Encyclopaedia Biblica/Judges (Book)-King's Pool

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



  • Title and place in Canon (1).
  • Contents (2).
  • Sources (3).
  • Analysis ( 4-13).
    • Minor Judges ( 9).
  • Redaction (14).
  • Chronology (15).
  • Ultimate sources (16).
  • Historical value (17).
  • Text ( 18).
  • Literature ( 19).

1. Title and place in the Canon.[edit]

The title 'Judges' is a translation of the Hebrew name of the book, D OD1K> l (KpiT<M, H TOON KPITCON BiBAoc; 2 Liber Judicum), which is given to it because it contains the history of certain Israelite leaders and champions who in the book itself (e.g., 2:16-18) and else where in the OT (2 S. 7:7-11, 2 K. 28:22 Ecclus. 46 11, etc. ) are called Judges (sophetim}.

Those who gave the book this title probably thought of the Judges as divinely appointed rulers, forming a continuous succession, and wielding over all Israel an authority which differed from that of the kings who followed them chiefly in that it was not hereditary (see Judg. 10:2-3, 12:7-8, 12:11, 13, 15:20, 1 S. 4:18, 7:15). 3 The word sophet sometimes occurs in syn onymous parallelism with melek, king (Hos. 7:7 Ps. 2:10) ; among the Phoenicians in an interregnum the supreme power was committed to a Sucao-njs (doubtless &ser, snphet) ; * in Carthage and other Punic cities the sufetes were the chief magistrates, corresponding to the Roman consuls.

The verb BSE/, however, means also vindicate, and thus champion, deliverer, synonymous with yenn (Judg. 2:16-18, 3:9-10, cp 1 S. 8:20 Neh. 9:27 ); and the title could therefore be interpreted, Book of the Deliverers of Israel (Ephr. Syrus).

In the Hebrew Canon, Judges is the second of the Former Prophets, standing between Joshua and Samuel ; in LXX (followed by Vg. and modern versions), Ruth, a story of the times of the judges (1:1), is appended to Judges and sometimes reckoned part of it. 5

2. Contents.[edit]

The Book begins with a brief account of the invasion of the interior of Western Palestine by the several tribes, their conquests and settlements, the names of the cities which remained in the hands of their old inhabitants (1) ; the disobedience of the Israelites in making peace with the Canaanites is rebuked by the Messenger of Yahwe (2:1-5). Ch. 2:6-10 takes up the narrative at the point which has been reached in Jos. 24:27 ; the verses are substantially identical with Jos. 24:28-31. This introduces a general description of the period of the judges as a recurring cycle of apostasy from the religion of Yahwe to Canaanite heathenism, divine judgment inflicted by the hand of the neighbouring peoples, and signal deliver ance by a champion whom Yahwe raised up to save them from their enemies ; closing with a catalogue of the nations of Palestine whom Yahwe, for the sins of Israel (or as a test of its loyalty), left unsubdued (2:11- 3:6). The history of the several judges is presented in a scheme corresponding to 2:11-19.

Thus 3:7-11: 'The Israelites offended Yahwe . . . and he was incensed against Israel and sold them into the power of Cushan-rishathaim, king of Syria, . . . for eight years. Then the Israelites cried for help to Yahwe, and he raised them up a deliverer, Othniel ben-Kenaz. (Here follows the account of the judge's exploits.) And the land enjoyed security for forty years."

With other names and numbers, and variations of phraseology, a similar setting is given to the stories of the succeeding judges.

Israel is oppressed by the Moabites ; Ehud kills the king of Moab, Eglon, and sets his country free (3:12-30) ; Shamgar makes a slaughter among the Philistines (3:31) ; the Canaanites under their king, Jabin of Hazor, and his general Sisera, oppress Israel ; at the instance of the prophetess Deborah, Barak raises the tribes, defeats Sisera, and delivers Israel (4) ; the victory is celebrated in a triumphal ode (5) ; the Midianites and their Bedawin allies harry and devastate the land ; Gideon by a stratagem throws their camp into a panic, pursues, and destroys them (6-8) ; Abimelech, a son of Gideon, becomes king of Shechem ; the Shechemites revolt and are punished ; Abime lech is killed while besieging Thebez (9) ; Tola and Jair judge Israel (10:1-5) ; the Ammonites oppress the Israelites in Gilead ; Jephthah conquers them (10:6-12:7 ); Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon judge Israel (12:8-15) ; the Philistines are the masters of Israel ; Samson inflicts many injuries upon them (13-16).

Chapters 17-21 contain two stories of the times of the judges : the first (17-18) tells of the migration of the Danites and the establishment of the sanctuary at Dan ; the second (19-21), of an outrage committed upon a traveller by the Benjamites of Gibeah and of the san guinary vengeance taken upon the tribe.

1 Baba bathra, 146.

2 See Moore, Judges, p. xiii. Philo (De con/us, ling., 26) cites it as 17 n>v <pi.iia.rtav ai/a-ypa^o/xe i/T) /3t /3Ao; (D ESP ; Orig. 2a<areifi) ; cp the (5 title of Kings, 0acrtActu-.

  • So the name is understood by Josephus.

4 Menander of Ephesus (in Jos. c. Ap. 1 21). 8 See CANON, 6 10, and RUTH.

3. Sources.[edit]

The preceding synopsis of its contents shows that the book in its present form consists of three parts :

  • 1. 1:1-2:5, a brief history of the conquest and settlement of Canaan in some way parallel to Josh.
  • 2. 2:6-16:31, the history of Israel in Canaan from the death of Joshua to the death of Samson, set in the framework of a consistent religious interpretation and a continuous chronology.
  • 3. 17-21, an appendix narrating other events of the same period, but containing the name of no judge and exhibiting no trace of the distinctive religious point of view observed in the preceding chapters.

A. Deuteronomistic Book of Judges. - Our inquiry must begin with the body of the book, 2:6-16:31.

The introduction (2:6-3:6) as a whole is unmistakably deuteronomistic.

The sweeping condemnation of the whole period Israel forsook its own God, Yahwe, and worshipped the Baals and Astartes of Canaan and the religious pragmatism which makes unfaithfulness to Yahwe the one unfailing cause of national calamity and return to him the signal for deliverance, are characteristic of the historiography of the end of the seventh century and in still more marked degree of the sixth century, under the influence of Deuteronomy, the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and the Exile itself. 1

The same pragmatism appears, as we have noted above, in the short particular introductions to the stories of the several judges (3:12-15, 4:1+, 13:1 ; more fully in 3:7-11, 6:1-10, 10:6-16), but not in chap. 1 nor in 17-21. Judg. 2:6-16:31 may therefore properly be called the Deuteronomistic Book of Judges.

The deuteronomistic element is confined, however, to the introduction and the setting of the stories ; the stories themselves (except that of Othniel, 3:7-11) are not of deuteronomistic conception, and, except on the margins where they are joined to the pragmatic intro ductions and conclusions, show no signs of deuterono mistic redaction.

ii. Pre-deuteronomic editor. As in Josh. 1-12, the deuteronomistic author manifestly took his narrative material from an older written source without to any considerable extent recasting it.

In the history of Gideon (6-8) and Abimelech (9) it is plain that two accounts have been combined in the same way in which parallel narratives are so often united in the Pentateuch and Joshua. More or less convincing evidence of the composite character of the text is discovered in other stories also (Ehud, Deborah and Barak, Jephthah ; see below, 4+. The history of the judges was, therefore, related in at least two older books.

These sources were united, not by the deuteronomistic author of Judg. 2:6-16:31, but by an earlier compiler, 2 as is evident from the following considerations :

First, in the seams of the composite narrative no trace of the distinctive deuteronomistic manner can be detected.

Second, the union of the two strands in 9 and in 17-18 (10-21), which chapters were not included in the deuteronomistic Judges (see below, 14), is entirely similar to that in 6-8.

Third, in the introductions and conclusions of the stories there are indications of an underlying editorial schematism different from that of RD.

iii. His two sources. The pre-deuteronomic history from which the deuteronomistic author took his material was itself made up of two main strands of narrative united by a redactor. The case is thus precisely similar to that in Josh. 1-12 (see JOSHUA, 6) ; and since in Josh, we have found reason to believe that the two sources are the continuations respectively of those which in the Pentateuch are distinguished by the symbols J and E, and that they were united by a pre- deuteronomic redactor (RJE), 1 a presumption arises that this is true in Judges also, and this presumption has furnished the working hypothesis of recent criticism.

1 See HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 6. 2 The opposite opinion is maintained by Kittel, almost alone.

It is indeed true that the history of the period of the judges is not the necessary sequel of Josh, in the same way that the history of the conquest and settlement of Canaan is the necessary sequel of the promises to the patriarchs and the history of the exodus in J and E ; it is conceivable that an historian should close a work with the occupation of the promised land, as P seems to have done. a This is hardly probable, however, in early historians, who commonly propose to bring the history down to their own time ; and, antecedent probability aside, it can be shown that neither J nor E comes to an end in Joshua. 8 In Josh. 24, E not only glances back over the preceding history (idolatry of the forefathers ; God s deliverance), but by its earnest warnings of the consequences of falling away from Yahwe and worshipping other gods (19-20, 22) looks forward to the subsequent narration of such apostasy and its results, just as i S. 12 looks back over the period of the judges and forward over that of the kings. The suitable sequel of these verses in Josh. 24 is Judg. 2:13, 2:20-21 (cp 2:7 = Josh. 24:31 D), which in turn lead over to the stories in Judg. J also, whose account of the conquest is preserved in fragmentary form in Judg. 1:1-2:5 (with parallels in Joshua), cannot have ended his history with this incomplete occupation of the land of promise : the very form of the chapter fairly presumes the intention to tell how in after times these cities came into the hands of the Israelites ; and Judg. 2:23a, 3:2a, which are recognised by most recent critics as the continuation of J in Judg. 1, actually lead over to the relation of the wars which Israel had to wage with these nations in the period of the judges.

The affinity of parts of Judg. to E and J respectively has long been observed.

Stade found E, not only (with E. Meyer, I.e.) in parts of 2:5- 36, but also in 10:6-16, which is clearly dependent on Josh. 24 ;* Bohme pointed out the striking resemblances to J in 6:11-24 and 13:2-24; s Budde carried the analysis through the entire book." Winckler, Holzinger, and Moore have worked upon the same hypothesis. 7

Other scholars, while not denying the existence of more than one source in Judges, think that there are not sufficient grounds for identifying these sources with the J and E of the Hexateuch. 8 For this division of opinion a different definition of the problem and a different approach to it are in part responsible.

Kittel and those who occupy his position frame the question in some such way as this : Did the author who wrote the Yahwistic part of the primaeval history and the patriarchal stories in Genesis also write, say, the stories of Samson, or the part of the story of Gideon ascribed by Budde and others to J ? and they find the resemblance in style and diction insufficient to establish identity of authorship in this sense. But the unity of I in this sense is not affirmed by the critics on the other side. Believing that the writing of history began in Israel in the days of David or Solomon with the recent past, the events which led to the founding of the kingdom, and ascended thence to remoter times, they recognise that in the first comprehensive history of Israel from the earliest times to the days of the kingdom there were included not only materials of very diverse character, but materials which had been previously reduced to writing by different hands. 9 The existence of different elements of this kind in J even in Genesis itself is generally recognised.

What the critics mean, who ascribe portions of Judges or Samuel to J is, not that these portions necessarily received their literary form from the same hand as the stories of the patriarchs or the narrative of the exodus, but that they formed part of the same comprehensive historical work in which the Yahwistic parts of Genesis and Exodus were included ; and that they were written in general in the same age and surroundings, and in the same spirit.

It is manifest also that the problem should methodic ally be approached, not, as is generally done, from the analysis of Genesis, but from that of Josh. 1-12, where the nature of the sources is more nearly the same and their relation to the deuteronomistic element similar. When we come at it from this side, there appears to be no greater difficulty in the discrimination and identification of the sources in Judges than in Joshua, where J and E are generally recognised. There is general agreement that Judg. 1 gives us J s account of the conquest, much abridged and glossed by later hands.

B. Additional chapters. Ch. 17-18. and 19-21 contain no deuteronomistic element. In both, two strands of narrative seem to be combined ; the character of the two versions and the nature of the composition make it a reasonable presumption that the sources are the same as in the preceding chapters ; in 19-21, the presence of a third element complicates the problem (see below, 13).

1 In using the word pre-deuteronomic to designate this redaction, it is not meant to imply that it was earlier than 621 B.C., but only that it preceded the deuteronomistic edition of Joshua and Judges.

- P, however, it is to be observed, is an archaeology rather than a history.

3 First demonstrated by E. Meyer, ZATW\ mf. ( 81).

8 Ki. Sa. ( 90). For an earlier attempt see Schrader in De Wette, EM. (8) ( 69).

7 See Budde, Ricttter(KHC), x\L tf. ( 97).

8 Kue. OnJ.(") l355/; Ki. St. A r. ti5 44 ff. ( 92); Gesch. 2i$ff.; Frankenberg, Comp. d. deut. Richter/>uckes( gs); Ko. Einl. 252-254, and in Hastings DB 28n^ ( 99).


4. Analysis, Chap. 1:1-2:5.[edit]

Chap. 1:1-2:5 is in the main from J, and contains an abridgment or epitome of the oldest account of the conquest.

1a (corresponding to Josh. 1:1a) was added by the last editor, making the only possible connection - though a false one - with the preceding book. The hand of the post-exilic editor is to be recognised also in 1:4, 1:8-10 (ascribing to Judah the conquests of Caleb, cp. 1:20-21) 1:18, and in various minor glosses ; 2:1a connects with 2:5b, the intervening verses, containing the reproof administered by the Messenger of Yahwe to Israel for making peace with the Canaanites, are the addition of a redactor, probably RP ; the passage is a cento of reminiscences from the Pentateuch.

5. Chap. 2:6-3:11.[edit]

In 2:6-3:6, the Introduction to the Book of Judges proper, the text is plainly not homogeneous ; but repeated redaction has made the problem presented to criticism very difficult.

vv. 6-10, which connect immediately with Josh. 24:27 and continue the history from that point (=Josh. 24:28-31), are from E ; only 2:7 ( = Josh. 24:31, cp LXX(B) is from a deuteronomistic hand. The sequel to this appears to be 2:13, 2:20-21, and perhaps 3:4. {1} The introduction of the deuteronomistic author is contained in 2:11 f. 14-19; but 2:17 and perhaps 2:16 also is a later addition (RP). V. 2:23a and perhaps 2:23b (reading Israel instead of Joshua) is from J, to which also 3:2a belongs, the original continuation of the account of the conquest in ch. 1 ; 3:1a, 3:3, and perhaps 3:4, are from a deuteronomistic hand ; 3:5 is probably wholly redactional (? RJE ) ; the provenience of 2:22 is not clear ; the glosses in 3:ib, 3:2b are late.-

Chap. 3:7-11 (Othniel) is deuteronomistic throughout, a typical example of the historical scheme set forth in 3:11+.

6. Chap. 3:12-31.[edit]

The story of Ehud has a deuteronomistic introduction (3:12-15) the concrete facts in which, such as the Moabite occupation of Jericho (3:13b), the sending of tribute (3:15b), etc. are of course derived from the original beginning of the narrative and a deuteronomistic close (3:29-30).

In the story itself are some doublets ; most clearly in the account of the audience (3:19::3:20), perhaps also in that of the escape (3:26a : 3:26b), and the Israelite attack on the Moabites (3:27+). The attempt of Winckler to separate two strands in the narrative is not convincing. 3 Perhaps the doublets should be regarded as evidence, not of the existence of a second source, but of the conflation of variants in the same source. The story (or the main narrative) comes from the oldest collection. Ch. 3:31 (Shamgar) must have been introduced here by a very late hand ; at an earlier stage in the redaction it stood after 16:31, where it is still found in several recensions of B.4

1 The verses might in themselves be deuteronomistic and are nowascribed by Budde to Di,an earlier deuteronomistic redaction than ii ff. (Do).

2 For different attempts to analyse this introduction, see Moore, Judges ( 95), and SBO T, Judges ( 97), and Budde, Jit. (KHC, 97).

3 A Tliche Unters. ssjff - ( 92).

  • See 14.

7. Chap. 4 and 5 : Deborah and Barak.[edit]

The deuteronomistic introduction is easily recognised in 4:1-4; the corresponding close is divided between 4:23-24 and 5:31b : materials from the story itself are incorporated, especially in 4:3-4, and traces of an older setting seem to be preserved. The main narrative relates a conflict with Sisera, his defeat and death ; as in 5, Sisera appears in it as an independent and powerful prince. A pre-deuteronomic redactor, for reasons which can only be uncertainly conjectured, connected this story with the account of an Israelite victory over Jabin, king of Hazor, superficially harmonising the two by making Sisera Jabin s general (4:2, 4:7 ; 4:17b also is harmonistic).

The account of the war (? of Zebulun and Naphtali) with Jabin, which is the basis of Josh. 11:1+ also, seems to be derived from the same source as the victory of Judah and Simeon over Adonibezek (Judg. 1:5+, cp Josh. 10), i.e., J ; in that case it was probably quite brief. Contamination from the story of Jabin may be suspected in the mention of Kedesh of Naphtali as the home of Barak and the rendezvous of the tribes (5:10), and the locating of Jael's tent in the same vicinity (5:11, 5:17), far away from the field of battle in the Great Plain ; but the premises of this story are so imperfectly preserved that we can not be certain. The story of Sisera is not improbably from E ; but there are no decisive grounds for the attribution, v. 17b is at least redactional ; 4:5 is a late addition (RP).

Chap. 5 is a triumphal ode, celebrating the victory over Sisera. The title (1) was probably prefixed by the editor who introduced the poem into the historical context (cp Ex. 15:1) ; 5:31b is D's standing formula ; 5:2 is thought by some to be misplaced or editorial ; to others 5:2-3 appears to be an invitatory in the manner of the liturgical psalms ; 5:31a is also questioned (see Budde Ri. ). Whether the ode was included in one of the collections of old Hebrew poetry such as the Book of Jashar, and whether it was found in one of the sources of Judges (? J), are questions which can hardly be answered with any confidence. See further, DEBORAH, 3.

8. Chaps 6-8, 9.[edit]

The usual deuteronomistic introduction is found in 6:1-6, embodying material from JE, and glossed by later hands : the close in 8:28, 8:33-35 is a brief substitute for 9 which was not included in the deuteronomistic Judges. The composite character of 6-8 was early recognised (Studer) 8:4+ cannot be the sequel of 7:22-8:3 ; but the problem in 6-7 is extremely complicated, and a complete solution is scarcely to be expected. See GIDEON.

Judg. 6:8-10, the prophet s reproof, is akin to Josh. 24, 1 S. 7, 10:17+, 12 ; the resemblance may point to identity of source or to dependence, and the verses may be ascribed accordingly to E2 or to a late editor; 1 the fact that the speech is broken off may be urged for the former hypothesis (Budde). The call of Gideon, 6:11-24, is from J (Bohme and most recent critics) ; many glosses, probably by more than one hand, in 6:13b-14, 6:16, 6:17b-18a, 6:20, 6:21b anticipate Gideon's recognition of his visitor, and convert his hospitality into a sacrifice : it is not necessary to suppose con tamination from a second source ; 6:25-32 is cognate to 6:7-11, and presumably from the same source (2) ; late glosses in 6:28b, 6:31ab, 6:32b-33 ; 6:36-40 are with much probability ascribed to E ; 6:34 is from J; 6:35a, 7:2-8 is an addition attributed to RJE (Moore, SOT) or to a post-exilic hand (Budde); 6:35b is a still later exaggeration.

Chap. 7:9-15 is ascribed by Budde to E, by Moore and Holzinger to J. In the description of the night attack on the Midianite camp (7:16-22) two stratagems have been combined - a clear analysis is impossible. The horns are probably from E (cp Josh. 6), the jars and torches then from J ; Winckler with con siderable probability surmises that the latter originally belonged to the account of the attack E. of the Jordan (8:11); 2 it would follow that 8:4+. was omitted by the redactor who fused the two versions in 7:16+. Chap. 7:24-25, 8:1-3, form the conclusion of E's narrative (harmonistic gloss in 7:25b).

