tell en-Nejileh, BCz Nephtoah, Dr beit Nettif, Cz (ELAH, 2) Nuba, Dz (ATHACH)

Phagor, D2

er-Ram(e), Dz W. er-Rawabi, EI (BAHURIM)

tell eg-Safieh, Cz W. es-Sanf, Cz (ELAH, 2) Saia, CI W. eg-Sarar, CI (BETH-SHEMESH) es-Sawafir, B2 tell es-Saweh, C3 UESHUA) Kh. bir es-Seba', C4 w2dy es-Seba', B4 (BESOR) es-Sebbeh, E3 (THE DEAD SEA) es-Semu', D3 wady Seyal, D3 (THE DEAD SEA) Shamir, B2 Shaphir, Bz 'ain Shems, CI, 2 wady esh-Sheri'a, AB3 Kh. esh-Shuweikeh, C2 Socoh, Cz nahr Sukereir, BI (AZEICAH) W. Sulem, DEI (ANATHOTH) beit Sur, Dz wady es-Sur, D2 (KEILAH)

Taffuh, Dz Tal'at ed-Dam, EI Tekoa, Dz Kh. Tekb, D2 Thogret ed-Debr, EI (DEBIR) Tibnii, Dz Tibneh, C2 (GIBEAH, 22) jebel et-Tur, DI

Kh. Umm el-Jerrar, B3 (GERAR) Kh. Umm Jina, C2 Umm Lakis, B2 (LACHISH)

Kh. el-Yarmuk, C2 Yufta, D3

bir ez-Zag, Cz (AZEKAH) Zahret el-Kela, D3 Kh. beit Zakaria, Dz tell Zakariya, C2 tell ez-Zif, D3 Ziph, D3 Zorah, CI

The isolation of Judah is its most notable geographical characteristic. Its boundaries are given in Josh. 15:1-12 (P); but these of course have no relation to the pre-Davidic period. The N. boundary coincides with the S. boundary of Benjamin ; only it is given with greater fulness. On the E. the boundary is the Dead Sea ; on the W. the Mediterranean ; on the S. a line drawn from the southern tongue of the Dead Sea to the Nahal Misraim (rather Misrim ; see EGYPT, BROOK OF), and passing by the ascent of Akrabbim, Zin, Kadesh-barnea, and other places (consult HAZAR- ADDAR, HEZRON, KARKAA). The idealizing tendency of P comes out in his inclusion of Philistia within Judahite territory. There is an inconsistency with regard to Kirjath-jearim, which Judg. 18 12 and Josh. 15 60 make Judahite, whilst Josh 18 28 apparently assigns it to Benjamin (cp KIRJATH-JEARIM) ; also with regard to JERUSALEM [q.v., 13]. It should be noticed that in the earlier narratives we hear of LEHI (Judg. 15 9) and ADULLAM (1 S. 22:5, see above), or rather Carmel, as . belonging to Judah ; we also read of a Negeb of Judah (i S. 27:10; see NEGEB). The natural divisions of the territory are the NEGEB, the SHEPHELAH, and the Wilderness of Judah (see DESERT, 2 [3] and 3 [3]). It is urgently necessary to get a clear idea of each of these without which the full significance of many OT passages will be missed. As to the names in Josh. 15:20-52 reference must also be made to special articles. Some progress has doubtless been made in settling the readings (which in MT are often incorrect), and consequently many current identifications have not improbably been criticised in the present work with effect ; but much uncertainty still attaches to many of the details (see e.g. the names of places on the S. boundary).

7. Racial.[edit]

Judah is not to be blamed for indifference to the great struggle celebrated in Judg. 5 ; a tribe of Judah did not at that time exist. In Dt. 33:7 (in the Blessing of Moses ), however, we meet with a prayer that Yahwe would bring Judah to his people, i.e., that the great schism might be healed, and Judah reincorporated into the people of Israel ; it is the saying of a N. Israelite. The Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49:9-11 {1} ) celebrates the fierceness and victorious might of Judah and at the same time its appreciation of the natural advantages of its land (Judah was a vine-country; cp Joel 1:7+, 3 [4] :18, 2 Ch. 26:10, and HEBRON, 3). Later history exhibits this tribe as tenacious, conservative, and even fanatical character istics perhaps not wholly unconnected with its Edomitish and N. Arabian affinities.

8. Use of name.[edit]

The two Blessings just referred to are the only pre-exilic poetical passages in which the name Yehudah occurs ; even in the exilic and postexilic poetry it is very rare. Among the prophets it is Jeremiah who uses the term most frequently, though the abundance of interpolations in his book makes it difficult to estimate the exact numbers. The examination of the historical books leads to some interesting results. The phrase bne Yehudah occurs in Judg. 1:8-9, 16, 2 S. 1:18 21:2 1 Ch. 12:26, 2 Ch. 10:17, 25:12, 28:10, 31:6, Neh. 11:4-25, 13:16 Dan. 16; also in Jer. 7:30, 32:30-32 [L. 4:33], Joel 3[4]:68 19 Ob. 12. But some of these occurrences are of small account, being due to glosses, and 2 S. 1:18 is strongly corrupt (see JASHER, BOOK OF, 2). The phrase beth Yehudah is not much commoner. Yehudah is, of course, frequent. According to Staerk, 2 it may be inferred from the use of Israel and Judah in passages like 2 S. 3:10, 11:11 and 1 K. 2:32 that there was a sense of the inner opposition between north and south before the separation of the kingdoms.

The above article on a subject of great difficulty sums up some of the chief results of special articles. The reader will, of course, consult the histories of Israel, not forgetting the most recent that of Winckler, to some of whose conclusions the above article gives an independent support.

2. b. Senuah, Neh. 11 9, doubtless the same as HODAVIAH, 2

3. A Levitical family, according to the MT of Ezra 3 9 = i Esd. 5 58 (JODA, iiaSa [A]). Here, as in Neh. l 2s(uaSae [*A]), some would read HODAVIAH \q.i>., no. 4] ; possibly, however, the original name was %1 1")n (2 Sam. 2825, HARODITE). See GENEALOGIES i., 7 [i].