Chap. 8:4-21, with the exception of glosses and retouches in 8:10b 8:16, is from the oldest source (J) ; it presumes a personal griev ance which is not mentioned in 6:1-83. Chap. 8:22-23, the rejection of the kingdom, stands on the same plane with i S. 8, 10:17+, 12 ; the question whether we have to do with a late addition to E or with a deuteronomistic hand is of import chiefly for the history of the redaction. The setting up of the Ephod at Ophrah (8:24-27a) is from J (glosses in 26), the comment thereupon (8:27b) deuteronomistic ; 8:28, 8:33-35 is RD's close ; 8:30-32 were inserted by RP (cp 11:2) when he restored 9 to its original place in the book. 3

Chap. 9, Abimelech. The chapter exhibits no trace of deuteronomistic redaction ; but it is plainly composite. Two accounts of the discomfiture of the Shechemites stand side by side in 9:34+ and 9:42+ ; the antecedents of both may be traced in the earlier part of the chapter.

Both sources must have narrated how Abimelech became king ; but 9:1-6 seems to be homogeneous. The story of Gaal (9:26-40 [41]) is, in the main, from J; 1 Jotham's apologue (9:7-21) from E (9:16b-19a, not improbably secondary) ; 9:22-25 E (+RJE), from which 9:42-45 also are derived ; 9:46-55 are ascribed by Moore to E (cp 9:41), by Budde to J (9:41 = RJE) ; 9:56-57 may be from E or RJE.

1 Hardly to RD (Frankenberg).

2 So Holzinger and Budde ; cp Frankenberg.

3 See 14.

9. Chaps. 10:1-5, 12:8-15 : Minor Judges.[edit]

The brief notices of the minor judges differ in both form and content from the stories in the midst of which they stand.

They speak neither of oppression nor of deliverance ; the stereotyped formula is, 'After him NN judged Israel . . . years ... And NN died and was buried in such and such a place'. The years of rule (23, 22, 7, 10, 8) differ noticeably from the symmetrical numbers of RD's chronology (40, 20, 80).

The names of several of these judges are otherwise known as names of clans, and what is told of their numerous posterity, possessions, and matrimonial alliances seems to be the legendary reflection of clan history.

Many scholars therefore think that these notices were made up by a late redactor to round out the number of twelve judges. 2 In confirmation of this view it was pointed out that the sum of the years of their rule (70) is almost exactly that of the periods of oppression (71) in RD's introductions to the stories of the judges ; the post-exilic editor made the succession continuous, reckoning the years of foreign domination (in the intention of RD, inter regna) in the rule of the succeeding judge. 3 The framework in which these names and numbers are set is an imitation of RD. Others, observing that the formula of the minor judges occurs also at the close of the story of Jephthah (12:7, note also the six years of his rule cp 16:20, 1 S. 4:18, 7:15), believe that the minor judges were contained in JE, and were taken thence without change by RD ; the set phrases of RD are an amplification of those of his predecessor. 4

The arguments from the number twelve and from the chronology are not conclusive, and even if it were certain that the minor judges were not contained in the deuteronomistic book, it would still be possible that R P did not invent them, but simply restored them from JE; that the names are really those of clans is not proof of late origin, as we may see from Gen. 38, for example.

10. Chap. 10:6-12:7 : Jephthah.[edit]

The introduction to the story of Jephthah, 10:6-16, is much longer than usual, and appears on close examination not to be homogeneous.

In 10:6-9 the set formulas of RD have been expanded by subsequent editors (especially in 10:6ab, 10:8b-9a) , 10:10-16 is cognate with 6:8-10; it looks as if a redactor had combined an introduction to the Philistine oppression in the days of Eli with that to the Ammonite oppression (cp 7) ; 10:17-18 belongs to the deuteronomistic introduction, the material being taken from the following story ; the closing formulas are found in 11:33, 12:7 (perhaps pre-deuteronomistic) ; in 10:11-12, we have editorial amplification.

In 10:17-12:7, the long diplomatic representation to the king of Ammon, 11:12-28, is foreign to the main narrative ; it has in reality nothing to do with the Ammonites ; the argument is drawn entirely from the history of Israel's relations to Moab. The passage is therefore generally regarded as an editorial addition (? RJE).

Holzinger, followed by Budde (KHC, Richter, 80-82), con jectures that two stories (J and E) about Jephthah have been combined, much as are the two stories about Gideon in 6-8. An outlawed freebooter recalled from banishment by the Gileadites (11:1-10 in the main ; 2 is a late interpolation) ; after seeking aid in vain from the tribes west of the Jordan (cp 12:2, and 11:29), he marches against the Ammonites and defeats them ; the Ephraim- ites who come against him seeking trouble are severely punished (12:1-6). In the other (E) he was represented as dwelling at Mizpah : the enemy is Moab (11:12+, harmonised by RJE by the substitution of the name Ammon) ; the victory is purchased by the vow which cost the life of the hero's daughter (11:30-40). 5

1 Budde suspects considerable contamination from the other source.

2 N6ldeke, A Tliche Unters. 190.

3 See We. C//( 2 ) 2i6/ cp 356 ; Stade, ZA TlVl/. ( Si) ; Budde, Ki.Sa. 134^, Ri. \xf. xvii/ ; Cornill, Einl.P*).

  • Both Kuenen (Ond.ft) 135I./, cp 342, 354) and Kittel (Hist.

83./C) regard the list of minor judges as pre-deuteronomic. 5 See further, JEPHTHAH.

11. Chaps. 13-16 : Samson.[edit]

In the story of Samson the brief deuteronomistic formulas are found in 13:1, 15:20, 16:31. The stories which are not all of the same antiquity, were in all probability found in J ; composition or contamination from E is not demonstrable ; in some cases a later Yahwistic variant has been united with the older story (Budde) ; in 14 an editor has made numerous changes, the tendency of which is to remove the offence of Samson's marriage into a Philistine family. 1

12. Chaps 17-18 : Migration of Danites.[edit]

As has been noted above ( 3, ii. ), chaps. 17-18. exhibit no signs of deuteronomistic redaction. The repetitions which abound in the story have been ascribed to interpolation by an editor whose aim was to throw contumely on the famous sanctuary at Dan ; 3 more probably they are due to the union of two closely parallel versions. 4

The main narrative is from J ; the second version may be traced in 17:2-4, 17:7* 17:11b-12a, 18:3-4*, in one strand running through 18:7-10, 18:15, 18:31 (or 18:30). The hands of both RJE and RP may be recognised ; the former in harmonistic adjustments, the latter chiefly in archaeological notes.

13. Chaps. 19-21: Outrage at Gibeah.[edit]

In chapters 19-21 there is a stratum which in spirit and language is akin to the youngest additions to the Hexateuch and to the historical midrash in Chron. To the late stratum belong 20:1-2*, 20:9-48 (remains of the older text in 20:14, 20:19 20:29, considerable part of 20:36-41, 20:44a, 20:47), 21:2-14 in the main, 21:16, 21:19b, 21:20a, 21:22*, 21:24. The older narrative was itself composite, as appears most clearly in 19. The main source is J, contamination from a second version is to be recognised especially in 19:6b-8, 19:10*, 19:13, 19:15a; a complete separation of the two closely parallel and intimately welded accounts is not feasible. In 21 the rape of the Shilonite maidens (21:15, 21:17-19a, 21:21-23, excluding glosses in 21:22) comes from the oldest source ; the remainder is not homogeneous ; Budde finds (in 21:1, 21:6-8, 21:10a, 21:12*, 21:13, 21:14*, 21:24b) E's account of the expedition to Jabesh combined with the post-exilic version of the same ; others ascribe the repetition and confusion to very late interpolation (especially in 21:4-5), evidence of which is found in 20 also (20:11, 20:18, 20:23-24, 20:27-28, etc.). The midrash seems to have been united to JE by a redactor ; see 14.

1 See Stade, Z/J7W4 250-256 ( 84); v. Doorninck, Th. Tl^ii,- ( 94>-

2 Oort, Th. T 1 285-294 ( 67) ; Halevy, REJ 21 207-217 ( 90). 8 Oort, We. (formerly), Kue., and others.

4 Vatke, Be., Bu., Moore ; see now We. C//P) 363.^ ( 99). 8 Budde (Ri.) finds evidence of two deuteronomistic redactions.

14. Redaction.[edit]

Redaction i. Pre-deutcronomistic (RJE)- As in Josh. 1-12, the deuteronomistic author of Judg. found J and E already united by an earlier redactor (RJE); there is no evidence that he had J or E separately. The earlier redaction was primarily harmonistic ; it laboured with more or less skill to make one continuous narrative out of two. Its religious stand point was that of the prophetic period ; the moral and religious lessons of the history are emphasised, as they were also in the younger stratum of E ; it is not improb able that the beginnings of a pragmatism akin to that of RD were found in RJE. The historical standpoint is that of a united nation, and it was natural that the redactor should see in the invasions of particular regions and the deliverances wrought by local champions the oppression and liberation of all Israel, thus also prepar ing the way for RD .

ii. Deuteronomistic (RD)- The aim of the deuterono mistic author, as has been observed above, was religious rather than historical ; the experience of Israel in the days of the judges is used to enforce for his own generation the lesson that unfaithfulness to Yahwe is always punished by national calamity, but that repent ance brings deliverance. This lesson is set forth in the introductions to the whole book, and to the history of the several judges ; the redactor hardly touched the stories themselves. He freely omitted, however, what did not readily lend itself to his purpose ; chaps. 19 (for which 8:33-35 is a substitute), 17-18, 19-21, and perhaps the end of Samson;s career, 16 (note the close 15:20). Later deuteronomistic editors may have added some verses, especially in the longer introductions (2:6-3:6, 6:1-10, 10:6-18). 5

It is not probable that the deuteronomistic Book of Judges ended with 16:31 (or 16:20) ; the Philistine oppres sion was not at an end with the death of Samson. We should expect the author to include the whole period of the judges down to the establishment of the kingdom, and, at least, he can hardly have failed to record the deliver ance from the Philistines. Confirmation of this ante cedent probability is found in i S. 1-12.

At the close of the life of Eli (i S. 4:18) we read the formula, 'He judged Israel forty years', precisely corresponding to Judg. 16:31 (cp 12:7, 10:2-3, 12:9, 12:11, 12:14); Samuel also is represented as a great deliverer, under whom the Philistines suffered such a repulse that they were subdued and no more invaded the territory of Israel ; the hand of Yahwe was against the Philis tines as long as Samuel lived (i S. 7:13; cp Judg. 2:18 Josh. 1:5 Judg. 3:31, 4:23-24, 8:28, 11:33) : of Samuel also it is said, 'He judged Israel as long as he lived' (i S. 7:15).

We should expect also that the author of the deuter onomistic Judges would bring his book to a close by repeating and enforcing the religious lessons he had so much at heart, just as the deuteronomistic history of Moses closes with his solemn parting admonitions (Dt. 4:29 f.), and the deuteronomistic history of Joshua with similar exhortations from the leader of the conquest (Josh. 23). The farewell address of Samuel, the last of the judges, in i S. 12, with its historical retrospect and its solemn warnings for the future, so evidently marking the bound ary between the history of the judges and the kings, is just such a close as we should look for from the author of Judg. 2:6-3:6 (or 2:11+). The alternative is to sup pose that the passages cited from Samuel belong ex clusively to a pre-deuteronomic editor ; which would compel us to suppose (with Budde) that the original conclusion of the deuteronomistic Judges was omitted by the post-exilic redaction (RP).

iii. Post-exilic (RP). In Judg., as in Josh. 13+, it seems that JE was in the hands of the post-exilic redactor, who restored from it the chapters which RD omitted (19, 17-21). The splitting of the deuteronomistic formula in 4:24 and 5:31b, suggests the possibility that 5 also was inserted by a post-exilic hand. The last redactor also introduced the midrashic version of the war on Benjamin in 19-21 ; many minor additions and changes in the text of other chapters are to be ascribed to this redactor or to still later editors and scribes. To RP many scholars attribute also the minor judges (10:1-5, l2:8-15) ; see above, 9. It is generally agreed that Shamgar in 3:31 belongs to one of the latest stages of the redaction. The history of the text shows that the verse once stood after 16:31 (following Samson), where the Philistine slayer is in place, and was introduced by the usual formula of the minor judges. The character and form of the notice remind us strongly of the exploits of David s heroes (2 S. 23, cp especially Shammah ben Agee, 2 S. 23:11-12 ). Corruption of the name to Shamgar ( 5 6) led to the insertion of the verse before 4-5. 1 It is quite possible that the verse in its original form stood in JE after Samson.

15. Chronology.[edit]

In i K. 6:1 the deuteronomistic author makes the time from the Exodus to the founding of the temple in the 2 fourth year of Solomon 480 years. This is manifestly computed on the basis of twelve generations of forty years. 3

The chronology of RD, in Judg. belongs to the same system. Othniel s victory secured peace for 40 years ; Ehud's, 80 ; Barak's, 40 ; Gideon's, 40 ; Samson judged Israel 20 years. By the side of these round numbers appear others which do not seem to be systematic ; for the rule of the minor judges (23, 22, 7, 10, 8), Jephthah (6), Abimelech (3), and for most of the periods of oppression (8, 18, 20, 7, 18, 40). The sum of all these numbers, together with the times of Moses (40), Joshua, Eli (40, LXX 20), Samuel, Saul, David (40), greatly exceeds 480, and various hypotheses have been proposed to bring the data into agreement. The most probable is that the years of foreign domination are not to be counted separately, but to be included in the rule of the judges, which are thus continuous. We thus obtain : Moses, 40; Joshua, x ; Othniel, 40; Ehud, 80 ; Barak, 40 ; Gideon, 40; Minor Judges with Jephthah, 76 ; Samson, 20; Eli, 40; Samuel, y; Saul, z; David, 40; Solomon (to the founding of the temple), 4 ; total 420+x+y+z, which leaves us 60 (or if with LX we give only 20 years to Eli, 80) years for Joshua, Samuel, and Saul. Substantially the same result is reached by those who reckon in the periods of oppression and exclude the minor judges as a later addition (see 9).

1 See Budde, Ri. x ; and Moore, SBOT, Judges, on 1631.

2 See Nsldeke, ATliche Unters. 173 ff.\ Moore, Judges, Introd. 7; Budde. Ri. xvii_^; also Bousset, Das chrono- logische System d. biblischen Geschichtsbucher, ZA TW 20

i-jfrff- (1900).


16. Ultimate sources.[edit]

The oldest written history of the period of the judges drew its materials from the local traditions ; the story of Ehud is connected with Gilgal ; Gideon and Abimelech with Ophrah and Shechem ; Jephthah with Mizpeh in Gilead ; Deborah and Barak belong apparently to the tribes N. of the Great Plain (though Deborah may have been early appropriated by Ephraim). The subject of these traditions was naturally the daring deed by which an Israelite hero discomfited the enemy and delivered his countrymen ; of the situation only enough was recalled to make the achievement the more glorious ; there was no motive for preserving the memory of the misfortunes of the Israelites in war, or the way in which their neighbours got the upper hand of them. We may be sure that if the deuteronomistic author had found any such details in his sources he would have made the most of them.

Chaps. 13-16 are of a different character. They contain a life of Samson from the announcement of his birth to his death, and narrate, not one signal act of deliverance, but a series of exploits in which the hero, a man of gigantic strength, in his own cause, single-handed, inflicts many injuries upon the Philistines. The stories may reflect a historical situation, the Danite Hercules may have been a historical person ; but it is evident that we have in these chapters not historical traditions, in the sense in which we may use those words of the stories of Ehud, Gideon, Abimelech, and others, but popular tales, in which, as usual, elements of widely diverse origin in part, perhaps, mythical have been united in the imagination of the people. 1 It is note worthy, and not without historical significance, that these are the only stories in the book which come from the south.

Chapters 17-18 , which have for subject the migration of the Danites, the origin of the idol and the priesthood at Dan, are probably derived from the traditions of that sanctuary. Of the history of the war over Gibeah (chap. 19-20), we can only say that it seems to be from an Ephraimite source.

17. Historical value.[edit]

In estimating the historical value of the Book of Judges, we must bear in mind that the stories of the deliverers of Israel represent only certain glorious moments in the history of these centuries ; of their manifold vicissitudes of fortune tradition has preserved but fragmentary memories, and of the long, slow process by which the nomadic Israelite tribes established them selves in Canaan and adopted the agriculture and arts of the older inhabitants, we learn only from the glimpses which the stories incidentally afford us.

The chronological scheme of RD is late and system atic ; we cannot be sure that the order in which the stories were arranged in JE was chronological. In the stories themselves a legendary admixture cannot be denied ; this has been successively heightened by later authors and editors ; the union of parallel accounts by RJE has, in more than one case, wrought an intricate confusion which baffles the keenest analytic criticism.

When all this is recognised, however, it remains true that the picture which the book gives us of the social and religious conditions of the period which preceded the establishment of the kingdom is of the highest historical value. It is manifest that the traditions con tained in it were fixed in writing before the momentous changes which the kingdom wrought had had time to make such a state of things as is represented in Judg. unintelligible or unsympathetic.

We fortunately possess one contemporary monument, the Song of Deborah ; 2 and its description of the great struggle with the Canaanites confirms the impression that the picture of the times which the stories draw for us is as faithful as it is vivid. l

1 See SAMSON, g 2.


18. Text.[edit]

The Hebrew text of Judges is unusually well preserved. Only in parts of the Song of Deborah does any considerable passage seem to be beyond critical remedy. In other difficult places unskilful redaction, rather than faulty transmission, seems to be responsible for the obscurity.

There are two distinct, if not wholly independent, Greek translations of the book ; one found in the great mass of manuscripts (A, etc.), and rendered by most of the secondary versions, of which Lagarde's edition may be taken as a fair representative ; the other in B, a group of minuscules, and the Sahidic version. The latter, which is the younger of the two, adheres closely to MT, and is consequently of relatively little value for the emendation of the text. 2

19. Literature.[edit]

A. Commentaries. Sebastian Schmid, 1684 ; Jo. Clericus 1708 ; G. L. Studer, Richter, 35 ; second (title) ed. 42 Bertheau, 45, (-V8 3 (KGH) ; C. F. Keil, 63, (2) 74 , ET, 68 ; P. Cassel, 65, 87 (Lange s Blbehverk), ET, 72 ; J. Bachmann, 68 (unfinished ; chaps. 1-5) ; Hervey, 72 (Speaker s Commen tary) ; E. Reuss, La Bible, 1, 77 ; Das Alte Testament, 1, 92 ; S. Oettli, 93 (KGK) ; G. F. Moore, 95 (Internal. Crit. Comm.), 98 (SO7\- translation and brief notes) ; K. Budde, 97 (KHC).

B. Criticism. Noldeke, Untersuclnmgenzur Kritikdes A T, 173-198 ( 69); Schrader, in De Wette, Eint.P) 327-333; We. C//(2) 213-238, cp 353-357; v. Doorninck, Bijarage tot de tekstkritiekvan Richteren, 1-16, 123-128 ( 79) ; E. Meyer, Kritik der Berichte iiber die Eroberung Palaestinas, ZA T W\ 117-146 ( 81) ; B. Stade, Zur Entstehungsgesch. des vordeut. Richter- buches, ZA TIV 1339-343 ( Si); J. C. Matthes, Th. T 15 593 ff. ( 81) ; W. Boehme, ZA TW 5251-274 ( 85) ; K. Budde, ZA TW 7 93 -i66 ( 87); Ri.Sa. 166-1 ( 90); Kuenen, Ond.W 1338-367; S. R. Driver, JQR 1258-270 ( 89), Introd.P) (97); R. Kittel, Die pentateuch. Urkunden in den BB Richter u. Samuel, St. Kr.bo^ff. ( 92), Hist. i. ; also in Kautzsch, HS, 94 (analysis in the margin); G. Kalkoff, Zur Quellenkritik des Richter- buches, 93 (Gymnas. Progr.) ; Frankenberg, Die Composition des deuteronomischen Richterbuches, 95 ; Konig in Hastings DB, art. Judges ( 99). See also the commentaries of Studer, Bertheau, Moore, and Budde (using valuable unpublished investigations of Holzinger), and the Polychrome Bible (analysis in colours). G. F. M.

1 On the historical character of Judg. 1, see JOSHUA, n j, also HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 2.