4. A Levite (the above clan individualised?), Ezra 1023 (1060^1 [B], teSoju. [NAL])=i Esd. 9 23 (JuDAS, o>oi/6as [BA]).

5. A priest s son, Neh. 12 36 (om. BNA). T. K. C.

1 On v. 10, which seems to interrupt the connection, see SHILOH.

2 Studien zur Relig. u. Sprachgesch, des AltenTcst. ( 99), 90.


(PHI IT in ; fy>oj Ioi;5a), RV Josh. 11 21 20 7 21 n 2 Ch. 274, and virtu ally Josh. 1548 18 12 Judg. Igig Jer. 3244 8813, or, OF JUDAEA (Lk. 1 65, rj dpeivr) rrjs lovdaias), is the special term for a well-defined region to the north of what was called the NEGEB [g.v.], some 25 miles long by 12 to 17 broad, and from 2000 to 3000 feet above the sea. Under the title of Orine it forms the ninth of Pliny s Judaean toparchies. l It has for its centre the ancient city of HEBRON, between which and the Negeb there is a fertile plateau, 9 miles by 3, which forms a strong and agreeable contrast to the Judcean table land in the north. It is of this table -land that travellers think when they speak of Judaea as a stony desolate region. Apart from some breaks in the plateau, which enjoy a rich vegetation, such as Bethany, the Valley of Hinnom, Ain Karim, the Wady Artas (see CONDUITS, 3), the valleys near Bethlehem, and especially Hebron, the thinly covered limestone pro duces a very dreary effect ; one cannot help pitying the few dwarf trees which wage a doubtful struggle for exist ence with the boulders around them.

Nevertheless the austerity of this region was not always nearly so unmitigated ; it did but call out the art and energy of man to counteract it. By a trained historic imagination we can recall some of the vanished glory, the traces of which, indeed, are multitudinous. One may wander for many miles in perfect solitude in a country of sheep and goats. But the hills are crowned with ruins, and the sides of the hills are terraced, and by the fountains are fragments of walls and heaps of stones which indicate the ancient homes of men.

The greatest elevation in the hill-country of Judah is attained by the Si ret el-bella a (3370 ft.), which ter minates a mountain-ridge between Halhul and Hebron. The chief valleys are the Wady Halil, which is joined by the valley of Hebron, and beginning NE. of Hebron, runs first southward, then south-westward, and finally unites with the Wady el-Milh (coming from the east), forming the Wady es-Seba. WNW. from Hebron begins the Wady el-Afranj, which runs NW. to join the Wady es-Sant at Ashdod. This is probably the valley (ira) northward from Mareshah (2 Ch. 14 10 ; see ZEPHATHAH) where Asa is said to have defeated the Cushite invaders. Farther south is the broad and fruitful Wady es-Sur, which first of all runs north, then turns westward, and under the name of the Wady es-Sant (see ELAH, VALLEY OF) cuts through the Shephelah. At Shuwekeh (Socoh) is the point of junction of the Wady es-Sur and the Wady en-NajIl. This and other wadies issue in a remarkable basin about 30 miles long, which divides the mountains of Judah from the lower hills of the Shephelah. Towards the NW. this basin is drained by the broad and fertile Wady Sarar, which near the coast assumes the name Nahr Rubin (see JABNEEL). Not far from Tekoa is the great Wady Arrub, where is the ruin called Bereikut, in the name of which some find an echo of the Berachah of i Ch. 2026 (see BERACHAH, VALLEY OF).

The Hebrew text of Josh. 1048-60 reckons as belonging to this region thirty-eight cities, some of which can be identified with obvious certainty, such as Eshtemoh, Beth - Tappuah, Hebron, Maon, Carmel, Ziph, Juttah, Zanoah, Halhul, Beth- zur. There are also, however, places which are omitted in MT, but have an undeniable claim to be included in the list ; and <B, after Josh. 15 59, actually gives eleven names which (see Di.) must have belonged to the original list. All the cities mentioned here by lay, no doubt, immediately south of Jerusalem; among them are the well-known places Tekoa, Bethlehem, Am Karim (see BETH-HACCERE.M) and Bittir (see BETHER).

1 7W/9i5; in the list of Jos. (/?/ iii. 85), En-gaddi is the corresponding name. Schick (ZDPV 22 83 [ 99]) ventures to suppose a confusion between En-gedi and Ain Karim.


See ISRAEL, 28-45.


Ezra 58 RV, AV . . . JUDEA. See JUDAEA.


[RV JUDAH AT JORDAN] (]TPn the eastern limit of the territory of Naphtali (Josh. 19 34 ; < BA simply p lOpA&NHC, <8 L lOY^A O I-) su gg estin that a district in the N. by the Jordan belonged to Judah. Evidently the text is corrupt. Read jTvai, and (reaches) to the Jordan (Gra. ). This was written twice, and one of the Jordans was wrongly emended into Judah. For a similar case in the Gk. of Jn. 3:25 see JOHN THE BAPTIST, 6.

Ewald (Hist. 2291) would read |T1n TTI332, (reaches) to Chinneroth of Jordan, and interpret this phrase on the analogy of the phrase all Chinneroth in i K. 15 20 as meaning the W. shore of the Sea of Galilee (see CHINNEROTH). Another sug gestion is to emend rmrt 3 nto , T3 ( to ) tne s de (of) ; cp Neub. Geogr. 224. Neither is satisfactory- T. K. C.


(loyA&c 1 [ASVL], the Gk. form of the Heb. JUDAH fo.v.]).

1. i Esd. 9 23 (ujovSay [BA]) ; see JUDAH, 4.

2. The third son of Mattathias, called fi.ajcKafia.ios (i Mace. 2 4), see MACCABEES i., 4 ; called iouAos [A in i Mace. 4 13].

3. Son of Chalphi, called iiaoas [A. in i Mace. 138], a Jewish general under Jonathan (i Mace. 11 70).

4. Son of Simon (i Mace. 16 2 ff.~). See MACCABEES i., 6.

5. One, evidently holding a high position in Jerusalem, who took part in sending a letter to ARISTOBULUS (ff.~ .) (2 Mace. 1 10). Though identified with the Essene (cp Jos. BJ i. 3 5) he is more probably the same as no. 2.

6. Lk. 3 30, Mt. lz/ [RV Judah] ; see JUDAH, i.

7. Judas of James (t oi/Sos ia/ctu/Soi ) [Ti. WH], one of th-2 twelve apostles according to Lk. 6 16 and Acts 1 13, though not according to the lists in Mt. and Mk. , where his place is taken by Thaddasus. He is, without doubt, the Judas not Iscariot of the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 1422), who asked Jesus the question : Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world ? The expression Judas of James is most naturally and usually understood as meaning son of James ; but it can be interpreted as meaning brother of James, and this is the sense in which it has been taken by the author of the epistle of JUDE (g.v. ).

Ecclesiastical tradition very early began its attempts to harmonise the four lists of the twelve apostles, and one of the results (since Origen) was the identification of Judas of James with ThaddcEus ; in late Syriac legend he appears as Judas Thaddzus and is the apostle of Syria and Mesopotamia, ulti mately suffering martyrdom by stoning at Berytus or Aradus. The similar Armenian legend claims him also for Armenia. In the Roman Breviary (Oct. 28), Thaddseus, qui et Judas Jacobi appellatur in Evangelic, unius ex Catholicis Epistolis scriptor is said to have evangelized Mesopotamia and afterwards to have accompanied Simon the Cananaean into Persia where they crowned a successful ministry by suffering a glorious martyrdom together. It is worthy of particular notice, however, that the oldest Syrian (Edessene) legend, which goes back to the second (?) century, identifies Judas Jacobi with Thomas (see Eus. HE 113; After Jesus was ascended, Judas Thomas sent to him [Abgarus] Thaddasus the apostle, one of the Seventy ).