2 On the text see Moore, Judges, xliii^, and in addition to the authors there cited, Mez, Die Bibel des Josephus, 95 ; cp Moore s critical edition of the text in SBOT Heb., 1900.

  • The line here taken renders it unnecessary to discuss other

critical theories, which, resting on mere conjecture, were only provisionally useful. They are briefly referred to by Koni" in ri S ,, a ? d discussed at length by Ball in his commentary. [Ball himself refers Judith to the time of queen Salome- Alexandra (79-70 B.C.), and G. Klein (Actcs du VIII . congres internal, des Orientalistes, sect, s^mit. 287-105, Leyden, 93), reviving a theory of Hitzig, to the period of the revolt of Bar- Cochba (131-135 A.D.).]


(HMGRA KRicecoc), 2 Pet. 87. See ESCHATOLOGY, 3,4, ff.


(npAircopiON), Jn. 182833 19g Acts 2835 ; RV palace, RV n K- PRJETORIUM (q.v.}.


, 76; fem, of JEHUDI, (q.v.}.

i. Daughter of Beeri the Hittite (or rather Rehobothite, see REHOBOTH), and one of the wives of Esau ; Gen. 2634 [P] (LovS[t]iv [A/)EL]). See BASEMATH. A Jewish clan as daughter of a Rehobothite, is not likely. Perhaps Judith is a corruption of Horith (D Tin).

2. See below. T K C


(loyAeie [BN A], i.e., nHirP), one of the Books of the APOCRYPHA [5,4], has come down to us in a shorter and a longer form - and the text of the latter in a variety of recensions.

1. Two versions of story.[edit]

The various texts belonging to the longer (the canonical) recension show much more pronounced differences than are found in those belonging to the other. Even Jerome speaks of the number and variety of the MSS of the Judith legend which had been seen by him.

The two forms of the story are quite different in tendency and in historical background. The contents, which though similar are not absolutely identical, are therefore summarised here separately, as comparison of the two forms of the story may enable us to arrive at sure conclusions as to the date and origin of the book. 3

2. Longer story (A).[edit]

The longer form of the story is as follows : Arphaxad, king of Ecbatana, fortifies his city. Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadrezzar), king of the Assyrians in Nineveh, makes war against him and summons the dwellers in all the lands between Persia and Memphis to his aid. They refuse. Vowing vengeance against them, he marches alone to battle with ARPHAXAD (q.v. , 2), and destroys him. After an interval he appoints Holofernes general over his army, and sends him against those nations which had refused their aid, with orders to spare none who should offer resistance, or should refuse to recognise and worship Nebuchadrezzar as a god.

Holofernes occupies all the places along the sea coast, and destroys all their gods so that all the nations should worship Nabuchodonosor only, and that all their tongues and their tribes should call upon him as god (38). The children of Israel that dwelt in Judaea, terrified at his approach, fortify their hills. Joakim the high priest charges the people of Bethulia and Betomesthaim to guard the passes to the hill-country, while all the inhabitants of Judcea and Jerusalem betake themselves to fasting and prayer.

Achior, the leader of the children of Ammon, tells Holofernes who the Jews are and warns him not to attack them, for if there is no iniquity among them their Lord will defend them and their God be for them. Holofernes and his followers are incensed against Achior, and rebuke him, telling him that there is no God but Nabuchodonosor, who has decreed the utter de struction of the Jews. Achior will be destroyed with them. Having thus spoken Holofernes causes Achior to be cast down and left at the foot of the hill near Bethulia. He is rescued by the Jews, who, after the words of Holofernes have been reported to them, fall down and worship God, saying : O Lord God of heaven, behold their arrogance, and pity the low estate of our race, and look upon the face of those that are sanctified unto thee (or, thy sanctuary [Syr.]) this day (6: 19).

Holofernes lays siege to Bethulia and stops the water supply. The people lose heart and press Ozias and the rulers to give way ; these promise to do so, if no help arise before five days have passed. Now in those days there lived a widow, named Judith, of rare piety and beauty. She fasted all the days of her widowhood save the eves of the Sabbath, and the Sabbaths, the eves of the new moons and the new moons, and the feasts and solemn days of the house of Israel. She blames Ozias and the rulers for thinking of submission, and points out to them that as they are now worshipping none other but the true God and no one among them worships gods made with hands as had aforetime been the case they may safely put their trust in God that he will not despise them nor any of their race. The rulers excuse themselves, and Judith promises to do for them something that shall go down to all generations. When left alone she falls on her face, and at the time when incense is being offered in the temple in Jerusalem she prays God to help her in her undertaking, recalling the deliverances wrought in the time of the Maccabasan revolt and on other occasions when God had signally discomfited the plans of their enemies for the destruction of the Jewish nation. She then decks herself bravely and goes to the camp of Holofernes accompanied by her maid, who carries a bottle of wine, a cruse of oil, a bag filled with parched corn and fine bread (and cheese [It. Syr. Vg. ]). Arrived at the camp, she is brought before Holofernes, who asks her wherefore she has come.

She tells him that her nation cannot be punished, neither can the sword prevail against them, except they sin against their God, but that now they are about to eat all those things which God charged them by his laws that they should not eat, and that they will therefore be delivered into his hands. She will show him the way to the town, and will lead him until he comes to Jerusalem. Holofernes is highly pleased, and bids that his people should prepare for her of his own meats and that she should drink of his own wine. This she refuses ; but in the morning she asks and receives permission to go forth into the valley of Bethulia for prayer ; on three successive nights accordingly she goes forth and washes herself in a fountain by the camp.

On the fourth day Holofernes who wishes to deceive Judith sends BAGOAS (g.v.) the eunuch to invite her to a banquet. She accepts. He drinks deeply and is left alone with her. Praying God for strength she smites off, with his own scimitar, the head of Holofernes, and putting it into her bag of victuals, hastens to Bethulia. All the people run together on hearing her voice, and seeing the head of Holofernes, give praise to God, who has not taken away his mercy from Israel. The next morning they fall upon the besiegers, who, finding their leader dead, lose heart and flee in wild disorder.

The Jews spoil the camp for thirty days, and Judith after singing a song of praise and thanksgiving to God accompanies the victors to Jerusalem, where the rejoicings before the sanctuary continue for the space of three months. After a great and glorious life she dies at the age of one hundred and five years, and is buried in Bethulia in the cave of her husband Manasseh. And there was none that made the children of Israel any more afraid in the days of Judith, nor a long time after her death' (16:25). (Vg. adds : 'but the day of the festival of this victory is received by the Hebrews in the number of the holy days, and is observed by the Jews from that time unto the present day'. )

3. Shorter story (B).[edit]

The shorter form is as follows : Seleucus besieged Jerusalem. The Israelites were fasting and praying. Among them was a beautiful maiden, Judith the daughter of Ahitob. God inspired her with the thought that a miracle would be wrought through her. So she set out from Jerusalem with her maid and went to the camp of Seleucus, where she told the king that having heard that the town was sure to fall into his hands, she had come out first that she might find favour in his eyes. The king, struck by her beauty, desired to have her company. She declared herself willing to satisfy him, but as she was in her impurity, so she told him, she asked his permission to go out unmolested in the middle of the night to the fountain of water to make her ablutions. The king granted her request. At the banquet he drank much wine and was afterwards left alone with her. Taking his falchion she cut off his head and hastened with it to Jerusalem, passing un molested through the camp. The Israelites seeing this unexpected deliverance rejoiced greatly, and going forth routed their enemies. They established this day as a day of feasting. It fell on the eighteenth day of Adar, and was observed as a day on which mourning and fasting were forbidden.

4. Date of B.[edit]

Of the two tales the shorter seems to retain the true original character most. There is nothing improbable in a story of the kind. The names are historical, and the besieged place is Jerusalem. The mention of the day on which the memory of the achievement was celebrated points to the fact that we have here a fragment of the Maccabaean calendar, which was abrogated officially in the middle of the third century of our era, but had fallen into desuetude long before. The narrative is probably the record of an occurrence during the wars of the Macca bees. There is not a single reference in it to cere monial observances, nor any allusion to sin and its consequences for the political future of the nation, through forfeiture of the grace and mercy of God by transgression, and by the worship of false gods. The reason for the visit to the fountain is made perfectly obvious, whilst in the other recension it is anything but clear.

5. Date of A.[edit]

The longer tale differs completely in style, tendency, and conception. A simple incident in a war of antiquity and the heroism of a Jewish maiden are only the warp upon which a later writer has woven his richly embroidered tale. He has transformed it into a tale of comfort and encouragement.

From the leading features of the story as epitomised above, it is evident that the author of the romance laid the greatest possible stress upon strict observance of all the religious cere monial in vogue in his time. He manifests his strong belief that God is sure to grant his aid to those who have not sinned. He takes the greatest care to emphasise the ruin that is sure to follow upon any meddling with the tithes or other sacred things, he abhors all ceremonial defilement, and dwells upon the efficacy of prayer ; the prayer of the righteous and pure widow is sure to be heard, and her intercession saves the Jewish race. Judith scrupulously abstains from touching any of the food of the heathen. She fasts all the days of her widowhood, except on certain feast days and their eves.

All these details show that the author of the longer story was a Pharisee. One might feel inclined to think of him as one of the ASSIDAEANS (q.v. ) from the very great stress he lays on the regular ablution before prayer, which is nowhere else heard of.

A reminiscence of the old original survives in 12:9 where we read that 'She came in clean', but in what respect is not mentioned. We are to understand that the whole rabbinical ceremonial law has been observed with great minuteness by Judith, in full agreement with the decisions arrived at in the controversy between the school of Shammai and that of Hillel. This is equally clear in the matter of food (wine, oil, and bread) and in that of the tithes which it is not lawful for any of the people so much as to touch with their hands (11:13).

These rigorous prescriptions point to the end of the first century B.C.

A further study of the additional elements in the longer version (A) may enable us to fix its date with still greater precision. The chief ruler of the nation is the high priest ; no mention is made of a king. Nebuchadrezzar has killed Arphaxad.

It is easily seen that these names, borrowed from ancient history, stand for more modern ones, and have been chosen for the purpose of giving the book an air of antiquity, since otherwise it would defeat its own ends. Unless put forth as a tale of ancient deliverance it would miss the popular effect it was intended to have in times of danger and distress.

The book also mentions Achior, the chief of the house of Ammon, as friendly to the Jews (5 5 6 :2+}. A great danger threatens the people.

They are uncertain of the issue, but are convinced that God will not deliver them into the hands of their enemies if only they do what is right and live piously. It appears that they are suffering from great drought or scarcity of water.

Taking these and other data (see, e.g. , JEMNAAN) together, we shall find but one period which the author can have had before him the time, namely, of the approach of Pompey to Jerusalem (B.C. 63).

Aristobulus II. had commenced a war against his brother Hyrcanus II. Scaurus (Holofernes), the Roman general in Syria, took the part of Aristobulus. 1 Pompey, before coming to Palestine, had a war with Mithridates, whom he overthrew and slew, exactly as Nabuchodonosor smote Arphaxad. Aretas, king of the Nabataeans, assisted Hyrcanus at the instigation of Antipater the Idumzan. When hostilities commenced between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, a certain holy man, Onias by name ( = Joakim), prayed that the great drought might cease (Jos. Ant. xiv. 2:1). Pompey, taking the side of Hyrcanus, deposed Aristobulus and appointed Hyrcanus high priest.

Here we find all the leading elements in the tale in correspondence with the historical events. BETHULIA (q.v. ) is thus seen to be equivalent to ^jwra : the House of God, Jerusalem. This hypothesis is corroborated and strengthened if we compare the book with another product of exactly the same period, viz. , the Psalms of Solomon, written shortly after this date, when Pompey had already met his death in Egypt.

The situation as viewed by the two authors is almost identical, and the Psalms furnish a number of parallels to the leading views expressed by the author of Judith. He too knows of a high priest only. He too lays preponderant stress on the observance of ceremonial law (3:5-10) and on prayer (2:24 etc.); the prayer of the righteous is heard (15:1). He too dwells on ceremonial pollution and its purification (2:2-3, 8:12-13, 17:25-33); God blesses pious conduct (1:2 87) (see Ryle and James, Psahtrs of the Pharisees, xlviii f. [ '91]). Besides, .the tone which pervades the prayers of Judith and her last song finds its absolute counterpart in those Psalms. Both reflect the same period, viz., circa 50 B.C.

The ceremonial prescriptions mentioned in Judith render any earlier date impossible ; and at any later date the book would have lost its value and importance, as being too transparent a fiction.

Winckler has given an analysis of the sources with new views on Holofernes and Judith (A F 2 266 _^). He derives the name Judith from the Babylonian Ishtar.

According to Willrich (Judaica, 33 [1900]), the book was written in the quiet period between 157 and 153 B.C. The author is one of the Assidaeans (hasidiin) who welcomed Alcimus. He holds that it was not the Maccabees who rescued the Jewish people, but Yahwe alone and his instrument Judith. Ozias( = Jonathan) plays quite a secondary role. The name Holofernes is suggested by Odoarres, Arphaxad by Artaxias, Bethulia by Bethalagan (see, however, HOLOFERNES, BETHULIA, BETH- BASI).

1 See Schurer, Hist. I 318.

6. Original language.[edit]

If the book was meant to be accepted as an old book, and if it was the work of a Pharisee or Assidaean, it could only have been written in the language of the people - viz., either in Aramaic or (what is more probable 1 ) in Hebrew. Jerome mentions Hebrew MSS, and the addition which appears at the end of his translation only proves him to have had access to a text which stood in some relation to the more complete Hebrew text of what is now the short recension (B). In these alone do we find an allusion to the observance of the day as a festival.

7. Editions.[edit]

1. Of the long recension (A) no old Hebrew text has, thus far, been critically edited. Jellinek has merely reprinted a later version Hemdath ha-yamim, 2-3. 62b-65c (Constantinople, 2737) = Bet ha-midrasch, 212-22). A better text is one that has hitherto remained unnoticed (Ozar ha-Kodesh, 66-120.; Lemberg [Amsterdam], 51). A very old version, older at least than the twelfth century if not of even much greater antiquity, has been discovered by Dr. Gaster in the Chronicle of Jerahmeel (see The Chronicles ofjerahmeel, 99). Both of these agree with Jerome and have the same ending. For other allusions to the story of Judith in Hebrew literature see Zunz (Gottesdienstl. Vortr. 1 ^) 131, n. d). The relation between these texts and that of Jerome requires further study.

The Greek versions have come down in three recensions, one of which forms the LXX text (best ed., O. F. Fritzsche, Lib, Apocr. Vet. Test. Grace, 165-203). The second, more akin to the Lat. and Syr., is found in a MS (cod. 58 Holmes and Parsons), and a third in a group of MSS not very different from the latter. The Latin versions are : (a) I etus, ed. Sabatier, Bibl. sac. Lat. verss. antiq. 1 744-790 (1743), from five codices ; (b) Jerome s Vulgata. The Syriac is given in Lagarde, Lib. vet. Test, apocr. Syriace, 104-126 ( 61). For further bibliography (Gr., Lat., and Syr. versions, etc.) see Schiirer, GJVi 599-603. See also Wi. API 266_^

Commentaries. The best thus far is that of O. F. Fritzsche in the Exeg. Handb. 2 111-211 ( 53). For other literature see Schurer (as above ; ET, 603), and C. J. Ball, Speaker s Cotnnt.: Apocrypha, vol. i, to whose lists add A. Scholz, Com mentary"}, 96, and Lohr in Kau. Apokr.

2. Of the short recension (B) only the Hebrew text has come down to us ; see The oldest text with introduction and translation by M. Gaster in PSBA, 94, pp. 156-163 ; where further bibliography is given. M. G.


(loyHA [L]).

i. i Esd. 9 34 =Ezral0 34 UEL.

2. (tovijA [A], icoTjA. [L]), i Esd. 9 35 = Ezra 1043, JOEL (14).


doyAlA t Ti - WH J). is saluted in Rom. 16:15 in conjunction with PHILOLOGUS (q.v. ), who was doubt less her husband (cp ROMANS, 4 10). She may have been a freedwoman of some member of the gens Julia; the name is, at all events, exceedingly common.


(loyAlOC [Ti. WH]), the centurion of the Augustan band (see ARMY, 10), who had charge of Paul when he was sent to Rome (Acts 27 1 3).


(so RV, but RV ra - and AV have Junia, assuming with Chrysostom and other ancient interpreters a feminine nominative for loyNl&N [Ti. WH], which, however, more probably represents a nominative IOYNIAC. an abbreviated form of Junianus) is mentioned in Rom. 167 along with Andronicus as being an apostle, as a kinsman and fellow-prisoner of Paul, and as having been in Christ before him (cp ROMANS, 4 10). It has been conjectured from the name that he may have been originally a slave ; the word kinsman seems to suggest that he was of Jewish birth.

See, further, ANDRONICUS. In the list of the seventy by Pseudo-Dorotheus (A) Junias figures as bishop of Apamea in Syria.

i [Cp Ball, 1244.]


(Drh, rothem, i K. 19 4 / Job 30 4 Ps. 1204t) should be broom (so Job 304 RV, i K. 194 RV m e-, Ps. 1204 RV m e-), except, probably, in i K. 19 4. l

The Heb. word puzzled the LXX translators, who render by fyvTov in i K. 19 5 and by epTj/a neois in Ps. 1204, while in Job 304 the translator shortens his text (Bab mg. inf.j^A have fvAioi/). Pesh. has terebinth in i K. 19, and oak in Ps. 120. Aq. rendered juniper (apxevdia, apKevOtvais, pa.6a.niv) in I K. and in the Psalm ; this is also in Vg., which as usual follows Jewish tradition. Symm. has (TKc mjs, eaTOi/Saa/u.eVwi , fvAioi/, aypiiav.

In spite of the versions Ar. ratam certainly means broom (cp Low, 366). The particular species is probably Genista Rcctam, Forsk. , which, according to Robinson (BR 1 203), is the largest and most conspicuous shrub in the deserts S. of Palestine.

a. i K. 19 5 can be explained by another quotation from the same source. Our Arabs always selected the place of encamp ment (if possible) in a spot where it grew, in order to be sheltered by it at night from the wind ; and during the day, when they often went on in advance of the camels, we found them not un- frequently sitting or sleeping under a bush of Retem to protect them from the sun.

b. Ps. 1204 is a more doubtful passage. RV renders thus, What shall be given unto thee . . . thou deceitful tongue ? Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper. The mode of expression, however, is somewhat artificial, not to say affected (Duhm). The tongue is itself an arrow ; how can arrows be given to it, and how can arrows be united with coals ? Travellers tell us, no doubt, that coals of broom emit an intense heat (see COAL, 2, col. 854). This illustrates the phrase, but not its figurative application in this context. Hupfeld has already seen that coals ( ^>ru) should be tents C ^nx)- This at once gives a new aspect to the passage ; but it creates a new riddle which only a more thorough investigation of the text can solve. Probably, for Q orn, we should read D "1SD, and render v. $b (emended text) thus, Arrows of a warrior are the tongues of the people of the tents of Misrim (see MIZRAIM, z [/>]).

c. Job SO 4 RV, and the roots of the broom are their meat (CDrp), supposing that these roots were sometimes eaten by famine-stricken men. Many critics, however, find this sup position difficult, and propose to read CSn? or D2n/ assuming that fires of rothem branches are referred to (so RVmg. to warm them ). Both C3rP and CSn? are unsatisfactory. 2 It must be TVOjri, purslain (see PURSLAIN), that is referred to ; cni? D Om should be DOT G fnyn ; v. 3 is a collection of misread dup lications and the last two words a glossatorial comment on the corrupt n S. Light and sense are thus restored to an almost desperate passage. Read

Who pluck mallow and the leaves Oyl l, G. Beer) of the sta/t, Who gnaw the broom-plant and the purslain. Thus only two passages with Qrn can be vindicated. But we need not doubt the word on this account. Cp RITHMAH.

T. K. C.

1 Here, as (5 (pa0/j.tv [B], or pajtto.0 [A], or paOa^eiv [L]) inz>. 4 suggests, cm conceals the name, or part of the name, of some locality ; otherwise we do not know where Elijah halted. For nriN cm nnn we should probably read ni3rn jma, in the valley of Rehoboth (Klo., however, D ni D, Egypt ). See CHERITH. To take -c in pa.8ti.tv [B] as a misplaced numeral would be unwise, since <B passes over inN in v. 5.