8. Judas, Mk. 63, see CLOPAS.

9. Judas Iscariot (IOY^AC o ICKAPICOTHC [Mt- 104], IOV&. l(TK. [Mt. 26l4], lOvS. O KaXovpevOS KTKOip. [Lk. 223], tovS. icncapiwd [Mk. 3 19 14 10 Lk. 6 16], [6] LOV&. o-ijiioi-os uncapiiaTOv [Jn. 671 13 26], tovS. trifLiavof Kncapiorrjs [Jn. 182; not 124, as TR], iovS. b IO-K. [Jn.124; cp!422, tovS., ov\ o icrKap.]. In Jn. 671 N gives O.TTO (capuiorov ; so D in Jn. 1^4 13225, but in 1422 o airo (cap. In Mt. 1042014 Mk. 14 10 D gives <r/ca.piu)7T); ; in Lk. 22 3 icr<capiu>(5 ; in Mk. 3 19 Lk. 6 16 J n. 6 7 CTKapuuO).

1 Also iia&as i Macc. 13s [A], and IOUAOS i Macc. 4 13 [A], the latter a corruption in the Gk.

1. Name.[edit]

Thrice in the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 671 182 26) Judas is called the son of Simon, which may well be a genuine tradition.

As for the name Iscariot (twice applied to the father of Judas, Jn. 671 1325), there is a well-supported reading in Jn., <iiro xapviarov, which, according to Zahn and Nestle, 1 confirms the view that icncopiiod and io-<capi<onj proceed from the Hebrew designation ni "1p 57 K, a man of Kerioth ; cp loro/Sos, Jos. Ant. vii. 6 1 = 31B ff N, 2 S. 1068 (B e t<7 T<u/3). We should, however, have expected airo Kepita6 ; -<arov suggests that the phrase in D is derived from icncapicoTou. Not understanding xapiior, the scribe thought of Kapvuiros (^oii if), a palm tree which bears dates resembling a walnut. 2 Apart from this, it is a plausible view that io-<capiuTrjs is derived from Ish-kerioth, a man of Kerioth. Such formations of names continued to be used, as Dalman shows, in spite of the predominance of Aramaic. Most scholars consider Judas to have been a native of the Kerioth mentioned in Josh. 15:25 ; but rtlHp, kiriyyoth, in this passage means group of places (see HAZOR, 4), and the spot or district intended did not belong to Judaea.3 Keim and \Vell- hausen therefore prefer the Korea (Kerioth) of Jos. Ant. xiv. 3 4, etc., which was a beautifully situated place N. of Karn Sartabeh (see ZARETH AN). Since, however, the evangelists them selves find the name so unintelligible, how much more natural is it to suspect that it may have been incorrectly transmitted (cp Boanerges, Kananaios (?), Bar-jona) ! If so, we may not un reasonably conjecture that the true name is lepi^wr^s, a man of Jericho. It would readily be remembered that one of the disciples came from Jericho. Cp JERICHO, 7.

2. Notices in Synoptics.[edit]

Of the early history of Judas nothing is told us. We know, however, that he was one of those whom the Preacher of the Kingdom of Heaven drew to himself by the power of his will to be his companions and assistants. 'And he goes up into the mountain (ei s TO 6/>os), and calls to him whom he himself would, and they went unto him' (Mk. 8:13) ; the oOj tf0e\ei> avrbs assures us that every one of the persons named was specially chosen by Jesus. Twelve are named ; three lists of the twelve are given, and in each of the three Judas stands last (Mt. 104 Mk. 819 Lk. 616; see APOSTLE, i). Mt. and Mk. add, who also betrayed him ; Lk. adds, who became traitor (5s eyevero irpodar^). In the lists of Mt. and of Mk. the eleventh, and in that of Lk. the tenth, is Simon called 6 Kavavalos or ffyXwnjj. Farrar has offered the conjecture that this Simon was the father of Judas Iscariot, and it is certain that in Jn. (see i) Judas Iscariot is called the son of Simon. It is not likely, however, that both father and son would belong to the Twelve, and Simon was a very common name, whilst Kavavaios is very possibly a corruption of Kavaios ( 'a man of Cana' ), which would make this Simon a Galilaean. All that we can say is that Simon and Judas were probably companions whenever the Twelve were sent out by two and two (Mk. 6:7).

3. Notice in Jn.[edit]

There is no list of the Twelve in the Fourth Gospel. In Jn. 6:71, however, we receive early notice that Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve, and that it was he who was destined to deliver up Jesus (Jn. 6:71).

The notice (o5ros yap ejieAAev atiTOf irapaoiSovai, els wv T<av ota&eKo) is suggested by a saying ascribed to Jesus (v. 70); Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil (Sia/3oAos)? It adds but little, however, to the historical weight of the Synoptic tradition, and the saying in v. 70 appears to be inconsistent with the equal confidence in all the disciples shown by Jesus according to the Synoptic tradition a confidence which is maintained unbroken till the last paschal meal.

The Fourth Evangelist further tells us (Jn. 12:4-6) that the destined traitor murmured at Mary's costly gift of love at Bethany, when she took a pound of SPIKENARD [q.f.] and anointed the feet of Jesus ; he also mentions as the secret cause of this murmuring of Judas that he was a thief, and having the box took away what was put therein.

So at least the traditional text must be interpreted (on KXe nrnjs r\v KO\ TO y\u><T<TOKOiiov Ixiov 4 Ta /SaAAo^iera tfia.<rra$ev) ; but the phraseology is very awkward, and it is strange that this habit of pilfering should be mentioned unless it were to account for the smallness of the sum which (Mt. at least says) tempted Judas to betray his master. It would seem that here there is a clear case of corruption, and that a very early editor of the text may have miscorrected the corrupt passage before him. Very possibly we should read, on x a ^ 7! < ) ^" *<" T icotvbv /SoAAai Tioi ejSaoTcuJe, 1 "because he was a harsh man, and used to carry the common purse" (KOII/. /SoA. as <S, Prov. 1 14). The statement about Judas is therefore worthy of more credit than it has sometimes received from advanced critics. It may be nearer to the oldest tradition than the vaguer statement of Mt. 2t>8 Mk. 14 4. 2

Weiss (Leben Jesu, 2 443) cannot account for the imputation of thievish intentions to Judas in Jn. except on the theory that the apostle John had found out thefts committed by the greedy Judas, and Godet speaks of some one who has accused John of a personal hatred to Judas. The difficulties disappear if the reading proposed above is accepted.