2 The use of rothem -branches for fuel would hardly be characteristic of the poorest class.


(Greek Z eyc TTATHp = Sanscr. Djaus pitdr ; from VAl F 'shining', seen in dies), the supreme deity of the Greeks, the conception of whom arose from the contemplation of the clear sky (cp Holm, Greek Hist., ET\i-nf.}. In ActslQss, therefore, the words TOV SioTreroOs ( the image which fell down from Jupiter, AV ; so also R V, with marg. heaven ) should be rendered the image that fell from the bright sky.

So Euripides rightly explains the same epithet in speaking of the image of the Tauric Artemis (!fh. T. 977, fiioTreres ayoA/u.a : cp v. 1384, ovpavov n-eVr/jua). [For parallels in Hebrew cp Gen. 1924, brimstone and fire from Yahwe, from heaven (mn riND D DBTlo) ; Mic. 5 7 [6] a dew from Yahwe (nilV DND "?n)-]

The title Olympian ( OXy/uTrtos) was in general use throughout Greece as marking the supremacy of Zeus, owing to the influence of the Homeric poems, in which the abode of the gods was localised upon the summit of Mt. Olympus (cp Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, I. iv. ).

As the god of hospitality and the protector of strangers he was everywhere worshipped as Zeus Xenios. In 168 B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes (see ANTIOCHUS 2) established the worship of the Olympian Zeus in the Temple at Jerusalem (2 Macc. 62 ; on the Syriac equivalent of Atoj OXvfjuriov, see col. 23 top, and on Dan. 1131 and 12 n see col. 22), and that of Zeus Xenios on Mt. Gerizim. It was this Antiochus who resumed the building of the greatest temple of Olympian Zeus, that at Athens, fifteen columns of which still remain : Peisistratos had laid the foundations ; but the completion of the work was reserved for Hadrian (130 A.D. ).

The Jupiter of Lystra (Acts 14 12) is not the Greek Zeus, but the native Lycaonian deity identified by the Greek - speaking section of the population with the supreme god of the Greek pantheon ; but we have no right to draw inferences as to the character of the cult from such identification, for identity of name by no means implied identity in character (e.g. the Artemis of Ephesus was very different from the Artemis of Delos). This caution applies also to the use of the name Hermes in this passage of Acts. Ramsay (Church in R. Emp.W 57, n. ) acutely remarks that true to the Oriental character, the Lycaonians regarded the active and energetic preacher (Paul) as the inferior, and the more silent and statuesque figure (Barnabas) as the leader and principal. l The idea that the deities manifested themselves on earth seems to have been prominent in central Asia Minor. Ovid (Metam. 8621) relates the Phrygian legend of the enter tainment unawares of Zeus and Hermes by the poor couple Baucis and Philemon 2 (the legend was local ised perhaps near Tyriaion, near Iconium : see Ramsay, Church in R. Emp. 58 n. , and Comm. on Gal. 225, where he refers also to Phrygian inscriptions with the words rbv iiri(f>avfffTa.Tov Oeov, "the most manifest god"). 1

In Acts 14:13 (TOV Aibs TOV OVTOS npb TTJS TrdAews, Jupiter, which was before their city, AV ; whose temple was before the city, RV), Codex Beze reads TOV OI TOS Aibs irpb iroAeu? (or better npoTroAetos, as one word), of Zeus who is (called) Zeus-before-the-City, i.e., Zeus Propoleos. This is preferable. 1 Ramsay (Church in R. Emp. 51) compares an inscription of Claudiopolis of Isauria, to the SE. of Lystra, recording a dedication Ait Ilpoaori oi, to Zeus -before -the -Town. In dependent proof of the existence of the temple would probably be the first-fruits of excavation on the site of Lystra.

W. J. W.


(eSoycieO. Lk. 23 7 (cp20 2 o). See GOVERNMENT, 30-31.


pOn HCT-V, 'kindness is requited', 23 ; APOBACOK [B], AcoB&ecA [A], io>c&Bee [L]). a son of Zerubbabel (i Ch. 32of). The name seems improbable ; it follows Hasadiah, and is of a type which is unusual in Hebrew proper names.

LXX{L} suggests jnc irp Jehosheba, of which Jushab would be a corrupt fragment, and hesed a fragment of a duplicated Hasadiah. Cp the corrupt names Giddalti, Romanti-ezer, etc. (see HEMAN, TOB-ADONIJAH). T. K. C.

1 [In Acts 14 12 in its present form, two reasons for the prominence of Barnabas seem to be combined : (i) that he was of imposing stature (contrast Paul, Ada Pauli et Theclir, 3), and (2) that he was not forward to speak, like Paul. Ejrt6.) K.r.A. ( because he was the chief speaker, EV) may perhaps be an early addition (the Fleury palimpsest omits). On the source of ActslBy: cp ACTS, 10. ! ..]


3 [If conjectures are permissible should we not read, with Valckenar, o tt iepeiis TOV TOV Aib<r iepoO TOV OI TOS K.T.A. , and the priest of the temple of Zeus which was etc. ? ED.]

4 li ayyikra Katba, 32. See Nestle, Exp. T 10, 527(1 ( 99); Chajes, Markus-studien ( 99), 78.


(Administration of). See LAW AND JUSTICE.


(loycroc). under the form Justa, Justi, was a common name among the Jews. Josephus men tions three persons of the name, including a son of his own. Bar-Kappara, denouncing the practice of taking Roman names, says, They did not call Reuben Rufus, Judah Julianus, Benjamin Alexander, Joseph Justus. 4 We need hardly suppose that he is attacking the Alexander and Rufus of Mk. 152i, and the Joseph- Justus of Acts 123, but the coincidence of the names is remarkable.

1. Joseph Barsabas, surnamed Justus, Acts 1 23 ; see BAR- SABAS, 2.

2. Jesus, Justus, a Jewish Christian who, unlike most who were of the circumcision, was a comfort to Paul, Col. 4n. Theophylact identifies him with 3 below. According to a late tradition he became bishop of Eleutheropolis.

3. Titius Justus, see below.


(AB 3 D*. etc.), or (RV) TITUS JUSTUS (NE) or Titius Justus (TITIOC loyCTOC [Ti. WH], B*, Vg. , Memph. , Arm.), a proselyte (ceBOMGNOC TON 66ON). whose house adjoined the synagogue, and who received the apostle Paul at a critical period during his first visit to Corinth (Acts 18?). As Ramsay points out, 1 he was evidently one of the coloni of the colony Corinth ; the adhesion of a Roman citizen would be a great help to a Christian missionary. When the Christians left the synagogue, the house of Justus provided a convenient meeting-place. The exact name of Paul s friend, how ever, is disputed. Tregelles inclined to Justus (AV) ; Ti. , WH, and Blass adopt Titius Justus ; Wieseler, on doubtful grounds, prefers Titus Justus (RV). The decision may perhaps be given by Paul himself, who, as Weizsacker notes, (in the present text) makes no reference to his Corinthian entertainer. Probably not one of the forms given above, to which may be added the bare Titus (Pesh. , Theb. ), is correct.

Probably the true name is Tertius Justus, Titius being a corruption of Tertius. The Roman Christian who had received Paul during his first visit to Corinth was of course still his intimate friend during his second visit, and as such was proud to discharge the important duties of a secretary. 1, Tertius, who write this epistle ..." (Rom. 1622). T. K. c.


(r\W; Josh. 21 16: TANY [B], om. A, leTTA [L]; IETA), or Jutah (HDV ; Josh. 15 55 RV ; ITAN [B], leTTA [AL]), a place in the hill-country of Judah, a Levitical city according to the Priestly Writer.

By mistake (notice the number in v. 60) Juttah is omitted in MT of i Ch. 059 [44]; it is restored by Be. and Ki., who have not noticed, however, that (B u (array, Iota) had preceded them. 1

Eusebius and Jerome describe Juttah as a large village, 1 8 R. m. to the S. of Eleutheropolis (Onom. 26649; 133 10). This exactly agrees with the distance to the SE. from Beit Jibrin of the modern Yattd, which lies very high on the S. slopes of a mountain, 5^ m. S. by W. from Hebron (Rob. BR 2 628 : Guerin, J-udte t 8205 ; PEFM 3 310).

Reland, Robinson, Renan, and Smend have identified it with the city referred to in Lk. 1 39 (eis rrdAii/ lovSa [Ti. WH]), but Judah there seems to be parallel to the hill-country (cp v. 65), so that no particular city is specified, and, as Guenn points out {Judee, 1 88), the attested Greek form of Juttah has a T not a S. See also Schick, ZDPV 1l9,T._ff. (99). On the transition from the Hebrew to the Arabic form, see Kampffmeyer, ZDPV 16421- T. K. C.


pp), 2 K. 625 RV, AV CAB (q.v.).


jyfl?, [ whom ] God collects ), a city of Judah on the border of Edom, the native town of BENAIAH (i).

Josh. 15 21 (KO.\ j3<u<reAer)A [B], icatrfleTjA [A], Ka/3(n)A [L]) ; 2 S. 2320 ((cajSeo-erjA [B*A], Karapecr8r)\ [B^mg.], yaacr<n)A [L]) ; i Ch. 1122 (ca|3ao-ai]A [BA], j3a<7aj)A [N vid -], (ca/3<r<:7)A [L]).

In Neh. 1125 the name appears as JEKABZEEL N om - BN* A > /ca/3<re7?\ [N c - a m *f-L]. ^ost probably it is a corruption of Jehallese el (^KxWr). Hallese el (SNsVn) i-e. the important town elsewhere miscalled Ziklag, on the site of Halasa, SW. of Beersheba, towards Ruheibeh (Rehoboth). David's close connection, prob ably by birth and certainly by fortunes, with the Negeb, and the fact that Benaiah was the commander of the Cherethites ( Rehobothites) and Pelethites (Zarephathites) , strongly favours this view. See JUDAH.

It must be admitted that Jekabzeel, Kabzeel are in themselves likely forms ; the present writer has therefore been reluctant to resort to emendation. Winckler's treatment of the Kerethi and Pelethi (GI ii. 184^), however, so nearly approaches that proposed in this and other articles (especially PELETHITES, REHOBOTH, ZAREPHATH), and adds so much force to the argument for deriving David's bodyguard from the Negeb (see NEGEB), that it would be misplaced hesitation to withhold this conjecture, which is in fact not very much less probable than the restoration of Halusah for Ziklag. See ZIKLAG, and cp HAZELELPONI. T. K. c.

1 Si. Paul the Traveller, 256.


(BHJ5, holy, 98 ; K <\AHC [BAL]).

i. Also called Kadesh-Barnea (W")3 p, peculiar to D (RD ) and P, K. papy?) [BAFL], once K. rov p. Num. 3 4 4 [BAFL], on the Targ. D pn for Kadesh see JERAHMEEL, 4), one of the most important places in the history of Israel previous to the conquest, is now identified with Ain-Kadis, 50 m. S. of Beersheba.

1. Situation.[edit]

From its situation it is plain that it must always have been a central spot, and Trumbull, with whom Guthe (ZZ?PF8 iSa/:) in all essentials agrees, has shown that the biblical references to Kadesh are best satisfied by identifying it with Ain Kadis (see NEGEB, and [on the confusion between Kadesh and Petra] SELA). In the OT it appears as the frontier- city of Edom (Nu. 20 16), and in P and Ezek. as part of the southernmost border of Palestine (Nu. 344 Ezek. 47 19 [KaS-rj/j. B] 48 28). The surrounding district is once called the desert of Kadesh (Ps. 29 8), and was perhaps identical with that of Beersheba (Gen. 21 14). 2 Its name, however, is given by P as PARAN (Nu. 183 26), and by another writer of the same age as Sin (EV ZIN). S It is by no means improbable that the district coincided with the N. Arabian Musri mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions, see MIZRAIM, 2 b.

2. Sanctity.[edit]

The significance of the name Kadesh fully accords with all we know of the whole district. In the old patriarchal legends the district of Kadesh (see BERED, BEER-LAHAI-ROI, SHUR), enters into the stories of ABRAHAM, HAGAR, and ISHMAEL, 4 its prominence being no doubt derived from its association with the early life of Israel after the Exodus, the old accounts (JE) of which make Kadesh the goal on leaving Egypt, and the centre of the forty years wanderings ; see WANDERINGS, 3 ff. The events related of Meribath-Kadesh (see MASSAH AND MEKIBAH), and the evidence of the name Well of Judgment as applied to Kadesh (csrp py, Gen. 14y ; 5 cp Nu. 8836 [L]), suggest that Kadesh was renowned both for a theophany (cp also Gen. 16:7-8) and for some divinely given decision or legislation. 1 These, un fortunately, are not directly mentioned ; but it is not impossible that they may be found buried away under a mass of redactional matter in Ex. 33-34, 2 the antiquity of the main part of which chapters is generally admitted ; see EXODUS i. , 6.

1 It is doubtful whether AL omit ; j3ai#(%> [A], |3cu0ovp [L] may represent this name or possibly Bethzur, cp /Seflcroup (Aid. and 121 HF ad loc.).

2 According to Eusebius the desert of Kadesh extends to Petra, and includes Hazazon-Tamar, Hormah, and evva (see ZIN) ; but the statement requires criticism.

3 Cp the variation in Nu. 8836 where after Zin HAF reads and they departed from Zin, and came to the wilderness of Paran, which is Kadesh ; <5 L has the interesting reading to the Well of Judgment, which is Kadesh.

4 The instances where Mizraim in these narratives refers to the N. Arabian Mu.sri are to be specially noted (see MIZRAIM, tag.

8 According to Wi. (GI 2 33) En-mishpat is localised in Gen. 14 7 by an arbitrary conjecture, and the Kadesh originally meant by the gloss was Kedesh-Naphtali (see SODOM). Possibly, how ever, En-mishpat is a scribe s error for Ir-misrephath, i.e. Ir Sarefath, the city of Zarephath (Che.). See SODOM, ZAREPHATH, and cp MISREPHOTH-MAIM.

3. 'Exodus' tradition.[edit]

The covenant in Ex. 34 is admittedly older than either the Decalogue, or the code in 20+ ; and the theophany (33:18+, 34:5) in which Yahwe reveals his name and manifests his presence is not only superfluous after the preceding history of the Exodus given by J, but is in a marked degree cruder and more anthropomorphic than the similar theophany in Ex. 3-4. (see esp. 33:20-23 ). 3 The conjecture that Kadesh was the scene of what might appear to be the first manifestation of Yahwe to Moses, explains the words of Hobab in Nu. 10 30 ( I will depart to my own land and to my kindred ) which, on the usual assumption that the scene is laid in Horeb, hard by Hobab s home (Ex. 3i), are somewhat un natural. Moreover, this new importance of Kadesh makes it probable that it is to be connected with a specific tradition, certain traces of which are to be found imbedded in JE s account of the wanderings. It has been shown elsewhere that the details of the journey from Egypt to Sinai are borrowed from a later stage of the wanderings (Exoous i. , 5 ff.}. Traces of a similar tradition following the departure from Kadesh may perhaps be discovered in Nu. 21 1-3, where the wanderers have proceeded N. to HORMAH (q.v. ), and the continuation of the march (in the same direction) finds them in Beer (21i6-i8a, i.e. Beersheba to the N. of Hormah, or Beer-lahai-roi ?). 4 The rest of this narra tive is not directly recoverable ; its historical value will depend upon the view taken of the origin of the tribe of JUDAH (q.v. ).

Accepting Schiele s view that the 'city of palm trees' (Judg. 1:16) is to be located in the extreme S. of Judah (cp the name TAMAR) its identification with Jericho being due to mistaken glosses we may be justified in emending the unknown -rn 0"inNn ( 'way of Atharim', Nu. 21:1), on the road to Hormah, into D IDnn TJ? ( 'the city of palm trees ). 5 To the journeying referred to above, which started from Kadesh, we may possibly assign the capture and occupation of Hebron and the sur rounding districts (see HEBRON, i, JERAHMEEL, 2). It may be conjectured further that the journey from Kadesh north wards to Judah is a levitical tradition. In support of this it may be noticed that tradition seems to associate the Levites with Kadesh (see LEVITES), and a close inspection of their name-lists makes it highly probable that previous to their diffu sion throughout Israel they had come from the south. The same evidences show that Levite is no ethnic, but a class-name (Hommel perhaps correctly connects with the S. Arab, labiw, temple-servant, AffT z-j^f.) applied to special members of several closely related clans and families. See GENEALOGIES i., 7 [v.].

In view of this relation between Kadesh and Judah, it may be noticed that tradition sends David himself to the wilderness of Paran (i S. 25:1, see PARAN), perhaps his original home, and that, as Prof. Cheyne suggests, En-gedi (nj-py), in i S. 23:29 24:1, as well as in Josh. 15:62, 2 Ch. 20:2, should, under the circumstances, probably be emended to B li^ py, C P En-mishpat ( 2 above); see also AJSL, 1900, p. 177 n. [See further JERICHO, JUDAH, 5, NEGEB, PARAN, SODOM, ZAREPHATH.]

2. Kadesh, on the left bank of the Orontes. The most southern city of the Hittites, situated on an emin ence about 5 m. from the lake called in the middle ages Buheiret el-Kades. 6 Representations of it are given on the walls of the Ramesseum at Thebes, and the heroic deeds of Rameses II. before the city form the subject of a well-known epic. 1 No reference to it occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions ; apparently it had been destroyed by the Syrians of Damascus. According to some critics it is mentioned in the OT, in the account of David s numbering of the people, 2 S. 246 (see TAHTIM- HODSHI). If this view were correct, it would show that the Hittites still held Kadesh in the time of David. It has also been found by critical conjecture in Judg. 4:2, 4:13, 16 (see HAROSHETH), and in Judg. 5:21-22, under lying the corrupt text of which we may probably detect something like this :

Then fought the Kidshonim ;
Kidshon its mighty ones were stunned.
The Kidshonim dyed the torrent Kishon,
The Hadrakkim dyed it like wool. 2

The form Gadasuna may have belonged properly to the people of Kadesh ; it occurs in a corrupt form in the epic of Pentaur and in the treaty between Rameses II. and the Hittites. 3 The men of Kadesh (the place of residence of Sisera, Judg. 4) and of Hadrach fought in the army of Sisera against the Israelites. For another Kidshon, see BEZAANANNIM, KISHION. Cp SISERA. (i) s. A. c., (2) T. K. c.

1 See also JEALOUSY, TRIAL OF, i. The budding of Aaron s rod in token of the pre-eminence of the Levites is placed at Kadesh by P in Nu. \6f. Cp LEVITES.

2 The necessity for any renewal of the covenant (as these chapters have been at times explained) disappears when it is realised that the story of the calf-worship belongs to 2.

3 Verse 20 can scarcely be explained after such passages as 24 io/., etc.

4 The wilderness in v. i8 19 is that of Arnon in w. 13. Verse iS6 follows immediately upon v. 15.

6 Or, better still, into <-)CN in "pi, the way of the mountain- land of the Amorite (Che.). Kadesh was in fact close to the Amorite mountain-region (Dt. 1 20).

8 See Maspero, Struggle of the Nations. 140 ff. 301 ff. ; WMM As. u.Eur. 212 j


( pNVp lp, God is in front, as leader, K&AMIHA [BNA], K6A- [L]). a Levitical name men tioned with JESHUA (7) in the great post-exilic list (EZRA -. 9. 13^)- Ezra2 4 o=Neh. 7 43 (KABAlHA [B], AGKMIHA [L]) = i Esd. 526 (AV CADMIEL, KoAonAoy [B], KA.AMIHAOY [A]) : also among those officiating at the constitution of the congregation (see EZRA ii. , 12 and 13 /. ), Neh. 94/. (see BANI, 3) ; also amongst the signatories to the covenant (see EZRA i. , 7), Neh. 10 9 [io].

See also Ezra 3:9 (on which see EZRA), and Neh. 12824. In the last-cited passage, the son of Kadmiel should be Binnui (or Bani) Kadmiel (see BINNUI, 2). The name should perhaps be read in i Ch. 27i7 for KEMUEL (3); see GENEALOGIES i., 7 [i.] n. Both names may come from Jerahme el (Che.).