1 Zahn, Einl. 1 561 ; Nestle, Phiiologica Sacra, 14. Cp the controversy between Nestle and Chase, Exp. T (9 140 189 240 285^:), Pec. 97 ; Jan., Feb., Mar. 98.

2 Cp Dalman, Worte /fsu, 1 41.

3 Wellh. Phar. u. Sadd. 152 ; Keim, Jesu von Naz. 1 225.

  • So BDQL, etc. ; x" <" ( TR )> AIIX > a P" re y literary

correction, cp Jn. 13 29. The conjecture of Peerlkamp (?) and Bakhuizen, e\ov, is not satisfactory.

4. The Betrayal.[edit]

According to Mt. 26:14-16, Mk. 14:10-11 , after the anointing in Bethany one of the twelve called Judas Iscariot (Mt. ; nearly so Mk. ) went to the chief priests and offered to betray Jesus to them. On receiving their promise of money (dpyvpiov, Mk. ) or thirty pieces of silver [shekels] (rpidKovra. dpyvpia, Mt. ), Judas sought for an opportunity to betray him. Lk. (22:3-6) altogether disconnects the transaction from the scene of the anointing. After noticing that every night Jesus camped out (ijflMfeTo) on the Mount of Olives (21:37), which prepares the way for the notable statement in 22:39, Lk. mentions that the passover was drawing near, and that the chief priests and scribes were seeking for a way to effect the destruction of Jesus. Then Satan entered into Judas, called Iscariot, of the number of the twelve ; the rest of the notice agrees with that of Mt. and Mk. Evidently the assumption that Satan had entered into Judas is a humane one : treason against the Holy One was too foul a crime for a disciple in his right mind to have committed. It should also be noticed that all the Synoptists (Mt. 17:22, Mk. 9:31, Lk. 9:44) mention that after Peter s confession of Jesus Messiah- ship, Jesus spoke of his being delivered up into the hands of men. Mt. says that the disciples were very sorry ; Mk. and Lk. that they understood not the saying. We should never have guessed (nor did the apostles guess) that one of them was capable of com mitting treason.

5. Account in Jn.[edit]

Quite a different account is given in Jn. (13:2, 18:21-30). Nothing is said of the visit of Judas to the chief priests and of the promised payment of his treason, nor of his deliberate search for an opportunity to betray Jesus. It was at the Last Supper that the hateful idea occurred to Judas, and it was inspired by the devil (13227). Jesus openly declared (vv. 10-18) that one of his chosen ones would 'lift up his heel' against him, to fulfil the old scripture (Ps. 41:9). Yet he gave one more special proof of love to the traitor, and it was after this that Satan took full possession of his captive. Therefore Jesus says to him, That thou doest, do quickly ; Judas went out, and it was night. It is a modification of the Synoptic tradition that we have here, though Lk. has already suggested it by his reference to Satan. It was not to any common temptation that at last Judas fell victim ; he was taken by storm. How, according to Jn. , the original suggestion of treason (Jn. 13:2) was made plausible, there is no direct evidence to show. From Jn. 6:60-65, however, we infer that, according to the evangelist, Judas was one of those who entertained unspiritual views of Messiahship. When the last hope that Jesus would make himself king of Israel by force had vanished, the evangelist possibly considered that the love which Judas must formerly have had for Jesus diminished, and that finally under Satanic influence it turned into its opposite - hate. Godet regards the Johan- nine picture as more truly historical than that given by the Synoptists, on the ground that in the former the relations between Jesus and Judas form an organic part of the description of the repast, and are presented under the form of a series of historical shades and gradations. 1 A very different view is taken by Keim, and a critical student cannot fail to admit the force of Keim's arguments.

1 Both icAejrTTjs and icou yAwcrcro are based upon a miswritten XoAeiros ; KO/JLOI and ex &n have come out of KOIVOV, and /3oA- \0fifva out of /SoAAaiTioi . yAu><7<ro<cofiOi was suggested by Jn. 13 29. /3oA. is one of Lk. s words.

a Mt. assigns the niggardly question, To what purpose, etc., to the disciples ; Mk. to some (of the guests). Mt. is evidently right. In Lk. 7 36 Jf. no mention is made of a murmuring against the lavishness of the gift of love. Certainly it would have spoiled Lk. s narrative to have referred to this detail. Zahn (Einl. 2 517) thinks the view that there were two anointings not impossible. It is, at any rate, more in accordance with our experience elsewhere to suppose that two divergent forms of the same tradition were in circulation.

6. The paschal supper.[edit]

What, then, is the Synoptic description of the repast? It is the Paschal Supper that Jesus and the Twelve are eating. Jesus has seen through Judas before this solemn evening, but has made no change in his demeanour towards him. Now, however, he announces the fact, One of you will betray me, even he that eats with me. Is it I ? asks each man sorrowfully. It is one of the twelve, he that dips with me in the dish . . . Good were it for that man if he had not been born (Mk. 14:17-21; cp Mt. 26:20-24, Lk. 22:21-23). The accounts do not entirely agree. It is only Mt. who expressly states that Judas the traitor also put the question, Is it I ? and the way in which the statement is introduced suggests that it is an addition to the earlier story (Mt. 26:25). Jn. , as we have seen, diverges most widely from the simple form of the Synoptic narrative.

7. Arrest of Jesus.[edit]

The account of the betrayal itself also is very variously given. All the Gospels agree that it was by an armed band that Jesus was arrested, and that Judas was its guide. Both the scene of the arrest, however, and the circumstances are different in the Synoptic Gospels and in Jn. respectively, and it is for our present purpose especially noteworthy that nothing is said in Jn. of the kiss with which according to the Synoptists Judas ventured to greet Jesus. Mk. and Lk. give the simplest narrative ; Mt. (26:50) makes Jesus answer the traitor with Ercupe, i<f> 6 jrdpei, "Amice, ad quod venisti" (Vg. ), an untranslatable phrase, while Lk. gives, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss", suggesting what is probably the true reading in Mt. , viroKpivei, 'Thou feignest', 'Thou actest a part', 'Thou art no friend of mine'. 2 To Jn. the outward details of the act of Satanic treachery are indifferent.

1 Commentary on St. John ( 87), 3 121.

2 Hpltzmann s criticism that Lk. s form of the speech of Jesus is rhetorical, does not go to the heart of the matter. The form may be rhetorical ; but the idea is appropriate to the occasion. Friend, (do) that for which thou art come, RV s rendering of e<> o jropet, is most unnatural ; Judas had done his work ; the underlings of the chief priests had to do the rest. Vet most moderns agree with RV, and if anything had preceded which made such an aposiopesis natural (e.g. , and Judas said, "What shall I do? "), it would be right to follow RV. AV s rendering, Friend, wherefore art thou come, is much more natural, but it is ungrammatical. There must be an error in the text. Eroupe (an unsuitable word, whether we render Comrade or Good Friend ) should come after j> o irapei (so D a c f Syr *ch L c i f)- It is a corruption of a dittogiaphed o naptt, D in fact gives erepai. E< o iropei can hardly have come out of any other word than viroicpivei.