COblpri i.e., men of the east, 1 KeAMCON. [?ic D], KeAMCONAlOYC [L]). Inhabitants of the Syrian desert, like the b ne Kedem (see EAST, CHILDREN OF THE), Gen. ISigt, R- Cp KEDEMAH (riDip), a son of Ishmael.

Not improbably, however, Kadmonite is a corruption of Jerahmeehte (cp REKEM). This suits their position next to the Kenizzites, and, if correct, favours the view that the Hittites of Palestine are the Rehobothites (a textual corruption ; see . REHOBOTH).


(PJ?J, Nu. 2422 RV ; RV m K- and AV, the Kenite(s). See AMALEK, 6/; CAIN, 5; KENITES.


(" pi?; K^AA&i [K""-if-], BN*A om. ( KA.A/v\ei [L]), a priest in Joiakim s time (see EZRA ii. , 6b u), Neh. 12 20. Cp SALLAI.


(|if>). Judg. 10 S RV ; AV CAMON.


(HJI? ; KAN9AN [ B ]- K&NA [A], KAN&6I [L]), a place on the boundary of Asher (Josh. 19 28). At first sight it appears as if Kanah should be near Zidon, but the description probably means only that from the former place the border stretches northward to Zidon ; and that no places requiring to be mentioned in this part of the border occur to the writer (so Di. ). Kanah may therefore be the modern village of Kana, 7 m. SE. of Tyre.

Kanah was identified by Eus. and Jer. (OS) with CANA OF GALILEE.

1 See Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 393, n. i.

2 See Che. JQR 10536 ( 98). w.2i and 22 are transposed. Read IDrta for ID 1 ?."!- DID 3py s a scribe s attempt to make sense of D JIDIJ ( = D 31CHp)- Th e above is a modification of Ruben s very acute restoration in JQR 10552 f. ( 98). Ruben reads O Cnp, men of Kadesh, in /. 3 above, but misses the point in lines i and 2. He detected 37in, the Hadrakkite in DVin, and B* DB3, like wool (Ass. nat>dsif, Mike red-coloured wool, Del. Ass. HWB 4451} ; cp ASUR-BANI-PAL, 6, n. 2), in jy <rSJ . CS"U (rather CETls) he explained from the Ass. inscriptions as meaning dyed it (D", suff. of 3rd sing. masc.). The poem was written by some one who had Babylonian culture. Note ^BO TIN. perhaps a bowl of bronze (Ass. urudii), v. i^b. See JAEL.

3 See At. u. Eur. 335, cp 94 104 (cited by Ruben).


(nj, reeds ?), the name of a torrent and wady (?rO, AV river, RV brook ) mentioned in the definition of the borders of Ephraim and Manasseh (Josh. 168 ITg). The same form Kanu appears as that of a principality in the Am. Tab. 251.

<B s readings are, eiri x f ^ Kava t Irt Qdpayya xapava [B], CTTI Xf-nappovv Kava, eir*i <f>dpayya Kavai [A], ttii xeifidppov Kara, evri <t>dpayya [enrl At /3a icard fydpayya. lacip] [L], in valient arundineti.

The border of Ephraim goes out from Tappuah westward to the torrent Kanah, and ends at the sea (168), while that of Manasseh descends to the torrent Kanah, southward of the torrent (1?9). Similarity of sound at once suggests that the torrent Kanah may be the Wddy Kanah, SW. of Shechem, which, passing into the W. Ishkar, joins the Auja, and so reaches the sea. There is indeed one phonetic difficulty (k is distinct from k) ; but on the whole this theory (which has been adopted by Conder) suits the other topographical indications best. On the other hand, apart from these indications, a plausible case is made out by Guerin for the Nahr el-Falik, a little to the N. of Arsuf, the Roche- taillie beside which the English crusaders under Richard I. tarried on 6th September 1191. It is bordered, Gueiin says, and even filled with a forest of reeds of different kinds, and he goes on to identify this river with the Nahr el-Kasab ( stream of reeds ) of the Moslem historian Baha ed-Dln. The latter river, however, is rather that now known as the Nahr el-Mefjir, which reaches the sea about 13 m. N. of the Nahr el-Falik , and therefore cannot be the torrent Kanah. And even the Nahr el-Falik can be identified with the torrent Kanah only if En-tappuah is placed where Guerin places it, to the NE. of Shechem.


(rn, bald, 66 ; cp KORAH), father of JOHANAN (q.v., 9); Jer. 40 8_^ 41 -n /. 42i8 432 4 /. (KARH6 [BKAQ]) ; also 2 K. 25 23 (AV CAREAH ; KARH6 [BA], KAPHG [L]).

For another possible Kareah, restored in Judg. 10 1 by Hoi- lenberg, see Moore s noteadloc. Cp ISSACHAR, col. 2293, n. 4.


( KApeM [BAL]), in the hill-country of Judah, mentioned only by (@ (Josh. 15 59). It is no doubt the modern Ain Karim, W. of Jerusalem, identified else where with ^Enon (see SALIM), BETH-CAR, BETH- HACCEREM. Its ancient name ( Vineyard ) was well justified.


(KApiAGlARlOC [A]), i Esd. 5 19 RV, AV KlRIATHIARIUS.


or (RV) Karka (ny\r$n, with art. and the locative ending; T HN KATA AyCMAC KAAHC [BAL]), apparently a place on the S. border of Judah (Josh. 153). According to Wetzstein (Del. Gen.W 586) the Makrah-plateau is meant (see NEGEB). The fact, however, that the || passage (Nu. 34 4) says nothing of the Karka , and the oddness of the expression (yjTip means ground," pavement, bottom ) provokes criticism. For a probable emendation see HAZAR-ADDAR, JERAHMEEL, 4. T. K. C.


O pli?; KARKA [A], -p [BL]), the place to which Zebah and Zalmunna had fled from Gideon, and where they were surprised by him (Judg. 8iof). It is the Karkar, S. of Hamath, mentioned by Shalman- eser II. (KB 1 173). See GIDEON, 2, and cp Niebuhr, Studien, 120. T. K. c.


(nrnp), given as a levitical city in Zebulun, Josh. 2134, but according to most only a variant of KATTATH (q.v.). Kartah, however, may be another form of KARTAN (q.v.}. <S B reads /coS^s i.e. , Kadesh (Kapoa [A], Kapida, [L]).


(jrni?), a city in Naphtali (Josh. 21 32!; GeMMcoN [B*], T e- [B a b <], THN Noe j- A ] f THN KApGAN [L]), called Kiriathaim in iCh. 676[6i]. It has been overlooked that both names may be and probably are corruptions of rn|3 i.e. , the ancient city of CHINNERETH [q.v.~\, perhaps the later Chorazin (see GENNESARET). The name Kartan does not occur in the list of Naphtalite cities in Josh. 1932-38, where Chinnereth is found. See KARTAH. T. K. c.


(n^j?; KATANAG [B], KATTAG [A], KOT. [L]), a town in Zebulun (Josh. 19 15).

A Talmudic statement (Talm. T. Meg. 1 1) identifies it with the later Ketunith, which is probably the modern Kuteineh, W. of the Merj-ibn- Amir. This identification, however, does not meet the requirements of the list in Joshua. Kattath should be near Shimron (SemuntyeK). Judg. 1:30 suggests that Kattath = KITRON (q.v.). T. K. C.


(Tip ; KHAAp [BNADL]), a son of Ishmael (Gen. 25 13 iCh. 129), appears as a representative Eastern people, Jer. 2io (opposed to Chittim), as flock- owning, Is. 60? (|| Nebaioth), Ezek. 2?2i (|| TTtf), and tent -dwelling, Jer. 4928 (cp v. 29) ; hence its D lVH Is. 42 ii, are probably encampments ; the tents of Kedar are used in figures, Ps. 120s (with Meshech) Cant. Is. Only in Is. 21 16/. (see ISAIAH ii. , 8 [7] ; a fragment of doubtful date) are the men of Kedar spoken of as warriors ; here, too, the tribe of Dedan, in contrast to Gen. lO? and 25 3, is reckoned as part of Kedar. In later times the name seems to have been used so as to include all the wild tribes of the desert, who were naturally disliked by the peace-loving Judaeans, and thus Kedar quite usurped the place of Ishmael. See further ISHMAEL, 4 (2). F. B.


(nO*]j5, east ; KeAMA [BAL]), an Ishmaelite tribal name, Gen. 25 15 [P] (KeAMAN \_D\, KeAeMA [L])- iCh. 131 (KeAAM [A]). Possibly a corruption. Cp KADMONITES.

To compare the Kdm or Kdma of the story of Sanehat with Maspero (PSBA 18io6 [ 96]), is rash, for Kdm, whither the wandering Egyptian betakes himself, is clearly a general term for the region in the SE. or E. of the Dead Sea. T. K. C.


(Jt\D1jp), a town which gave its name to the wilderness whence Israel sent messengers to Sihon, king of Heshbon (Dt. 226 KeA[A]MCo6 [BAFL]). It was probably situated on the upper Arnon at the northern extremity of the wilderness, a more westerly position being unsuitable since Israel did not enter Moab (cp Nu. 21 13, Dr. Deut., ad loc.).

The account of the sending of the messengers in Nu. 21 nf. finds a close parallel in the embassy to Edom, Nu. 20 14^, where the scene is laid at Kadesh. Are the two accounts derived from one (o and y; are easily confused)? Elsewhere Kedemoth is found only in P, as a city given to the Reubenites (Josh. 13 18, flaKfSfuod [B], Kf8r)fj.<a0 [A], KO.. [L]), and as a levitical city (Josh. 21 37, Se<c/uwi [B], yeSercov [A], K. [L]= i Ch. tj 79 [64], Ka.Sapiof [B], Kap.T)S<o6 [A], Ka.6r]fi<a6 [L]). It has been conjectur- ally identified with Umm-er-resas, whose ruins prove it to have been at one time a place of some importance (cp Baed.(3) 177). See JAHAZ. s. A. C.

1 See also CHADIASAI.


(Bnj5 ; for meaning cp KADESH).

1. (icafiTjs [B], Kefief [AL]), a city on the extreme southern border of Judah (Josh. 1623). It is perhaps the same as Kadesh-barnea * (see WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF), which will otherwise have been omitted from the list. Dillmann, however, identifies it with the Ktldiis of Mukaddasi, one day S. of Hebron. Hebron, Kadus, and Zoar were, in Mukaddasi s time, stations on the S. caravan-route. Wetzstein (Del. Gett.W 574_^-) wrongly identified Kadus with Kadesh-Barnea.

2. (iceSe? [BL], KeSee [A]) in i Ch. 672(57], a levitical city in Issachar. The parallel passage in Josh. 2128 (cp Josh. 19 20) has Kishion ; the napie Kidsun (if the view taken in KISHION is correct) accounts for both forms. Conder identifies this Kedesh with Tell Abu Kuiies, near LejjQn (PFM26g), and a critical conjecture of Wellhausen s depends on its existence (see DEBORAH, 2).

1. References.[edit]

3. (Kadrj^ [B], /ce5ej [AVL]), an ancient sanctuary which preserved its rights of asylum even under the Priestly Code ; it is the Kidsi, Ki-id-sa, Ki-id-si, Gi-id-si, Gid-si of Am. Tab. (see AT? 5 40* [Index] ; and cp Pap. Anast. i. 10 1 ; J?P lioo ; As. u. Bur. 213 n. ).

It is usually called simply Kedesh (Josh. 1222 the king of Kedesh, 1937 icaSe[BJ, Judg. 49Kei4es[A], icaSrjs [L], 4io)ies [A],4nce5es[B], 2 K. 15 2 g xe^fBAL], i Mace. Il6 3 KT)6es [AN] 73), but occasionally also Kedesh-Naphtali (Judg. 46 KaSr)? [L], Tob. 1 2 (tvSuo? [BN], KV$HOV [A]), or Kedesh in Galilee

(Josh. 21 32 <ca5es [B], I Ch. 661 [76] ice6es [B] <ca8js [L], and once Kadesh in Galilee, in the hill-country of Naphtali (Josh. 207). On the geographical definition in Judg. 4n, see BEZAANANNIM.

It was the home of Barak (see DEBORAH, 2), and apparently the rallying -place from which the war of liberation was fought. Lying as it did on the northern frontier of Palestine (cp TAHTIM-HODSHI), it had to bear the brunt of the first incursion of the Assyrians, and with other neighbouring places(see ABEL-BETH-MAACAH, etc. ) it was in 734 B. C. captured by Tiglath-pileser, its inhabitants being carried away to Assyria (2 K. 15zp). It is twice mentioned ( i Mace. 11 63 73) in connection with the defeat of Jonathan the Maccabee near Hazor, and Josephus, who calls it /caSacra, Kfdacra, Kedeaa, KvSacra, KvSia-a, describes it as between the land of the Tyrians and Galilee (, 4 nt. xiii. 56), as belonging to the Tyrians (B/ ii. 18 1), or as a populous and welU fortified inland village of the Tyrians (BJ\\. 23) which was the scene of various warlike incidents in his own time. Eus. (OS 271 55) describes Kv5i<T<ros as situated 20 in. from Tyre, near Paneas. In the twelfth century Benjamin of Tudela visited Kedesh, and found there the tomb of Barak and several Jewish saints (Early Travels in Pal. 89).

2. Situation.[edit]

Kedesh still retains its ancient name (Kades). J. L. Porter (Kitto, Bib. Cycl. s.v.) well describes it : High up among the mountains of Naphtali is a little green plain, embosomed in wooded hill-tops. On its western side is a rounded tell, on which the modern village stands. From the tell a low, narrow ridge projects into the plain, with flat top and steep sides, covered with rank vegetation. Both ridge and tell are strewn with ruins. In the plain, at the northern base of the ridge, round a little fountain, lie the most interesting remains of Kedesh. A number of sarcophagi serve the purpose of water-troughs. Near these are the ruins of two beautiful buildings, but whether mausoleums, temples, or synagogues, it is difficult to determine. Between them is a very remarkable group of sarcophagi standing on a massive platform of solid masonry. These are doubtless the tombs of which Benjamin of Tudela and Brocardus speak (chap. 7 173) ; and they show that down to a com paratively late period the Jews still regarded Kedesh as a sanctuary. The plain beside Kedes and the surrounding hills is thkkly covered with terebinth and oak forests, among which the writer saw at several places the black tents of a nomad tribe which frequents this region. See Rob. BR 8367-369 ; Stanley, S and P 332, 282 ; Lectures on Jewish Church, 317 ; Baed. /W.P) 298 ; Buhl, Pal. 2357:


(H^IP), RV" - Gen. 38 22 Dt. 23 17 ; also KADESH (>!) RV m - Dt. 23 17. See CLEAN. i, col. 837, DOG, 3 (end), HIGH PLACES, 4, IDOLATRY, 6, and cp ASHTORETH, RITUAL, SACRI FICE.


(finSnp; MAKeAA&e [B], -e\*Q [AF], -AA. [L] ; Nu/3322/). See WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF.


(PlWip; KeeiA* [BNA], K eiA& [L]: but KeeiAAM in Josh. [B], KAteiA* in Neh. 817 [N]), one of the towns in the Shephelah of Judah (Josh. 1644). It was an important place in the fifteenth century B.C., being several times mentioned as Kilti in the Amarna tablets. David found a temporary shelter within its gates and bars (i S. 23 1 /.}. After the Exile it gave its name to an administrative district mentioned after Beth-zur (Neh. Si?/). The Chronicler, after his fashion, introduces the father of Keilah (whom he connects with the clan called the GARMITE) into a genealogy in conjunction with Eshtemoa (i Ch. 4 19). Eusebius and Jerome (OS 27033 109 19) identity Keilah with the village of Kela, situated 8 (the Greek text by an error has 17) m. from Eleutheropolis, on the road to Hebron, which is no doubt the modern Beit Kahll, about 4 m. NNE. of Halhul. This place, however, is situated on a steep mountain, where there is no arable land, and so cannot be the Keilah of i S. 23. There is also a ruined village called Kild (cp the KlXXa, of Jos. Ant. vi. 13i), 7 m. E. of Beit Jibrln and about 7 m. NE. of Halhul, which is not quite so deep in the mountains as Beit Kahil and is identified with Keilah by GueYin (Judte, 8351). The only objection to it is drawn from Josh. 1544, where Keilah stands almost at the end of a long list of cities in the Shgphdah. Dillmann and Miihlau consider this so serious that they are led to reject this identification. It is to be noted, however, that not far from Kild we find Beit Nasib, which must be the ancient Nezib, and Mareshah (Merash] is already pretty far to the E. Evidently the Shephelah is to be distinguished from the maritime plain which it adjoined (GASm. HG 202). This is one of the cases in which travel appears to throw great light on the old Hebrew narratives. The terraced sides of the hill of Kila are even to-day covered with corn, and their luxuriance must have been greater still when the terraces were cared for. No wonder that the Philistine raiders (or, as we should perhaps read, the Pelethites i.e. , the Zarephathites ; see ZAREPHATH) swarmed up the Wady es-Sur to rob the threshing-floor s. The citizens of Keilah were powerless to drive them away, and were even poor-spirited enough to plan the sur render of David, their deliverer, to Saul. Ahithophel (Ahipelet?) may perhaps have been the man who facili tated David s escape. See GILOH, DAVID, 4, JUDAH.

It is doubtful whether the springs of water, etc., of Josh. 15 19 Judg. 1 15 are really proper names (see GOLATH-MAIM). Since the names cannot properly be translated as Hebrew, they are supposed to be pre-Israelitish. More probably the text is corrupt. The passage contains a statement that the land of the Achsah clan being barren (11073), Caleb granted it msrrn 3 nxi njryp rm, Keilah and Beth-Tappuah. DEBIR probably lay between these two places, which were subject to it. See Che. Crit. Bib.

Golath (sing.) is attested by Pesh., by yoAafyia of Eus. (OSV) 24634), Golathamaim of Jer. (ib. 12727), and in Josh. yta\a6fj.ai.fji . . . yiakaO Tt)v xdrta [A], y<a\a.6/jLO.ifj. . . . y<a\a.8fiat/j, T1)VcUviK. -n\v ycoAafyxatiu. T.K. [L] ; rr)v /SoSflai/ets . . . yovad\a.v . . . yova.ie\a v T.K. [B]).l T . K. C.

1 A of Josh, omits the first name. In Judg. HAL hasAvT- p<oo-ii> V&ITOS (thus associating riSj with .r^N j) followed by AVT- piacriv fieretapiav Ka.1 A. (TTJI A. [A]) nuTMMM><


(np, 33, cp KOLAIAH [ readings]) is mentioned, with the note the same is Kelita, among the Levites in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end), Ezra 10 23 (xwAeia aurbs KujAteu [BN*], icajAaa aiirbs (cioAira? [A], faoAcia aurbs (twAirau [tf 3 vid -], KwAtas avrbs (twAeiTa [L]) = lEsd. 923, CoLius who was called CALITAS (KUIVOS ojrof KoAeirais [Bl, KtoAios o. ecmi/ (caAiras [A], KcoAias OUTOS icaA- Airas [L]). See KELITA.


dwarf?; KA AAiTAC [L]), a Levite signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7), Neh. 10 to[n] ((tai/TafB], Ka.v0av [{<*], (taAira [n c - a ], -v [A]), mentioned also in MT among the expounders of the law (see EZRA ii.,

n t/1; cp i- 8, ii. 8 16 [5], is [il c) Neh. 87; BNA om.= lEsd. 048, CALITAS (KoAeira? [BA]). In Ezra 10 23 Kelita ( = Calitas, i Esd.923) is identified with KELAIAH.



1. Son of Nahor by Milcah, and father of Aram (Gen.022i, J), a statement at variance with that in 10 22/T (P), and in itself most improbable. Di. is content with pointing out that Aram seems to have a narrower reference here. Gen. 22 21, however, is corrupt and should run, Uz his firstborn and Ahibuz, and Jerahmeel, and Abiram. See JERAHMEEL, 4, and note that Ahibuz (see Am, i.) and Michael (a corruption of Jerahmeel > are brought into connection with Salecah (miswritten Milcah in Gen. 22 20), and with Gilead in Bashan ( = Salhad ; see MILCAH, SALECAH) in i Ch. 5 n 16. Observe, too, that Abiram is a Reubenite name (Nu. 1(5 1), and that Reuben was a trans- Jordanic tribe.