8. Death of Judas.[edit]

The end of the traitor is told in Mt. 27:3-10 Acts 1:18-20. The discrepancies between the two accounts are remarkable, and the silence of Mk. and Jn. is also noteworthy. Mt. states that Judas, on finding that Jesus was condemned, was struck with remorse, and brought back the thirty shekels to the chief priests, confessing that he had betrayed innocent blood. Then he hurled the pieces of silver into the sanctuary (ei s rbv vaov), and departed ; tc this is added a further statement, complete in itself, and he went away and hanged himself (a.Trriy^a.To) where, we are not told. The chief priests, however, with characteristic scrupulosity, would not put the money into the sacred treasury (Kopf3avas), but bought with it the potter's field to bury strangers in. This field received the name, Field of blood, and so a prophecy of Jeremiah (or rather Zechariah) was fulfilled. 1 Here we have Iscariot represented as a second Ahithophel, who, so far as intention went, betrayed David to his enemy, and hanged himself (2 S. 17:23).

The account in Acts can be separated, with advantage to the sense, from the speech of Peter in which it occurs, and may perhaps be a later insertion. It is, however, at any rate of early date. It states that, so far from restoring the money, Judas acquired a field (xupiov, see FIELD, 9) with his unrighteous reward ; and falling headlong (on the field) 2 he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Hence that field was called Akeldama, or The field of blood (see ACELDAMA). So, it is added, the prophecies in Ps. 69:25 and 10:98 were fulfilled. Clearly here is a mere popular explanation of Akeldama, and not less evidently here is the expression of the popular sense of justice as regards the end of the traitor.

A more elaborate and tasteless story is given by Papias (Fragm. III.); it seems to be an independent version of the popular legend, reminding us partly of Acts 1:18, partly of the legend of the end of Antiochus Epiphanes in 2 Macc. 9:5+.

Returning to the two biblical accounts, we note that De Quincey ( Works, 6:21-25) endeavours to remove the discrepancies, but by purely arbitrary means. This is quite needless. Both the modes of death assigned to Judas were conventionally assigned to traitors and enemies of God, and more especially that given in Acts 3 to which there is a striking parallel in the story of the death of the traitor Nadan in the tale of Ahikar. Mr. Rendel Harris suggests that the original reading in Acts 1:18 may have been, not Trprjvr]s yevofj.evos, but irprio 6eis, having swollen out ; the existing reading he accounts for by a tradition which identified Judas with a poisonous serpent, and he illustrates by upon thy belly shall thou go in Gen. 3:14. See Did Judas commit suicide? Arner. /. of Theol., July 1900.

9. Character.[edit]

The psychological attempts to explain the character of Judas so as to comprehend the crime ascribed to him are numerous. His despair has been regarded as a proof of original nobility of character (Hase) ; he has even been regarded as having sought the attainment of a good object by evil means (Paulus). Neander too was touched by the same generous anxiety for the misguided apostle:

'If Jesus is the Messiah, so he considers Judas to have reasoned, it will not injure him to deliver him up to his enemies, for legions of angels will come to his rescue, while if he is not the Messiah, he deserves destruction'.

Thus the betrayal was merely a test, intended to clear up all doubt. Volkmar thinks that in the heart of the zealot who hoped to draw Jesus to battle and to victory, the greeting, so fearful to us, " Hail, Master," must have meant, " I greet thee, O king of Israel : now show thy power" (Jesus Nazarenus [ 82], 121). De Quincey considers that the object of Judas was audacious in a high degree, but for that very reason not treacherous at all. His hope was that, when at length actually arrested by the Jewish authorities, Christ would no longer vacillate ; he would be forced into giving the signal to the populace of Jerusalem, who would then rise unanimously, for the double purpose of placing Christ at the head of an insur rectionary movement, and of throwing off the Roman yoke. 1

All these theories are entirely contrary to the evangelic narratives. If we accept the tradition that Judas betrayed his Master, we cannot separate it from the statement that he did it either out of Satanic wickedness or for money.

Are critical students, then, really bound to accept the tradition as historical?

1 The passage, Mt. 27:9-10., which shows evidence of Christian modification, has probably come from a collection of Messianic passages of the OT prophets in use among the Christians. (This also accounts for Sia TUIV irpo^riav, Mt. 2:23 ; cp NAZA RETH.) On Zech. 11:12-13, see GASm. Twelve Prophets, 2:475, and cp POTTER.

2 But cp J. R. Harris (below). Papias : ei> ISita <j>aa-l X W P V TeAeimjaai/Ta.

3 Cp Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, 81.

10. The story of Judas.[edit]

The fact of the treason of Judas is so unexpected, so incredible, so terrible ; it jeopardises so painfully our faith not only in human fidelity but also in the dignity and greatness of Jesus, in his knowledge, his judgment, his keenness of vision, and above all, the weight of his influence and of that love of his which could melt even ice, and it is such a mark for the scoffing of enemies, beginning with the venomous Celcus,! that we should have to greet it as the removal of a hundred pound weight from the heart of Christendom, if the treason of Judas could be proved to have had no existence. 2

The growth of the story of Judas can also be ade quately explained. Supposing that the original tradi tion left the ease with which the capture of Jesus was effected unaccounted for, Christian ingenuity would exert itself to find an explanation. Passages in the Psalms which spoke of the Righteous Man as treated with brutal insolence by his own familiar friend (Ps. 41:9, 56:12-14) would suggest the originator of the outrage; the betrayer of Jesus must have been a faithless friend. And if an apostle, who could he have been but Judas Iscariot? For Iscariot was not a Galilean like the other apostles ; he had a harsh, crabbed temper (xaXeT^s), and he carried the purse of the little company. The last circumstance suggested a reminiscence of Zech. 11:12-13 a mysterious passage which seemed to become intelligible for the first time if applied to Jesus. This view is not altogether new ; in its earlier forms it has found little favour, 3 but it may nevertheless in essentials be true.