2. Prince of the tribe of Ephraim, temp. Moses ; Nu.3424 [P].

3. Father of Hashabiah who was over the tribe of Levi, temp. David; i Ch.27 17 (o-a^ovrjA [B], Ke/oi.[L],^.{aiaSO [Pesh.]). See KADMIEL (end). T. K. C.


(j^p), i Ch. 1 2 ; also Gen. 5 9 , RV ; AV CAIMAN.


(JUjp, K&&NA.9 [A]; inCh., KANA&9 [B], KA.N&9 [AL]; in Nu. K&&9 [B], KAN&&9 [L])- A place on the other side of the Jordan, also called NOBAH (q.v.) after the clan so named (Nu. 8242). In i Ch. 223f it is stated ] that Geshur and Aram took the Havvoth-Jair with Kenath and its dependencies from the Israelites. Eusebius and Jerome (OS 269 15 109i) identify Kenath with Canatha (Ka.va.6a), which is described by them as a still existing village of Arabia in Trachonitis, not far from Bostra, and probably this place is meant when the Talmud includes Kenath among the frontier cities of Palestine. 2

In Jos. BJ i. 192 Kenath is reckoned to Coelesyria, while Ptol. (v. 1623) and Plin. (HN v. 1874) reckon it to the DECAPOLIS (ff.v., 2). For its history, see Schiirer (6/^295-97).

Canatha is the modern Kanaivat, on the W. slope of the Jebel Hauran, 4068 ft. above the sea-level, and 16 or 17 m. NNE. from Bostra on the Roman road to Damascus. The ruins are among the most important in Eastern Palestine (see plan in Baed. Pal.W 194). From the point of view adopted in JAIR, JEPHTHAH, NOBAH, there is no hindrance to identifying this inter esting spot with the biblical Kenath. 3 See, however, G. F. Moore on Judg. 8u. T. K. C.


(T3J5 ; K6N6Z [BADEL], the original pronunciation being probably Kiniz) figures in the genealogy of the Edomites as a clan belonging to them Gen. 36 n {GN6Z [D]) = iCh. l 3 6(KezeztA])i542(K6NeC [L]) = i Ch. 1 53. On the other hand the Judsean hero Caleb, who is said to have obtained possession of Hebron the capital of Judah but in reality is the per sonification of a family originally distinct from the Judasans (see i S. 30i4 Josh. 15i3, and cp i S. 25s), appears as a Kenizzite (RV, AV Kenezite; Mjsri, 6 Kfvecuos [BAL]; Nu. 32 12 6 Sia.Kex^pto fj^vos [BAL], Josh. 14614). Moreover, Caleb s mythical son-in-law OTHNIEL (g.v. ) is a son of Kenaz : Josh. 15 17 ( Judg. 1 13 Kevex [A]) Judg. 89 ii i Ch. 413. Again, in i Ch. 4 15 Kenaz is apparently a grandson of Caleb. From all this we may conclude either that Kenaz was originally an independent tribe, of which one portion became incorporated with the Edomites and another portion with the neighbouring Judasans, or else that a part of the old Edomite tribe Kenaz settled among the Judseans at a very early period. In any case it is tolerably clear that Kenaz and Caleb were at first strangers in Judah, afterwards became close allies, and finally were absorbed in the surrounding population. Such changes have been by no means rare (see EDOM, 3).

In Gen. 1619-21 an attempt is made to enumerate the various peoples who inhabited Palestine before the Israelite invasion ; that the Kenizzites are included in the list serves to show that their foreign origin had not yet been forgotten. Cp CALEB, 2. T. N.

1 The treatment of this passage by Bertheau, Chron.^} ( 73)1 is very unsatisfactory.

2 Neubauer, Geogr. 20.

3 So Dietrich, Di., Strack, Stade (Gesck. 1 149^), Smend in Riehm (HWBP)), GASm. (HG 560, n. 3 ; 579, n. 3). On the other side see Sejourne, Rev. bibl., 98, p. 604 ff.


(^j?n, oi K[e]iNAioi or o -oc [BAL]) ; Gen. 1619 (oi Keraioi [D], Kaiv. [L]), Nu. 24 2 i (6 Kevaios [B], o Koueos [A], -<uos [L]), i S. I56a (?); but Jj3n in I S. 27 10 (6 /oji/et [A]) should perhaps be j3n (6 K<:vf[e]i. [BL]); JQI rp, Judg. 1 16, should be 3 J3i1 aaim followed by il^y (see JETHRO) ; pi. Drj3rr, i Ch. 255 (oi Kivaloi). Also ]-p_, Nu. 2422, and perhaps i S. 15&5 [We., crit. emend.].

A nomadic tribe, allied to the Kenizzites (Gen. 15 19) and to Amalek i.e., JERAHMEEL (i S. 15:6), and per sonified as Kain (cp CAIN, 5). They entered Canaan (more strictly, the Negeb) with the men of Judah (see JERICHO, 2). In all probability they have left a trace of their name in KINAH (q.v. ).

See Judg. 1:16, where MT wrongly states that the Kenites went and dwelt among the people, as if the Israelitish people were meant - an impossible view doubtless. An important group of the MSS of (Moore s N), with the Sahidic version, adds afj.a\rjx ; probably, therefore, we should read among the Amalekites. 1 See also Nu. 242i_/C, where the Kenites appear in close proximity to the Amalekites (Jerahmeelites).

Against the supposed connection of the Kenites and the Midianites, see Moore, Judges, 34, note. It may be noted, however, that in the opinion of the present writer pio (Midian), in Ex.2i5_/I 3i 18 i, should most probably be f>nD = ll!iD, and JHD in Nu. 1029 should probably be isD ; in other words, Hobab was at once a Kenite and a Musrite (cp Miz- RAIM, 26).

Residing between the Judahite and the Jerahmeelite portions of the Negeb, the Kenites are equally in touch with the bne Judah and with the Jerahmeelites (see NEGEB). It is strange, therefore, to find them, in Judg. 4 n, in the N. of Canaan ; cp, however, Judg. 12 15 (?), and observe that Musur (the region of Kadesh ?) is cursed in Judg. 5 23 (read, not ma, but -USD ; see MEROZ) for not helping the Israelites. W. M. Miiller s explanation of Heber the Kenite (6 Kfivalos, L om. ) is plausible, but no more. We must at any rate admit that the narrative as it stands assumes that Heber was not a town-dweller, but a nomad (see HEBER, i).

Another explanation is that of Sayce that the Kenites were a tribe of wandering smiths, who were chiefly in the S. of Palestine, but might be led by their art into northern regions (against this view, repeated in Hastings >2s^i, see AMALEK, 7).

Saul's relation to the Kenites is interesting. He recognises the old bond between them and Israel, and therefore is not offended at their relation to the Jerah meelites ; but he wishes them to remove from that section of the Jerahmeelites which was hostile to Israel (see SAUL). From i Ch. 2:55 (see HEMATH) it appears that either a section of the Kenites or the Kenite tribe as a whole also bore the name of RECHABITES (q.v.; if we should not rather read Heberites ). 2 It is at any rate possible that Jonadab should be read instead of HOBAB [<?.v.] as the name of the ancestor of the Kenites whose connection with Moses is asserted by a trustworthy tradition (Judg. 1:16, cp Nu. 1029). In Nu. 24:21 a Hebrew poet plays on the name of Kenite (Kain) which he connects with |jj, nest.

Apparently he anticipates their destruction by the Assyrians, for in v. 22 (RV) he continues,

Nevertheless, Kain shall be wasted,
Until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.

The marg. of RV, however, warns us that the text is grammati cally obscure. Besides, Assyria had nobler prey to clutch than the Kenites. Hence the couplet needs some emendation. 3

It was pointed out above that in the Song of Deborah the Musrites, with whom the Kenites were closely linked, are cursed for not coming to the help of Yahwe's worshippers the Israelites (Judg. 5:23). This confirms a view which has long been considered criti cally probable that the Kenites and the Israelites were conscious of the identity of their early religion, and that the Kenites were indirectly at least the teachers of the Israelites. So, before Stade, Tiele maintained ( Vergel. Geschied. 559 [ 72]; cp Che. EB^ 790 [ 76]).* The progress of critical study of the documents since 1872 has in fact added considerably to the probability of this view, which has been lately reasserted by Budde (Re I. of Isr. to the Exile, 21). See ISRAEL, if., AMALEK, 6. T. K. c.

1 (Budde, Moore, Driver [TBS 93]); p? fell out owing to Wl which follows.

2 According to Meyer (Ent. 117) we have in i Ch. 255^ the remains of a genealogy of Kain (the Kenites) similar to the preceding genealogy of Caleb. On a connection between 'Salma' and the Kenites see SALMAH, 2.

3 Che. Exp. T 10 399 (June, 99) ; Hommel (AHT 245).

  • Robertson {Early Rel. of Isr. 274) represents Ghillany as

the authority for this opinion; but the view ascribed by Robertson to Ghillany is decidedly less sober than that of Tiele and his followers.


(KHRAC [BA]), i Esd. 529 RV=Neh. 7 4 ? = Ezra 244, KEROS.


(ninSpp, Ezek. 13i8 2 i EV) ; see DRESS, 8, col. 1141.


(^-ISH \~$), the name of one of Job s daughters (Job42i4; &M&A6[e]iAC K6R&C [BX lvid -C], adnot. eYOYMCoN Yf A [B vid - m K-]. AMAGlAC K. [K*]. MAAee&C K- [A], CORNUSTIBU [Vg.}).

Can one of Job's ideal daughters really be named 'Box of eye-paint' 1 Or can we attach the least importance to ? Cant. 7 8 [9] 25 suggests an emendation. Read pro bably Q n BH nH, 'Reah-tappuhim', 'scent of apples'. <B may have read runs J^p. Cp JEMIMA, and see Crit. Bib.

T. K. C.


i. A Moabite city (nnjp, Jer. 4824 KARI6G9 [BKAQ]; pH, Jer. 48 41 AKKAROGN [BN], -piooe [A], KApicoe [Q] ; Am. 22 AV KIRIOTH, TOON noAecoN AYTHC [BAQ], THC K&pitoG [Q mg -]), also mentioned in Mesha s inscription, line 13 (mp), as a sanctuary of Chemosh. Identified by Seetzen with Kuraiyat, at the W. end of Mt. Ataroth ( Attarus). Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. 269 10 10827) call this place Ka.pia.6a., Coraitha, and place it 10 R. m. from Medeba, but identify it wrongly with KIRJATHAIM [q.v. , ij. See Noldeke (Inschr. Mesa, 25). Others (cp Driver on Am. 2 2) think that AR-MOAB and Kerioth were two names for the same city. More plausibly Buhl (Pal. 270) identifies Kerioth with Kir of Moab (i.e. , Kerak] ; indeed, if Kir-heres (undeniably = Kir of Moab) was really named Kiriath-hadashath (see KIR- HERES) this appears a still more probable view. Cp KIRJATH-HUZOTH.

2. A city of Judah (Josh. 15 25, RV Kerioth-hezron, rvnjp |i")xn), often, but wrongly, supposed to be the birthplace of JUDAS ISCARIOT. See HAZOR, 4. T. K. C.


(DTJ?, D -lp; Kopec [L]), a family of NETHINIM in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9), Ezra 244 (<caS>js [B], KTjpaos [A]) = Neh. "47 (icetpa [B], -s [NA]) = i Esd. 629, CERAS, RV KERAS (icrjpas [BA]).


(ntp^p), a word recorded in RV m e-, of Gen. 33 19 [Josh. 24 32], Job42 n ; EV piece of money. <@ Onk. Vg. render lambs, a lamb (Tg. Jon. 1 pearls ). It has been suggested that fKa.rbv afivCov in of Gen. 33 19 was originally e/c. fj.vC}v (100 minze). But since < gives &fj.vddwt> in Josh. 24 32, and a/j.vdda in Job 42 ii, Schleusner (Lex. in Vet. Test, ligi) feels obliged to reject the hypothesis. Nevertheless it appears that <S is nearer the truth than the critics who adhere to MT. In Gen. 31 41 <5 s 5<?Kct d.(J.va.ffiv corre sponds to D :b iritj j? ; surely @ read D JO. minas. Possibly, too, in Gen. 33 19 pv&v stood in the original <S as the equivalent of Q-:D. Looking closely at 33 19 we can divine that the text originally ran, -non 33 Tip p Oans ftJD3i at the hand of the sons of Hamor for a mina of Carchemish," and so too in 23 15, where Abraham s purchase of Machpelah is described, we should read tf ran? rmD 1 jn-w, four Carchemish minse, and in v. 16 the same once more with the ad dition of pin (in) gold.

In 33 19 D3& 3N and nB bj? are both misreadings of WQ3~a and in 23 16 Tay rps SptT are, all of them, attempts to make sense of dislocated fragments of ty DSID ; inD? comes from pin-

The same emendation is to be made in Josh. 24s (harmonised in the received text with Gen. 33 19). Probably also in Job 42 n irtN 3nT Di: trxi nnx na C p has taken the place of inx ty DSn? n:o, one Carchemish mina of gold. Duhm truly remarks that a little piece of money and a nose-ring or ear-ring from each of Job s friends would not do much to restore his fortune. Yet the context (see v. 12) is most intelligible if we suppose that they did each make a considerable present ; the ring (QU) can well be spared !

Note that 2 Ch. 9i6 gives niNO (read n lJB) where i K. 10 17 has O jo. This supplies an analogy for the emendation of niNO in Gen. 33 19 into ni3D. We are thus relieved from the necessity of connecting HB B p with AT. Kist, a balance, which is unknown in N. Semitic, 1 and forcing a sense out of ~\nth ^y.

On the commercial importance of the maneh of Car chemish, see CARCHEMISH, .2, and cp SHEKEL.

T. K. c.

1 Comparing 2 Ch. 9:16 (on text).


(KHTAB [BA]), i Esd.5 3 o RV, AV CETAB (q.v.).


O-Tl), i S. 2 14; elsewhere basket, caldron, pot. See COOKING UTENSILS, 5 (i. ).


(!TVlt3jp, as if incense ; xeTTOYRA [BADEL]), Abraham's second wife (Gen. 25 14 i Ch. la*/)- 2

She is, in J, the ancestress of no fewer than sixteen (Arabian) tribes (six directly and ten at one or two removes), on which see the special articles. A tribe called Katura which dwelt near Mecca, with the tribe Jurhum, is mentioned by Ibn Koteiba (see Ritter, Erdkunde, 12 19 ff.~). Glaser (Skizze, 2 450) maintains that the Keturah tribes are the remains of the old Minaean people (see MEUNIM, and cp Sayce, Crit. Man. 42).

F. B.


(nn?). Is. 2222 Judg. 825.- See DOOR.


RV Keziah (H^Vp, 71 cassia ; KACIAN [BXC], KACC- [A]), the name of one of Job s daughters (Job 42i4f).

See CASSIA, 2, and cp KEREN-HAPPUCH (the emended form of the name is strictly parallel to Keziah).


(fVi? P9#)> J osh - 1821 AV - RV EMEK-KEZIZ (q.v. ).


(HINFin n TQp ; EV m - 'the graves of lust' ; MNHMATA [THC] eTTi9YMlAC [BAL], SEPULCHRA CONCUPISCENTISE), a stage in the wilderness wanderings, for the name of which an AEtiological legend was provided (see QUAIL), Nu. 11 34/. 33 16/. Dt. 922. It has already been noticed that 'Taberah' (Nu. 11:1-3) does not occur in the list of stations in Nu. 33, and Dillmann rightly holds that the account of Taberah in E's narrative corresponded to the account of Kibroth-hattaavah in J's. We must, however, go further. Taberah (mjnn) and Hattaavah (rrmnn) pre sumably represent the same word in the original story, and the real name of the locality referred to was probably Kibroth-taberah i.e. , Graves of Taberah. Taberah (of which Hattaavah will be a corruption) is probably the name of a hill or mountain, and the graves are pre- Israelitish cairns or stone circles, which either had, or were supposed to have, a sepulchral purpose. In the Desert of the Tih such primitive stone monuments abound on the hill-sides.

They are sometimes called nawdmls, and the current story is that they were built by the Israelites as a protection against a plague of mosquitoes (E. H. Palmer). See NEGEB, 6 : WANDERINGS. T. K. C.


(D*V?i?: C P* if the reading is correct, JEKABZEEL, KABZEEL, and on the form see NAMES, 107; KABCA6IM [A], -CM [L]- B om.), a levitical city in the territory of Ephraim, Josh. 21 22!= i Ch. 668 [53], JOKMEAM.

1 Such a connection would suggest nn B p, kesitii, which Ball actually substitutes for nB^-p.

2 [In the Midr. Ber. rabba (61) Keturah is identified with Hagar ; so too the Targums (Jon. and Jer.), which explain the name bound one (Aram. nB^IB g). Cp Jer. Quasi, in Gen. 25 1).]


(H|, etc.), Gen. 38 17 etc. See GOAT, i.


(nV^|). See REINS. On kidney fat of wheat, Dt. 32 14, or fat of wheat, Ps. 81 16 [17], 147 14, see FOOD, i b.


once in AV CEDRON [Jn. 18 i] ; RVmg. o f the Cedars QiTlp *?m ; [6] x MPPoi;s [TUV] Ke&piav [BAL] ; in Jer. 31 40 vaxaX <c. [BN], \. K e6p<av [AQ] ; Vg. torrens Ctdron (but convallis in 2 K. 186).

NT, Jn. 18 if 6 x* /""*- v tiSpiav (X c BCLY, Treg., WH), TOU Kc5po)c(AA ; Vg. TOU ice Spou [D Tisch.l ; Cedri a.b. ; Theb., Memph. ; Lachm., Lightf., Weiss). Probably TOU xeSptav is the correct reading ; being misunderstood, it would easily be cor rected into TOU KeSpov or TU>I> KeSpiav.

1. Etymology.[edit]

Gesenius derives from rip, 'black, turbid', cp Job 6:16. But ^nj and [lYIp are certainly in apposition ; it is the ravine which is called Kitiron. 'Black ravine', would not be a probable explanation ; hence Hort ( Notes on Select Readings, NT 2 90) suggests 'ravine of the dark [trees]', taking JITlp to be an archaic (? Canaanite) plural of Yip- He even suggests that iceSpos may be of Phoenician origin comparing DlTlp in Buxtorf, 1976 and adds (cp Plummer, St. John, 318), that patches of cedar-forest may have survived from prehistoric times in sheltered spots. This is most improbable. Even in a ravine which is quite dry in summer we do not ex pect to hear of cedars ; the cedars on the Mount of Olives (Ta dnlth, 44) give no support to the theory. The form too is perfectly good Hebrew ; it describes that which belongs to or is connected with Yip (whatever Yip may be). More probably jmp is a phonetic variation of |VVl:l, 'a spot with enclosures for cattle' ; cp GEDERAH, i, where it is sug gested that tteSptav in i Macc, corresponds to the nTljl of Josh. 15 36 and to the modern Katra. It will be noticed that there is at one point of the Kidron valley (where it joins the valley of Hinnom) a level tract now devoted to the cultivation of fruit and vegetables. Here we can imagine that in remote times there were enclosures for cattle. May not Kedar (VIJ3, Ass. kidri) have a similar origin ?

2. Biblical references.[edit]

The remarkable depression on the E. of Jerusalem (see JERUSALEM, 3) is referred to in 2 S. 15z3 i K. 237 1613 2 K. 23 4 6 12 Jer. 31 40 2 Ch. 15:16 29:16, 30:14 and twice in the short title i,^5- 'the ravine', 1 2 Ch. 33 1 4 Neh. 2i" s . Josephus twice calls it ij <f>dpay^ Kfdpuv (Ant. ix. 7:3 BJ v. 6:1 ) ; in BJ v. 2:3 he refers to its great depth.

In 2 K. 284 Jer. 3140 (Kr.) we hear, according to the ordinary view, of the fields (nlDIt? ! B a-a\ijfjLia&, <@A cra8>)ju.cu0, in Jer. follows Ktb) of Kidron, which might refer to the fertile tract in the S. of the valley (see below), where of old was the King s garden (Neh. 3 15). But the word mot;? being most probably corrupt elsewhere (see GRAPE, 3), it seems better to read niBlbD (fB^ev TCO efj.Trupi(rnij> TOU xnappou KeSpiav) i.e., furnaces for making lime, or for smelting (Klo.). The 'fields of Kidron', is, in fact, hardly a sufficiently clear phrase to have been used, especially in this context.

It is in the touching account of David's flight that we are first introduced to the Brook Kidron ; and we hear of it for the last time in a still more pathetic NT narrative. King David stood (read npy with We. , H. P. Smith, and most critics) by the ravine Kidron, while all the people passed over before him (2 S. 15:23) ; and Jesus went forth with his disciples over the ravine (RV m e-) Kidron, where was a garden (Jn. 18:1 ; but see 3). The other references to Kidron (except those in the topographical passages, 2 Ch. 33:14 Neh. 2:15) occur in accounts of the destruction of idolatrous objects at the mouth of Hinnom (see history of Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah), and i K. 237, where Shimei, that violent partisan of Saul's house, is forbidden by Solomon (as the text now stands) to cross Kidron. This is one of the many cases where commentators have been satisfied with a plausible but not quite satisfactory explanation, instead of questioning the correctness of the text. It is said, e.g. , by Benzinger, that Kidron is mentioned because Solomon thinks it most probable that Shimei would seek to cross the eastern boundary of the city on a visit to his home at Bahurim. But something more would certainly have been added to make this clear, and, just before, the phrase used is perfectly vague, ,-I:NI riax, 'any whither'. The true reading is surely srvr^aa, 'by any road'. J

The designation Valley of Jehoshaphat dates back to the fourth century A.D. It also appears in OS 2738 9 Illi 3 . It is based on Joel3[4]2i 2 , but the expression poy (which means a deep but broad valley, like those of Rephaim and Elah, see VALE, i), is sufficient proof that the interpretation of that difficult passage (see JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF) is erroneous. The constant term for the Kidron valley in the OT is "?m, a wady or ravine. Popular tradition, however, takes no account of such minor matters. It is the greatest boon that a dying Jew can ask to be buried in the Valley of Jehoshaphat i.e. , of Kidron, because he believes that this ravine will be the scene of the great judgment. The whole of the left bank of the Kidron opposite the Haram, far up the W. side of the Mount of Olives, is covered with the white tombstones of the Jews ; the burial-place of the Moslems is on the E. side of the mount. At the resurrection, the valley is expected to receive an expansion by the moving farther apart of the opposite sides.

3. Topography.[edit]

The Valley of Kidron is now called Wady Sitti Maryam, or Wady of the Lady Mary. It contains the bed of a streamlet : but during the whole summer and most of the winter, it is perfectly dry ; in fact, no water runs in it except when heavy rains are falling on the mountains round Jerusalem.

On the broad summit of the mountain ridge of Judasa, a mile and a quarter NW. of Jerusalem, is a slight depression ; this is the head of the wady, which runs on for about half a mile towards the city. It then bends eastward, and in another half-mile is crossed by the great northern road coming down from the hill Scopus. On the E. side of the road, and the S. bank of the wady, are the celebrated Tombs of the Kings. The channel is here about half a mile due N. of the city gate. It continues in the same course about a quarter of a mile farther, and then, turning S. , opens into a wide basin containing cultivated fields and olives. Here it is crossed diagonally by the road from Jerusalem to Anathoth. As it advances southward, the right bank, forming the side of the hill Bezetha, becomes higher and steeper, with occasional precipices of rock, on which may be seen a few fragments of the ancient city wall ; while, on the left, the base of Olivet projects, greatly narrowing the valley. Opposite St. Stephen s gate the depth is fully 100 feet, and the breadth not more than 400 feet. The olive trees in the bottom are so thickly clustered as to form a shady grove ; and their massive trunks and gnarled boughs give evidence of great age. This spot is shut out from the city, from the view of public roads, and from the notice and interruptions of wayfarers. If Gethsemane was really in the wady, it would be better to place it here than on the more public traditional site some distance farther down. From Mk. 1432, however, compared with v. 26, we should rather suppose that it was somewhere on the W. slope of the Mount of Olives. (See Keim, Jesu von Naz. 8299, but cp Weiss, note on John 18 i, and see GETHSEMANE, 2. ) But we must not linger on this dis puted point. A zigzag path descends the steep bank from St. Stephen s gate, crosses the bed of the valley by an old bridge, and then divides. One branch leads direct over the top of Olivet (cp 2 S. 15 23). See OLIVES, MOUNT OF. Another branch runs round the southern shoulder of the hill to Bethany, and has a deep and sacred interest, for it is the road of Jesus Christ s last entry (Mt. 21 iff. Lk. 1937). Below the bridge the wady becomes still narrower, and here traces of a torrent bed first begin to appear. Three hundred yards farther down, the hills on each side rise precipitously from the torrent bed, which is spanned by a single arch. On the left bank is a singular group of tombs, comprising those of Absalom, Jehoshaphat, and St. James (now so called) ; whilst on the right, 150 feet overhead, towers the south eastern angle of the temple wall. The ravine runs on, narrow and rocky, for 500 yards more ; there, on its right bank, in a cave, is the fountain of the Virgin ; and higher up on the left, perched on the side of the naked cliffs, the ancient village of Siloam. A short distance farther down, the valley of the Tyropoeon falls in from the right, descending in terraced slopes, fresh and green, from the waters of the Pool of Siloam. The ravine of Kidron here expands, affording a level tract for cultivation (see above), which extends down to the mouth of Hinnom, and is about 200 yards wide. A short distance below the junction of Hinnom and the Kidron is the fountain of Bir Eyyub, the Well of Job (see EN-ROGEL). The length of the valley from its head to En-rogel is af m. , and here the historic Kidron may be said to terminate.

The Kidron Valley was first described accurately by Robinson ; but in recent years fresh points of interest have come to light. Such, for instance, are the true bed of the Kidron (38^ ft. below the present channel), and the great rock-cut aqueduct in the Kidron-valley, south of Bir Eyyub, both found in 68- 6g by Sir C. Warren (Recovery of Jerusalem, 135^ 2 5^ ff-}-

See JERUSALEM, T,ff. 37 and cp Porter s art. in Kitto s Bibl. Cycl. from which some descriptive passages of the above have been adapted. T. K. C

1 Pasek after n .Yi indicates a doubtful text. - ( -\-\ was first of all corrupted into Yip ; then ^33 easily became ^>nj [flNl- The best part of the emendation belongs to Klo., who suggests D 3Y1 ^DO nriNi anyone of all the roads a needlessly elaborate phrase.


(KeApcoN [ANY]) i Macc. 15 39 41- RV. See GEDEROTH.


([e]lAAN [BA]), iEsd.5i S , RV, AV CEILAN.


(rwp; IKAM [B], K [e]iN& [AL]), a Judahite city on the border of Edom (Josh. 15 22f). The name appears in i Ch. 4 iz in the corrupt form TEHINNAH. See KENITES, NEGEB, 2 (b) n.


("SJ7D, B&ClAeyc)- The term mlkk king has a somewhat wide range of meaning. We find it in the description of the old condition of things in Canaan, when many of the cities were in the enjoyment of relative independence under kings or princes of their own (see, e.g. , Gen. 142 20 2 Josh. 10 i 11 1 Judg. 5 19). Winckler has pointed out that in Tiglath-pileser s time the Syrian kingdoms were more like German Graf- schaften (AOF 1 19) ; we might also compare the petty Syrian kings with the Indian rajas or the Italian dukes of the Middle Ages. This remark may illustrate Is. 108, where the king of Assyria ironically asks, Are not my generals ( v nfc>) altogether kings (o afe). 1 perhaps alluding partly to the fact that many petty vassal kings served under his orders at the head of their respective con tingents. As late as the Book of Job we find 7^0 used in the limited sense of chieftain (Job 19 25, but hardly 1524 [ arpa.TTiyb i] which seems to be corrupt). From the etymology of the term (Ass. and Aram. , to counsel, decree ) we may infer that the king was originally the most gifted and powerful member of a council of chiefs or elders (cp Mic. 49 king || counsellor ). The term preferred by the Babylonians and Assyrians was sarru ( = Heb. -\y}, which is used both for the divine king of the gods, 1 and for the great king of Assyria (or Babylon) ; see PRINCE, 3. Possibly this term ( *] sara.ru to be radiant, like a star) was chosen in preference to maliku or malku ( = Heb. TjSc, Ar. malik"") to indicate pre-eminence among kings, though maliku is explained in the syllabaries by larru. It is worth noticing that princes ("itr) of Midian in Judg. 725 and 83, cor responds to kings ( D^O) of Midian in Judg. 85 (cp GIDEON). On the history of Hebrew royalty see AHIMELECH; GOVERNMENT, 16-22; ISRAEL, 13-44; TAXATION ; and on the religious use of rjSp see MOLECH, MESSIAH.

It is unfortunately doubtful whether the poetical phrase nirr?3 TjSn, EV 'king of terrors', in Job 18:14 is correct. The supposed biblical parallels will hardly bear pressing, the text being very uncertain. On Ps. 49 17 see Che. Ps.ft) ; on Rev. 9:11 see LOCUSTS, 3. T. K C.



KINGS (BOOK)[edit]

  • General structure (1).
  • Redactions, etc. ( 2-3).
  • Chronology ( 4).
  • Religious principle (5a).
  • Later insertions (5b).
  • Divisions ( {d.).
  • Prophetic narrative (8).
  • Judaean narrative (9).
  • Literature (11).

1. General structure.[edit]

The books of Kings, which form the last part of the series of OT histories known as the Earlier Prophets, were originally reckoned as a single book (cp CANON, 13).

Modern Hebrew Bibles follow the bipartition which we have derived from LXX, where they are called the third and the fourth books of kingdoms (jSaeriAeiuj ), the first and the second being our books of Samuel.

The division into two books is not felicitous. Even the old Hebrew separation between Kings and Samuel must not be taken to mean that the history from the birth of Samuel to the Exile was treated by two distinct authors in independent volumes. We cannot speak of the author of Kings or of Samuel, but only of an editor or successive editors whose main work was to arrange in a continuous form extracts or abstracts from earlier books. The introduction of a chronological scheme and a series of editorial comments and additions, chiefly designed to enforce the religious meaning of the history, gives to the book of Kings as we now read it a kind of unity ; but beneath this we can still distinguish a variety of documents, which, though sometimes mutilated in the process of piecing them together, retain sufficient individuality of style and colour to prove their original independence. Of these documents one of the best defined is the vivid and exact picture of David's court at Jerusalem (2 S. 9-20), of which the first two chapters of i K. are manifestly an integral part. 1 As it would be unreasonable to suppose that the editor of the history of David closed his work abruptly before the death of the king, breaking off in the middle of a valuable memoir which lay before him, this observation leads us to conclude that the books of Samuel and of Kings are not independent histories. They have at least one source in common, and a single editorial hand was at work on both. The division, however, which makes the commencement of Solomon's reign the beginning of a new book is certainly ancient ; it must be older than the insertion of the appendix 2 S. 21-24, which now breaks the continuity of the original history of David's court.

From a historical point of view the division is very convenient. The subject of the book of Samuel is the creation of a united Israel by Samuel, Saul, and David. Under Solomon the creative impulse has already died away ; the kingship is divorced from the sympathies of the nation ; and the way is prepared for the formation of the two kingdoms of Ephraim and Judah, the fortunes of which, down to their extinction by the great empires of the East, form the main subject of the book of Kings.

1 See the arguments in detail, We. C//( 2 ) 260. The verses i K. 2 i- 12 27 have no connection with the rest of the chapter, and are due to a later hand. [But cp Bu. Ri. Sa. 263 ; Ki. Kffn. i 3 /]

2. Successive redactions.[edit]

It is probable, however, that the editor who made the division had another reason for disconnecting Solomon from David and treating his reign as a new departure. The most notable feature in the extant redaction of the book is the strong interest shown in the deuteronomic Law of Moses, and especially in the centralisation of worship in the temple on Zion as prescribed in Deuteronomy and enforced by Josiah. This interest was unknown to ancient Israel, and is quite foreign to the older memoirs incorporated in the book ; amidst the great variety in style and manner which marks the several parts of the history the interest in question is expressed always in the same stereotyped phrases and unvarying style ; in brief, it belongs to the editorial com ments, not to the original sources of the history. To the deuteronomistic editor, then, the foundation of the temple, which is treated as the central event of Solomon s reign, is a religious epoch of prime importance (see especially his remarks in i K. 3 a/. ), and on this ground alone he would naturally make Solomon s reign com mence a new book the history of Israel under the one true sanctuary. 1 [Burney (Hastings DB 2859^) gives a careful list of deuteronomic phrases and expressions wholly or nearly peculiar to the editor of Kings.]

When we say in general that the book of Kings was thrown into its present form by a deuteronomistic redactor we do not affirm that he was the first who digested the sources of the history into a continuous work. Indeed the selection of materials, especially in the earlier parts of the narrative, has been thought to point to an opposite conclusion. Nor, on the other hand, must we ascribe absolute finality to his work. He gave the book a definite shape and character ; but the recognized methods of Hebrew literature left it open to additions and modifications by later hands. Even the redaction in the spirit of Deuteronomy seems itself to have had more than one stage, as Ewald and other critics recognize. The book was not closed till far on in the Exile, after the death of Nebuchadrezzar and Jehoia- chin (2 K. 2527^."). The fact that it closes with the pardon, not with the death, of Jehoiachin is very well explained by Meyer (Entst. 78) as being due to the narrator s looking upon the king s elevation as the first step towards the realization of the Messianic hopes ; and the fall of the kingdom of Judah is presup posed in such passages as i K. 844 51 9i-g 2 K. Yligf. [21.7-15 22i5-2o] 2 2326/. These passages, however, are mere interjected remarks, which seem to be added to adapt the context to the situation of the Jews in captivity. The main redaction, though subsequent to the reform ation of Josiah, which supplied the standard applied to all previous kings ( the high places were not removed ), does not point to the time of the captivity. Thus, for example, the words unto this day in 2 K. 822 14? 166 are part of the epitome composed by the main redactor (see below, 7), and imply that he wrote before the destruction of the Judaean state.

1 With this it agrees that the later appendix 2 S. 21-24 does not seem to have passed under the hand of the deuteronomic redaction. See We. CWC 2 ) 302.

2 [The following passages also may safely be assigned to the second i.e. to the exilic or post-exilic deuteronomist ( = D 2 ) : i K. 3 315 64 [i8]/ 6 1 11 Q* 10 16 i2/ 2 K. 17 7-17 29-34* 24 2-12 15-25 ; perhaps too all those chronological notices which aim at establishing a synchronism between the kings of Judah and those of Israel.]

3. Different recensions.[edit]

Even the second redaction (see 2) did not absolutely fix a single authoritative recension of the book, as appears in detail from a comparison of LXX with the Hebrew text

The LXX i.e., LXX{BL} (LXX{A} follows MT closely, and is perhaps based upon Origen's recension [so Silberstein, ZATW 13 1/. 14 1 /]) of Kings is not a corrupt reproduction of the Hebrew receptus ; it represents another recension. Neither recension can claim absolute superiority. The defects of < lie on the surface, and are greatly aggravated by the condition of the Greek text, which has suffered much in transmission, and particularly has in many places been corrected after the later Greek versions that express the Hebrew receptus of the second century of our era. Still (51 not only preserves many good readings in detail, but also throws much light on the long-continued process of redaction (at the hand of successive editors or copyists) of which the extant Hebrew of Kings is the outcome. Even the false readings of the Greek are instructive, for both recensions were exposed to corrupting influences of precisely the same kind. The following examples will serve to illustrate the treatment through which the book has passed.

1. Minor detached notices such as we should put in foot-notes or appendices are inserted so as to disturb the natural context.

Thus i K. 4:27 [5:7] must be taken continuously with 4:19, and so BL (inserting between them v. 17) actually reads. In like manner BL omits i K. 6:11-14, which breaks the context of the description of the temple. Again, in BL, 1 K. 9:26 follows on v. 14, so that Solomon s dealings with Hiram are recorded con tinuously. The notices intervening in vv. 15-25 (in a very unnatural order) belong to a class of floating notes about Solomon and his kingdom which seem to have got stranded almost by chance at different points in the two recensions.

2. There are direct or indirect indications of trans positions and insertions on a larger scale.

Thus in BL the history of Naboth (i K. 21) precedes chap. 20, and in fact chaps. 20 and 22 are parts of one narrative, obviously quite distinct from the history of Elijah. Again, the story of Abijah's sickness and Ahijah's prophecy is not found in BL at i K. 14:1-20 1 ;a t 12:24 appears another version of the same narrative, in which there is no reference to a previous promise to Jeroboam through Ahijah, and the prophet is intro duced as a new character. This version (12:24), which places the prophecy of the destruction of Jeroboam s house between his return from Egypt and his elevation to the throne, is no doubt a mere legend ; but it goes to prove that there was once a version of the history of Jeroboam in which 11:29-39 had no place. In truth, after 11:26-28 there must once have stood some account of a rebellion in which Jeroboam lifted up his hand against king Solomon. To such an account (not to the incident of Ahijah and the cloak related in vv. 29-39), v 40 is the natural sequel. Thus all that is related of Ahijah falls under suspicion of being foreign to the original history. Compare JEROBOAM i. It is noteworthy that in a passage peculiar to BL [in the ed. of Swete i K. 12:24 a-z] the incident of the tearing of the cloak is related of Shemaiah and placed at the convention at Shechem, showing how much fluctuation there was in the tradition. In 2 K. 13:22 - has an addition which affects both history and geography (see APHKK, 3 a, HAZAEL) on the conquests of Hazael. According to Kittel (A <) . p. vi) such passages have been inserted by later editors from older sources which were still accessible to them in their completeness.

These instances show that there was a certain want of definiteness about the redaction. The mass of disjointed materials, not always free from inconsistencies, which lay before the editor in separate documents or in excerpts already partially arranged by an earlier hand, could not have been reduced to real unity without critical sifting, and an entire recasting of the narrative, in a way foreign to the ideas and literary habits of the Hebrews. The unity which the editor aimed at was limited to chrono logical continuity in the events recorded, and a certain uniformity in the treatment of the religious meaning of the narrative. Even this could not be perfectly attained in the circumstances, and the links of the history were not firmly enough riveted to prevent disarrange ment or rearrangement of details by later scribes.

1 In A etc., it is added from the version of Aquila.

4. Chronological methods.[edit]

The continued efforts of successive redactors can be traced in the chronology of the book. The chronological method of the narrative appears most clearly in the history after Solomon, where the events of each king's reign are thrown into a kind of stereotyped framework of this type :

In the twentieth year of Jeroboam, king of Israel, Asa began to reign over Judah, and reigned in Jerusalem forty-one years. . . . In the third year of Asa, king of Judah, Baasha began to reign over Israel, and he reigned in Tirzah twenty -four years.

The history moves between Judah and Israel accord ing to the date of each accession ; as soon as a new king has been introduced everything that happened in his reign is discussed, and wound up by another stereo typed formula as to the death and burial of the sovereign ; and to this mechanical arrangement the natural con nection of events is often sacrificed. In this scheme the elaborate synchronisms between contemporary monarchs of the N. and S. give an aspect of great precision to the chronology.

In reality, however, the data for Judah and Israel do not agree [260 years of the kings of Judah correspond to 241 years, 7 months, 7 days, of the kings of Israel], and Wellhausen, follow ing Ewald, has shown that the synchronisms were not in the sources, but were calculated from the list of the years of each reign (JDT6os/. [ 75]). Cp CHRONOLOGY, 6f. It appears further that these years of reign are not all derived from historical tradition, but are in part due to conjectural subdivision of a cycle 480 (twelve generations of forty years) assigned in 1 K. 6:1 to the period from the exodus to the foundation of the temple, and (according to the Judaean list of kings) to the period from the foundation of the temple to the end of the captivity (536 B.C.). 1 In the early part of the Judaean history the first dates not accessions are connected with the temple, and appar ently derived from temple records. Of these the most important is the twenty-third year of Joash, which the chronological scheme makes the one hundred and sixty-first year of the temple, trisecting the four hundred and eighty years cycle. Other one hundred and sixty years bring us to the death of Hezekiah, and the last third of the cycle begins with the accession of Manasseh, whose sins are treated as the decisive cause of the Exile. Within these limits a few dates were given by the sources ; the rest, as can easily be shown, were filled in with reference to a unit of forty years. 2 Again, the duration of the kingdom of Israel, according to the northern lists, was two hundred and forty com pleted years viz., eighty years before the first expedition of Benhadad, eighty years of Syrian wars, forty of prosperity under the victorious Jeroboam II., whose first year belongs to the period of war, and forty years of decline. The trisections in each case and the round numbers of 480 and 240 point strongly to a systematization of the chronology on the basis of a small number of given dates, and the proof that it is so is completed when we learn from the exactly kept lists of Assyrian chronology that the siege of Samaria fell in 722, whereas the system dates the captivity from 737 (535+480-37-241). Cp CHRONOLOGY, n.