The objections to it are (i) that the story of Judas s treason has fixed itself firmly in our oldest documents, and (2) that in Acts 1 we have an account of the appointment of Matthias to the vacant apostleship. It cannot, however, be proved that Judas s treason formed part of the oldest tradition ; it is separ able from the surest traditions of the life of Jesus, and the appointment of Matthias may perfectly well have taken place, even if Judas did not betray Jesus. The probability is that no one knew how the emissaries of the Pharisees found Jesus so easily, and that the story of Judas s treason was a very early attempt to imagine an explanation. Probably Judas did dis appear from view. We know that all the disciples forsook Jesus and fled (Mt. 26:56, Mk. 14:5o); Judas probably returned to his home, and never again joined the Galilean disciples, with whom he may have felt little sympathy. This view has the advantage over that still prevalent, because it does not force us to think that Jesus treated Judas worse than Peter, for whom he prayed when Satan had obtained him by asking, in order to sift him as wheat (Lk. 22:31), or that the prayer Trpocrfles T]\iiv vCa-Tiv (Lk. 17:5) was unanswered in the case of Judas. That popular mythology gladly releases the traitor Judas from hell once in the year (cp Matthew Arnold, Saint Brandan), should perhaps stir the critical conscience to examine more fully into the grounds of the received opinion.

A wild Gnostic fancy may be mentioned, as a singular specimen of early speculations about Judas.

Epiphan. 38:3. Some Cainites say that Judas delivered up Jesus because he regarded him as a wicked man (ironjpop), who meant to destroy the good law. Others say that he gave Jesus up just because he was a good man. The rulers knew that if Jesus were crucified, their ineffectual power would be brought to nought. Judas therefore made a mighty effort to deliver him up for the salvation of mankind, and deserves praise as an agent in the events which have led to our salvation and enlightenment (dAAoc. Se r<av aurair, ov^t, <$>a.cr\v, aAAa ayaOov avrbv ovra Trapf&iaxe Kara TTJV fwovpaviov yi uxrir. eyi taaav yap, <j>r)(rtv, oi apxavrei;, OTI, eav 6 xptcrrbs na.pa.So9r) oraupw, KevovTa.i avTa>i>i7 atrdci ris fiuyajuis, icat TOVTO, <}>T)tTi, yvovs o louSay, eoTreva* cal TTO.VTO. e<Vi)crei , ware irapaSovvai avrbv, ayadov fpyov 7roi7J<7as *l^v ei? crwnjpi af. Kal Sei rj^ia? enaiveiv KO.I rov oravpov (rionjpi a Kal 17 Sia. TTJS Totaurrjs vTroffe crews rail avia a;roKaAvi/<i). T. K. C.

10. Judas of Galilee (ioyA<\c o r^AiA&ioc [Ti. WH]), in association with a Pharisee named Sadduk, was leader of an agitation which arose in Judaea (on the death of Archelaus), when that part of Palestine in 6 or 7 A. D. was brought under Roman administration, and Sulpicius Quirinius, the governor of Syria, instituted a census of the newly annexed district. In Gamaliel s speech in Acts 5 37 it is rightly stated that he rose up in the days of the enrolment (diroypcKprj) the only enrolment known to Lk. which had already been mentioned in the Third Gospel (2if. ; see QUIKINIUS). Josephus speaks of Judas at some length in BJ ii. 81, Ant. .\\iii.li6, and also makes brief reference to him in BJ \\. 178, vii. 8 1, Ant. xx. 02. The epithet (6 [xaAovju-efos] TaAiAaios or ai>r)p raAiAaio?) which he bestows on him, expresses clearly that he was of Galitean origin, and had received from this circum stance the standing addition to his proper name (which was a very common one) ; it would be given all the more readily if his first public appearance was in Judaea, outside of his native land. Josephus (Ant. xviii.li) calls him, more precisely, a man of Gaulanitis (r<xuAa>>i-n)s ai^jp), and says that he came from Gamala. Gamala was in Gaulanitis not far from the eastern shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, and Gaulanitis could be reckoned as belonging to Galilee in the broader meaning of that word.

1 Orig. c. Cels-lnf. Celsus, in the character of a Jew, scoffed at Jesus for being betrayed by one of those whom he called disciples a proof that he was less able to attach his followers to himself than every general or brigand-chief.

2 Keim, Jesu von Nazara, 3 242.

3 Proposed by Bruno Bauer (Kritik der evangel. Geschichte der Synoptiker tmci des Johannes, 3 [ 42], 235^) and again by Volkmar (Die Religion Jesu, 260 jf. t syl), it has been rejected by Keim (Jesu von Naz. 3 242^) and Brandt (Die evangel. Gesch., 11-18).

What Judas actually did is not quite clear from the account of Josephus. According to BJ ii. 178 he merely reproached the Jews with their subjection to the Romans ; according to BJ ii. 8:1 he instigated them to revolt (els a.irt)aTa.(nv tvrjye) by his reproaches ; according to BJ vii. 8:1 he persuaded not a few ( OVK 6\iyous) to make no returns (/xr; troifiadai rets d.Troypa.(f>a.s) ; according to Ant. xx. 62 he actually caused the people to revolt against the Romans (. . . rov rbv \abv atrb "Pu^a-lav diroffr^fravTos). The expression last quoted goes too far if we take as our basis the chief passage in Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1:1). In that passage he introduces his refer ence to Judas only after explaining how the Jews, yield ing to the persuasions of Joazar the high priest, had submitted to the census. Judas indeed, he says, was urgent for revolt (rj-jreiyeTo tirl d.iro<rr<i(rfi) and the movement went far ; but he does not expressly mention any noteworthy occurrence, passing on merely to a long and vague list of evils extending in the course of time to the final destruction of Jerusalem, that had been brought upon the nation by the followers of Judas : wars, robberies, seditions, murders of principal men, famines, and the like.

In particular he designates Judas and Sadduk as the originators among the Jews of a fourth philosophy (Ter6.prr]v <f>i\ocro^>iav), as he does also in the other leading passage (5/ii. 81), where he calls Judas a sophist of a sect of his own (O-CK/HOTT/S Idias aipecrews ; cp ii. 1 7 8 a most cunning sophist , O-O^ICTTTJS SeivoTaTos ) ; in both places he takes occasion to characterise the three previously existing philosophies oi the Jews those, namely, of the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes but it is only in Ant. xviii. 16 that he goes into the philosophy of Judas and his companions. There he says that in every other respect the followers of Judas agree with the Pharisees, but they are dis tinguished by an unquenchable love of liberty holding God alone to be ruler and lord and by indifference to death. The party of the ZEALOTS (D wg, Aram. K JN:,} ; see CANAN^AN) is intended, from which party arose at a later date the Sicarii or ASSASSINS, who not only did not shrink from violence and rebellion against their enemies, but also did not scruple to exercise a reign of terror over their co-religionists by secret assassination.

It is certainly no mere coincidence that one of their most determined leaders he who held the fortress of Masada even after Jerusalem had fallen, and with all his companions com mitted suicide when no longer able to keep the enemy at bay (73 A.D. ; see ISRAEL, 109) Eleazar, son of Jairus, was a descendant of Judas of Galilee and a relation of his son Manaim (=Menahem), a ringleader at the beginning of the revolt in 66 A.D. who himself in turn fell a victim to the fanaticism of the Zealots in the same year(/?/ ii. llsf., vii. 8 i ; cp ISRAEL, 101).

It will be observed that in Josephus no word is found of what is stated in Acts 5:37, that Judas perished and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad. On the other hand, Josephus tells us (Ant. xx. 5:2) that the sons of Judas (i.e. , two of them), Jacob and Simon, were put to death by the procurator Alexander of Judsea (there fore about 46-48). In Lk. there is another noticeable circumstance, the fact, namely, that Judas, notwith standing the express mention of the census of 6-7 A. D. , is nevertheless represented as coming upon the scene after Theudas, whose insurrection was under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (i.e. , about 44-46). At the same time it has to be remarked that, as the mention of the census shows, Lk. was not in error about the period of Judas so much as about that of Theudas ; whether this error justifies the conjecture that Lk. was acquainted with Josephus will be con sidered therefore under the latter name (see THEUDAS).

The other conjecture, that Lk. confused Judas, so far as his end was concerned, with his two sons, is certainly forcibly suggested by the fact that his fate is mentioned after that of Theudas. Krenkel (Josephus u. Lucas, 94, 168-170) has pointed out an analogous case ; in i S. 17 Goliath is represented as having been slain by David, but in the older account (2 S. 21:15-22) this feat is given to Elhanan, while it is another giant that is encountered by David (cp ELHANAN, GOLIATH). He instances similar slips of memory in Livy (xxi. 46:-10 ), in Cicero (Cato Major, 23, 83), and in Josephus him self; Josephus (Bf \\.1\j], among the four men who were sent to Jerusalem to stir up the people against himself, names Judas the son of Jonathes, whereas in Vit. 39 he names Jonathes himself, thus (after an interval of 25 years, it is true) making a mistake as to the name of a person with whom he had been personally in strenuous conflict. Krenkel himself adds, however, that even without confounding Judas with his sons, it was not unnatural that Lk. should assign to him the fate which, practically speaking, befell all the leaders of insurrection in those days. In any case Lk. found no warrant in Josephus for his statement that all the followers of Judas were scattered abroad.

Schiirer, GJVC^i \^o6f. (ET, Div. i. vol. ii. p. 81), confidently identifies Judas of Galilee with the Judas, son of Ezekias, who after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C. gathered a follow ing in the neighbourhood of Sepphoris and rendered all Galilee insecure, aiming, indeed, it would seem, even at the crown itself (BJ ii. 4 i, Ant. xvii. 10s). Krenkel, however (p. 163), rightly doubts this identification, inasmuch as Josephus does not give to this Judas the epithet of Galilean, but designates him simply as son of Ezekias, and moreover expressly records the execution of this robber-chief Ezekias by Herod the Great.

11. Judas called Barsabbas (Acts 1622). See BARSABAS, 2.

12. Of Damascus, with whom Saul stayed in the Street which is called Straight (see DAMASCUS, 3), Acts 9:11.

P. W. S.


1. General character.[edit]

The author designates himself as Judas 'a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James', and evidently wished to pass for a brother of Jesus (see JUDAS, 7; JAMES). It has been conjectured that he was restrained from so calling himself outright by an exalted idea of Jesus, which did not admit of his having a human brother. He addresses his writing to those that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ, thus evidently intending it for an extended circle of readers rather than for a single church. The object of the epistle is declared to be an exhorta tion to the readers to contend earnestly for the faith on account of certain ungodly men whose lives are reprehensible, and whose teaching is a denial of the only Ruler and our Lord, Jesus Christ. Examples of the destruction by divine judgment of those whose belief and life were false are adduced from the OT and Jewish apocalyptic, and directions are given as to the proper deportment of believers toward such persons. The epistle closes with a doxology.

The point of view of the writer is indicated in v. 17, as that of one who looked back upon the apostolic age ( Remember ye the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ ), and the prophecies referred to in v. 18 have so close a resemblance to the post-apostolic i Tim. 4:1 and 2 Tim. 3:1-2, 4:3 as to favour the hypothesis of a dependence upon these epistles. Accords with the Pauline writings are at least probable in v. 12 (cp i Cor. 11:20), v. 20 (cp Rom. 8:26), m. 10 and 19 (cp i Cor. 2:14-15*), and v. 22 (cp i Cor. 3:15).

2. Occasion.[edit]

The occasion of the epistle was evidently the author's lively concern about certain ungodly men (d(re/3eis, v. 4) who had 'stolen in' (ira-pewtdvaav), and who 'were turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Ruler and our Lord, Jesus Christ'. He regards their influence both in doctrine and in practice as a menace to the well-being of the church, and he not only sounds a note of warning against them, but also points out the punishment reserved for such as they.

Not only did they deny Christ and God as the only Ruler (TOV ii6vov SecrTTOTTjr) and thus act the part of liars according to i Jn. 2:22 (cp Enoch 48:10), but they set at nought dominion (/cvpioTTjTa), and railed at dignities (Sofas, v. &). They are licentious revellers, stains (cririAdSes, v. 12) in the Christian love- feasts, and mockers at sacred things.

Although the examples of divine judgment relate to wrong conduct, these dangerous persons are not simply men of loose morals whose life is a peril to the church according to Schwegler s opinion (Nachap. Zeitalter, IjiS/!) and Ritschl s ingenious argument marred by a somewhat strained grammatical interpretation (St. Kr., 61, p. 103 f. ) but also false teachers, as is evident from their denying, from the reference to the divine judgment on those who believed not, and from the exhortation to contend earnestly for the faith (v. 3).

The data for a precise determination of their doctrines amidst the many so-called heresies of the early church are wanting, and expositors differ widely upon the matter. Renan stands alone in the opinion that the epistle was directed against Paul. Other scholars are divided as to whether it assails Jewish false teachers, hyper-Paulinians, Nicolaitans, Gnostics of the second century in general, or the Carpocratian Gnosticism of Alexandria in particular.

The character and practices of the persons in question resemble very closely those of the Gnostics as described by Epiphanius (Haer. 26 1 1). We know that these denied that God was the only Ruler that is, the creator and governor of the world and held very lax views as to the divinity of Christ (Iren. Haer. 1:25-26). Out of the dualism of their system naturally sprang an indifference to all relations to the flesh ; and hence such moral looseness as is described in the Epistle appeared in some quarters.

So close is the resemblance of the persons here censured to the Carpocratians who flourished in Alexandria toward the middle of the second century, that Clement believed Jude to have written prophetically of them (Strom. 32/. ). It is, accordingly, not improb able that the writer had them in mind as his contem poraries. His denunciations are quite applicable to a sect who had established upon lust a cult of righteous ness. With the late date of the epistle which must be assumed from this point of view corresponds the author s apprehension of Christian faith as a system of doctrine or a fixed confession (v. 3).