The key to the chronology is i K. 6:1 which, as Well hausen has shown, was not found in the original LXX, and contains internal evidence of post-Babylonian date. In fact the system as a whole is necessarily later than 535 B.C., the fixed point from which it counts back.

5a. Religious principle.[edit]

Another aspect in the redaction may be called theological. Its characteristic is the application to the old history of a standard belonging to later developments of the OT religion. Thus, as we have already seen, the re dactor in i K. 3 regards worship in high places as sinful after the building of the temple, though he knows that the best kings before Hezekiah made no attempt to suppress these shrines. So, too, his unfavourable judgment on the whole religion of the northern kingdom was manifestly not shared by Elijah and Elisha, nor by the original narrator of the history of those prophets. This feature in the redaction displays itself, not only in occasional comments or homiletical excursuses, but also in that part of the narrative in which all ancient historians allowed themselves free scope for the develop ment of their reflexions the speeches placed in the mouths of actors in the history. Here also there is textual evidence that the theological element is somewhat loosely attached to the earlier narrative, and underwent successive additions.

We have seen that LXX{BL} omits i K. 6:11-14, and that both prophecies of Ahijah belong to the least certain part of the textual tradition. So, too, an indication that the long prayer of Solomon (i K. 8:14-53), tne deuteronomistic colour of which is recognized by all critics, did not stand in the oldest account of the dedication of the temple is preserved in the fact that the ancient fragment, v. 12-13, which in the Hebrew text is imperfect, appears in LXX{BAL} after v. 53 in completer form and with a refer- ence to the book of Jashar as its source (fii.fi\Lov TTJS (jlSrjs = i<e>n -125 = 1E".1 TDD : cp JASHAR, BOOK OF, 3). The redactional inser tion displaced it in one recension and led to its mutilation in the other. The older parts of this chapter have also been retouched in conformity with later (even post -exilic) ritual and law. The Levites who appear at 7 1. 4 in contrast to the priests, in a way unknown to the pre-exile history, are not named in HL, and the post -exilic congregation ( eda.h) at v. 5 is also wanting. The processes illustrated by these examples were doubtless at work in many places where external evidence fails us, and may often be detected by a careful use of internal evidence alone. See especially Wellhausen s detailed analysis (CH 26gjf.).

1 Compare Krey s investigations in ZWT, 77, p. 404 f.

2 See the details in an article by WRS /. Phil., vol. x. no. 20 [cpalso Stade,CK/l 88^.; Kamphausen .(ZA W& 193^ [ 83], and Chron. der hebr. Kdnige, 83) ; and Konig ( Beitr. z. bibl. Chron. in ZK\V, 83 Heft 6, 8, 9, 12) are more conservative. Riihl ( Chron. der Konige von Israel u. Juda in Deutsche Zeitschr. f. Geschichtsiuissensck. xii. 1 +$/. [ 94]) adduces weighty reasons for the view that we have here not the so-called Babylonian method (so We. ; cp CHRONOLOGY, 9), but the reckoning according to which the last year of each king was counted also as the first of his successor; in this way the above-mentioned inconsistencies are to an important extent diminished.] Cp

5b. Later insertions.[edit]

The insertions due to later editors and copyists are many and not all of the same kind.

For insertions made subsequently to the deuteronomistic redaction see i K. 4:46 (from Din to 17), 6:5 (the words 3 3D JV3n p TltO, 6:16 (the last two words), 7:24 ( D DMTIN D Bpc). 7:42c (from niD3 l ? onwards), 7:47-50, 8:1 (from DK1 to J-icLuGl*), 8:2a (as far as tnir), 8:4 (beginning at ny!), 8:5-6 (Cpn'p-h), also probably vv. 7-8, 6:5 (from '9 nyxwr onwards). Add to these 9:22, 11:24 (OnK '1 1172), 12:3a, 12:12 (1 OD?:), 12:17, 12:21-24, 12:27c (from 1 1 ~ 1 onwards), 12:32-13:33a 14:31 (from ow1 to 'nylyn, cp 14:21), 15:5b (from 33 onwards), 15:6 (cp 14:30), 16:1-4 (?), 16:11 ('2 'n 15 i * ~ w n - ~ $ , cp 14:10), 17:6 (read :,$ 1J2 l W 2 1 lp23), 18:19 (113 YZlK 'K;I 'K'211. cp 18:22, 18:40), 18:31-32a, 19:9b-11a (to', 3 1 9 5 ), 21:23, 21:25-26, 22:28b (cpMi. 2r), 22:31('~1 o*w$w, cp 20:124), 22:35 (from pfl! onwards), 22:38, 2 K. 1:9-17, 7:17b-20, 10:66,(?) 11:10, 12:17 (?), 17:34b-40, 21:3-6, 22:4b-5a, 22:6-7, 22:9 (beginning atlmn~l), 23:4 (beginning at K*+%7)), 23:5, 23:7b, 23:14, 23:16-18, 24:13-14

The latest glosses in 2 K. are : 1:16 (from ^ann to 11313, cp 6), 2:15 (I^IB N), 3:19 ( D TjrSsi), 5:22-23 ( 33 ^n pen), 8:1 (X3-DJi), 8:4 (N 3jrr lyjrr), 10:19 (vi3j;-73, cp 10:21), 11:5-6 (-pen), 11:11b(-hid), 11:13 (D sin), 11:15 (on ity-rm and & rr3D-7N), 11:19 (cjr 1 ^ rmi N,I), 13:12-13 (cp 14:15-16), 18:17 (i o-31-nNi jrnn-nN, cp Is. 36:2), 19:10a (to miiv), 20:11 (HIT K niVyea, cp Is. 38:8), 20:18 (-p^in ), 22:4, 22:8, and 23:4 del. ^njn (cp 22:10-12), 23:33 ( 1-3 -J^OD, cp 2 Ch. 36:3).

Of quite another sort and sometimes of great historic value are a series of notices and parallel accounts, derived from other sources, and worked into the principal narrative to the best of the editor s ability. To this class belong i K. 9:23, 2 K. 11:13-18a, 18:14-16, 19:10-35 (a parallel to 18:13, 18:17-19:9a which, as Stade has recognized, is artificially united to the preceding narrative by 19:9b).

6. Divisions: 1. K. 3-11.[edit]

To gain an exacter idea of the main redaction of Kings and of the nature of the original sources, we may divide the history into three sections :

  • (1) the conclusion of the 'court history', 1 K. 1-2, the further consideration of which belongs to the criticism of SAMUEL (q. v. , ii. 6) ;
  • (2) Solomon, 1 K. 3-11 ;
  • (3) the kingdoms of Ephraim and Judah.

(2) The main source of this section, as we learn from i K. 11:41, was a book called 'Acts of Solomon'. This work can hardly have been a regular chronicle, for the history founded on it contains no continuous narrative. All that is related of Solomon's reign is grouped round the description of the royal buildings, particularly of the temple, and the account of the dedication of the house (chaps. 6-9:9) ; and the greater part of the latter account is either due to the redactor or largely rewritten. The whole section is descriptive rather than narrative, and the accurate details might have been arrived at by actual observation of the temple at a date long subsequent to Solomon. In fact, they are not all due to a single hand. Thus we can still reconstruct a shorter text of 6:17-21, which says only that the house before the oracle was forty cubits long, and the oracle in the midst of the house within where the ark of Yahwe's covenant was to be placed was twenty cubits in length, in breadth, and in height ; and he overlaid it with gold and made an altar of cedar [the table of shewbread] before the oracle and overlaid it with gold. The original author used the BOOK OF JASHAR (q.v. 3) for the account of the dedi cation, and had access to some exact particulars as to dates, the artist Hiram, and so forth, which may have been contained in the temple records. The immediate environment of this section, if we set aside the floating elements in chap. 9 already referred to, is occupied with Solomon s dealings with King Hiram, who aided him in his architectural schemes and in the commercial enterprises which procured the funds for such costly works (chap. 5 [5:15-32] and chap. 9:10-11). On each side of this context lies a complex of various narratives and notices illustrating Solomon s wisdom and greatness, but also, in chap. 11, his weakness and the incipient decay of his kingdom. It is evident that the rise of the adversaries who, according to 11:25, troubled Solomon through all his reign cannot originally have been related as the punishment of the sjns of his old age. The pragmatism as usual belongs to the redactor (11:4). We have seen that there was once another version of the history of Jeroboam. On i K. ll:1-8, cp further SOLOMON, 8, and see the commentaries of Benzinger and Kittel.

7. 1 K. 12-2 K. : the epitome[edit]

(3) For the history of the divided kingdom the redactor, as we have seen, follows a fixed scheme determined by the order of accessions, and gives a short epitome of the chief facts about each king, with an estimate of his religious character, which for the schismatic north is always unfavourable. The epitome, as the religious standpoint shows, belongs to the same hand through out i. e., to D ; but so much of it as relates to Judah is plainly based on good written sources, which from the nature of the particulars recorded may be identified with the book of Royal Chronicles referred to under each reign, which seems to have been a digest of official notices. [A reference to the Book of the History of the Kings of Judah (or, Israel) is wanting only in the cases of Ahaziah, of Jehoahaz, of Jehoiachin, and of Zedekiah among the kings of Judah, and in that of Joram and Hoshea among those of Israel. Both the Judahite and the Israelite work (unless with Reuss we are to suppose a single work, cited by different titles) were evidently compilations of private origin, prepared shortly before the exile on the basis of older chronicles and special treatises.]

If the chronicle named for the kings of Israel actually lay before the editor he at least did not make such ex cerpts from it as we find in the Judaean history, for the epitome for Ephraim is very bare of concrete details.

1 The expression cities of Samaria (z>. 32) appears elsewhere only after the deportation of Ephraim (2 K. 1726), and seems to have come in here from 2 K. 23 19. Even in this passage the last clause of v. 18, which alone refers to details of the history of i K. 13, is clearly erroneous ; the old prophet did not come from Samaria. [The passage must be of late origin (see Kuenen, Ond.p) 2 25, n. 4); it seems not unconnected with the history of Amos ; see AMOS, 3.]

8. Prophetic narrative.[edit]

Besides the epitome and the short excerpts from the Judaean chronicles which go with it, the history includes a variety of longer narratives, which alike in their subject-matter and in their treatment are plainly distinct from the somewhat dry bones of the properly historical records. The northern narratives are all distinguished in a greater or less degree by the prominence assigned to prophets. In the southern kingdom we hear less of the prophets, with the great exception of Isaiah ; but the temple occupies a very prominent place.

The narrative of the man of God from Judah (i K. 13) is indubitably of Judasan origin. Its attitude to the altar at Bethel - the golden calf does not appear as the ground of offence - is diverse not only from that of Elijah and Elisha, but even from that of Hosea. 1 The other narratives that deal with the history of Ephraim are all by northern authors (see, for example, i K. 19:3, 2 K. 9:6), and have their centre in the events of the Syrian wars and in the persons of Elijah and Elisha. They are not all, however, of one origin, as appears most clearly by comparing the account of the death of Naboth in the history of Elijah, i K. 21, and in the history of Elisha and Jehu, 2 K. 9. In the latter narra tive Naboth's field lies a little way from Jezreel, in the former it is close to Ahab's palace (? in Samaria, see v. 18 and variants of LXX in v. i), and is described as a vineyard. The burden quoted by Jehu is not in the words of i K. 21, and mentions the additional fact that Naboth's sons were killed. 1 In other words, the history of Jehu presupposes events recorded in the extant accounts of Elijah, but not these accounts themselves. Moreover, the narrative in 2 K. seems to be the more accurate ; it contains precise details lacking in the other.

Now it is plain that i K. 21 belongs to the same history of Elijah with chaps. 17-19. The figure of the prophet is displayed in the same weird grandeur, and his words (with the omission of the addition already noted in vv. 20b-21) have the same original and impres sive force. This history, a work of the highest literary art, has come down to us as a fragment. For in i K. 19:15 Elijah is commanded to take the desert route to Damascus i. e. , the route E. of the Jordan. He could not, therefore, reach Abel-meholah in the Jordan valley, near Bethshean, when he departed thence (v. 19), if thence means from Horeb. The journey to Damascus, the anointing of Hazael and Jehu, must once have intervened ; but they have been omitted be cause another account ascribed these acts to Elisha (2 K. 8:7-8, 9). Cp SHAPHAT. Now there is no question that we possess an accurate historical account of the anoint ing of Jehu. Elisha, long in opposition to the reigning dynasty (2 K. 3:13), and always keeping alive the remem brance of the murder of Naboth and his sons (6:32), waited his moment to effect a revolution. It is true that the prime impulse in this revolution came from Elijah ; but, when the history in i K. represents Elijah as personally commissioned to inaugurate it by anointing Jehu and Hazael as well as Elisha, we see that the author s design is to gather up the whole contest between Yahwe and Baal in an ideal picture of Elijah and his work. No doubt this record is of younger date than the more photographic picture of the accession of Jehu, though prior to the rise of the new prophecy under Amos and Hosea. 2 [For the later criticism of the Elijah-narratives, see ELIJAH, 4, also Ki. Kbn. 159-162, appendix on chaps. 17-19 21.]

The episode of Elijah and Ahaziah, 2 K. 1, is certainly by a different hand, as is seen even from the new feature of revelation through an angel ; and the ascension of Elijah, 2 K. 2, is related as the introduction to the prophetic work of Elisha.

The narratives about Elisha are not all by one hand ; for example, 4:1-7 is separated from the immediately subsequent history by a sharply marked grammatical peculiarity (the suffix 3) ; moreover, the order is not chronological, for 6:24 cannot be the sequel to 6:23 ; and in general those narratives in which the prophet appears as on friendly terms with the king, and possessed of influence at court (e.g. , 4:13, 6:9, 6:21, compared with 18:14), plainly belong to the time of Jehu's dynasty, though they are related before the fall of the house of Omri. In this disorder we can distinguish portions of an historical narrative which speaks of Elisha in connection with events of public interest, without making him the central figure, and a series of anecdotes of properly biographical character. The historical narrative em braced 2 K. 3, 6:24-7:20, 9:1-10:28 - in fact, the whole account of the reign of Joram and the revolution under Jehu ; and, as 2 K. 3 has much affinity to the history of Ahab and Jehoshaphat in i K. 22, we may add the earlier history of the Syrian wars (i K. 20:22) to the series. The evidence of style is hardly sufficient to assign all these chapters to a single hand (for example, 3r1 is a single chariot in the history of Jehu, but in i K. 20 a collective, the single chariot being raDic) ; but they are all full of fresh detail and vivid description, and their sympathy with the prophets of the opposition, Micaiah and Elisha, and with the king of Judah, who takes the prophets part, does not exclude a genuine interest in Ahab and Joram, who are painted in very human colours, and excite our pity and respect. To the historian these chapters are the most valuable part of the northern history.

In the more biographical narratives about Elisha we may distinguish one circle connected with Gilgal, Jericho, and the Jordan valley to which Abel-meholah belongs (4:1-7:7, 7:38-44; chap. 5:7, 6:1-7). Here Elisha appears as the head of the prophetic guilds, having his fixed residence at Gilgal. Another circle, which pre supposes the accession of the house of Jehu, places him at Dothan or Carmel, and represents him as a personage of almost superhuman dignity. Here there is an obvious parallelism with the history of Elijah, especially with his ascension (compare 2 K. 6:17 with 2:11, 13, 14 with 2:12) ; and it is to this group of narratives that the ascension of Elijah forms the introduction.

1 The standing phrases common to i K. 21 20^ 21 2K. 97-io# belong to the redaction, as is plain in the latter case from 9 3.

2 Some expressions that point to a later date are certainly added by another hand e.g., the last part of 18 18. In old Israel, up to the time of Hosea, the Baalim (pi.) are the golden calves, which have no place in this context. A late insertion also is the definition of time by the stated oblation in the temple at Jerusalem, 1829 36. At v. 36 this is lacking in ; at v. 29 the insertion of <B reveals the motive for the interpola tion vjz., to assimilate Elijah s sacrifice to the legal service.

9. Judaean narrative.[edit]

Of the Judoean narratives there is none to rival the northern histories in picturesque and popular power. The historv of Joash 2 K. ll-12, of Ahaz's innovations, 16:10-11, and of Josiah's reformation, 22:3-23:25, have their common centre in the temple on Zion, and may with great probability be referred to a single source. The details suggest that this source was based on official documents. Besides these we have a full history of Hezekiah and Sennacherib and of Hezekiah's sickness, 18:13-20:19, repeated in a somewhat varying text in Is. 36-39 (cp ISAIAH i. 6, ii. 15). The history of Amaziah and Joash in 2 K. 14:8-14 with the characteristic parable from vegetable life, may possibly be of northern origin. 1

10. Advantage of mechanical redaction.[edit]

When we survey these narratives as a whole we receive an increased impression of the merely mechanical character of the redaction by which they are united. Though editors have added something of their own in almost every chapter, generally from the stand point of religious pragmatism, there is not the least attempt to work the materials into a history in our sense of the word ; and in particular the northern and southern histories are practically independent, being merely pieced together in a sort of mosaic in consonance with the chronological system, which we have seen to be really later than the main redaction. It is very possible that the order of the pieces was considerably readjusted by the author of the chronology ; of this indeed LXX still shows traces. With all its imperfections, however, as judged from a modern standpoint, the redaction has the great merit of preserving the older narratives in their original colour, and bringing us much nearer to the actual life of the old kingdom than any history written throughout from the standpoint of the exile could possibly have done.

11. Literature.[edit]

Since Ewald s History, vols. 1 and 3, and Kuenen s Ond.ft} 1:332-333, the most thorough and original investigation of the structure of the book is that in Wellhausen s fourth (not in the fifth and sixth) edition of Bleek s Einl. ( 78) (reprinted in CV/( 2 ) 266-302), with which the corresponding section of his Proi.W (275^) should be compared. Stade (SROT; cp Cesch. \T$f.) must, however, be compared. Cp also Kittel, Hist. i^ff. 207^; Driver, Introd.$) i85-,2O3 ; KSnig, EM. 263 ff. ( 93); Holzhey, Das Buck der KSnige ( 99). On the text-criticism cp especially Stade, ZATIV, 83, p. I23/ (on i K. 5-7), 85, p. 2 7 s/ (on 2 K. 10-14), and 86, p. IDO/ (on 2 K. 15-21); Klostermann, Sam. u. KS. ( 87) ; F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of A infs according to the translation of A qui la front a Cairo JfS ( 97} ; and Crit. Bib. Among commentaries, see those of Thenius ( 49 ; (2), 73), C. F. Keil ( 64; (2), 76; ET, 72); Bahr in Lange s Bibehverk ( 68 ; ET, 77) ; Rawlinson in the Speaker's Comm., Reuss in La Bible vol. 1: Lamby ('86-'87) ; Farrar (Expositor's Ei6k, '93-'94) Benzinier, KHC ('99); Kittel in Nowack's HK (1900). See also C. F. Burney, art. Kings in Hastings DB 2. vv. R. S. E. K.

1 Note, in v. n, in Beth-shemesh which (belongs) to Judah. Cp the similar phrase in i K. 10 3.


(^Bn ja, o KHTTOC TOY BAClAeooc), 2 K. 254 Jer. 394 (<S om. ) 52 7 Neh. 815 (@ BKA TH KOYP& T- B-)- A plantation between the two walls of Jerusalem, close to the pool of Shiloah ; see KING'S POOL.


C!jbBn n?-)?,[ H ]KO\YMBHepA TOY BAClAecoc). Neh. 2 14, possibly the same as the pool of Siloam ; it may have been so called on account of its proximity to the KING'S GARDEN. Cp POOL.