3. Allusions.[edit]

The writer uses apocryphal apocalyptic works such as the Ascensio Mosis in which Origen (De Princip. 3:2) found the legend concerning Michael (see APOCALYPTIC, 59), and the book of Enoch (6 and 10), from which he doubtless derived the story of the fallen angels substantially in the form in which he gives it. With reference to v. 14 see also Enoch 60 (cp APOCALYPTIC, 19). No certain conclusion as to the date of the Epistle can, however, be drawn from the citation of these writings.

It has been argued that the author was an Alexandrian Jewish Christian from the fact that he attaches to the apocryphal books referred to, an equal authority with the OT that is, regards them as belonging to the later additions to the canon.

4. Fortunes.[edit]

The epistle was probably used by the writer of 2 Peter, though opinions are divided as to priority. It is not surprising that, on account of its brevity and the fact that it is not of doctrinal importance, to say nothing of its making no claim to apostolical authorship, it did not receive early recognition.

Jude is referred to by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3:2-11) as a catholic Epistle written by Jude, frater filiorum Joseph exstans. Origen (In Mt. 10:17 23:27) mentions it as the work of Judas the brother of James ; but except in the parts of his works which survive only in a Latin translation he does not designate the author as an apostle. Tertullian, on the other hand, calls the writer Jude the apostle (De cult. fern. 1 3). The Muratorian fragment makes mention of it in a somewhat doubtful text as the work of Jude without designating him either an apostle or the brother of James. Eusebius (HE 3 25) places it among the dvrrAsy6pcva, and says that ' not many of the ancients have made mention of it'. Jerome (De vir. fiZ. 4) calls the author of the epistle 'the brother of James', and attributes its rejection by many to its citation of Enoch. Epiphanius (Haer. 76) speaks of its author as 6 a&e\<j>b<; Iajcu/3ov KO.L Kvpi ov, but according to the Canon of Athanasius all the seven catholic epistles were written by apostles. The wavering and uncertain character of all this testimony is evident. The epistle is not _ included in the Peshitta, although Ephrem acknowledged it as apostolic. It is not mentioned by Justin, Theophilus, and Irenaeus. [The text of the Epistle of Jude, like that of 2 Peter, has more than probably suffered in transmission, as the variant readings sufficiently warn us. See Hort s remarks in Notes on Select Passages, NT 2 106. There are, no doubt, more discoveries to be made by a practised critic. Even Hort, for example, has not said all that might be said on the corrup tions of v. 5. Probably we should read, not eiioras ar-af ndvra OTI Kvpios Aabi/ (t.T.A. but eiSdra? jrdrras ort Irjo-ous ajra \abv K.T.A. the position of a7ra in accordance with N and several Church Fathers and Versions ; Ii)<rous (a corruption ace. to WH), with AB minusc. Copt. Vg. etc., Lachm., Zahn (Einl. 288), Nestle (Einf. 261). On the relation of Jude to Jewish apocalyptic writers cp ESCHATOLOGY, especially 90, and for a list of co incidences cp Chase, art. Jude, Epistle of, in Hastings DB 28oi/]

5. Literature.[edit]

Besides the well-known English and German Introductions the following works and articles may be consulted : Arnaud, Reckcrches crit. sur t f:p. de Jv.de ( 51); Keil, Pet. . Jud. ( 53) ; Schott, Pet.u.Jud. ( 63) ; Spitta, Der 2 Br. d. Pet. u. der Br. des Jud. ( 85) ; Ritschl, St. Kr. ( 61) ; v. Soden in ffCj 6 ; Schenkel in Bib. Lex. 3 433 /. ( 71); Pfleiderer, Urchristen- thumW ( 87). . c


(lOYAAlA [Aid.]), in Judith 3:9, a false reading for DOTAEA (AooTAi&c [BN], - T 6AC [A]). See DOTHAN.

Dotaea is defined as situated over against the great strait (RV ridge ) of Judea (ib. TOV irpCovos TOV fieyoAou -rijt lov&aias , similarly Syr.) : the Gr. translator read "ite D, a saw," instead of "liif VD, plain (Reland). This same plain is referred to in 46(om. N).


The words for judge will reward investigation.

1. BBS?, sophet (Phcen. &S&, Lat. sufetes [pi.] ; Ass. sapatu; Kpmjs, Si.Ka.<rrrjs). See below (JuDGES, BOOK OF, i) ; also LAW AND JUSTICE, 9_/C, GOVERNMENT, 17, ISRAEL, Zf., and cp COVENANT, 4. Other words rendered judge are :

2. p, dayyan, i S. 24 15 [16], Ps. 685 [6] (?), Ezra T 25! (|| i Esd. 823, (cpiras icai SiKCKrras, EV 'judges and justices' ).

3- T Sfc/ pahl Ex. 21:22, Dt. 32:31, Job 31:11 (all these passages are insecure ; see Ges.-Buhl).

4- 0\T*?K, elohim, Ex. 21:6 22:8 [ 7 ]f- 28 [27], where AV 'the judges' (mg. of 22 28) ; i S. 2:25, where AV 'the judge' ; in all these cases RV God. 1 Other passages have been similarly interpreted; e.g., Judg. 5:8 (EV 'new gods' ); Ps. 82:1 [2]. The explanation is old (cp Ex. 21 6, TO KpiTqpiov TOV 0eou; so Pesh.). Dillmann (Ex., ad loc.) thinks that judges were called Elohim, because they gave sentence at holy places ; but Samaritan Tg. and Pent., Jerome, and probably Vet. Lat. (Ex. 228 \i\f-), followed by Graf and Kuenen, think that one of the sanctuaries of Yahwe is meant, where the priests gave divinely sanctioned judgments. Eerdmans (Th.T, 94, p. 283) and Marti (Gesch. 29) think that the household god is referred to as Elohim ; and this view is archaeologically the most probable. On Ps. 82 i see ANGELS, 4.

5- p;?, kasli, Prov. 6:7 RVmg. (AV Guide, RV Chief ). In spite of Toy s defence, Bickell's objections to the passage appear to be valid. It is unmetrical, and does not fit in well with what follows. It is probably an editor s attempt to make sense of a variant form of v. 6 which had became indistinct. The absence of any reference to Prov. 6:7 in ANT (y.v.) is fully justified.

6. The N lUTIN of Dan. 3:2-3 (EV 'judges' ) is rendered in RVmgr. 'chief soothsayer' ; but it is probably the Pers. endaragar, "counsellor," a title which was still in use under the Sasanians (Nold. Tabari, 462 n.), and the resemblance with piu[227]is therefore accidental (Bevan, ad loc.; cp Marti s Aram. Gr. [Glossary]).

7. 8. In NT Kpinj? (Mt. 625), St<ca<rT7J (Lk. 12 14, see Ti.). Perfectly synonymous (see , i S. 24 15 [16]). T. K. C.

1 Cp DEPOSIT, n. 2.