Encyclopaedia Biblica/Tradition-Uri

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



(TT&P&AOCIC), Mt. 15:2 etc. See SCRIBES, 6.


(11X33) Gen. 37:25 RVmg See STORAX.


(1) Nu. 24:4 AV, and (2) Acts 10:10 (eKcrrao-is [ekstasis]) ; see PROPHECY, 19b.




(MeTAGecic [metathesis]), Heb. 11:5 [same word, but not used of change of place, in 7:12, 12:27, also in 2 Macc. 11:24-25]. See ENOCH, 1.




(JYl^pp n). Ex. 1:11 AV, RV STORE CITIES (q.v.) [/]) ; cp CITY.


The word renders :

1. A denom. verb of otsar, ~-> iN, 'treasure', in Neh. 13:13. See TREASURE-HOUSE, 1.

2. soken, |5-, Is. 22:15 ; see SHEBNA.

3. gizbar, 1-!3, Ezra 1:8 (ja<T^OLpT\vov [tasbarenon] [B], ya-pfi [garb.] [A], yav<Ja/3paiov [ganzabraion] [L]), and in plur. Bibl. Aram. ib. 7:21 (yajjcu [gazai]). The word is of Persian origin (ganjabara), and if a current restoration of a passage in an Egyptian-Aramaic papyrus be adopted, the first part of the word n3 {1} had already become Aramaised by at least the fourth century B.C. (CIS 2, no. 149 A, l. 3). According to Meyer (Entst. 23), Ges.-Buhl (Lex.(13)), and others, the word is identical with :

4. The plur. gedabtrayya, KJI?^?, Dan. 3:2-3 (? but yaSSapj)i>ovs [gardarenous], Symm. in Syr. Hex.). So also Bludau (Alex. Uebersetz. Dan. 98) who, moreover, takes the presupposed original N 13I3 to be a gloss to N"13m (cp COUNSELLOR, 2). An alternative view, that of Graetz, which is favoured by Bevan (Comm. 79), treats the word as purely a scribe s error for xn51in (cp COUNSELLOR, 3), chiefly on the ground that the word recurs in the similar but much smaller lists of officials in Dan. 3:27, 3:68. It is more plausible, perhaps, to suggest, with S. A. Cook, that N-nmn (the true meaning of which is quite obscure) is a corruption of the perfectly intelligible N"13rn- [See also Crit. Bib.]

5. olfcoyofios [oikonomos], Rom. 16:23 RV, AV CHAMBERLAIN (q.v.).

1 Cp TREASURY, (3).


occur as the rendering of several Hebrew and Greek terms.

(1) im, otsar (\/ [root] 'to heap up'), 1 K. 7:51, etc., and 1^ lX n 3 beth otsar, Neh. 10:39 [10:38], Dan. 1:2, with which

(2) nhbj TV3, beth nekothoh (2 K. 20:13 = Is. 39:2) is clearly a synonym (EV, by guess, 'the house of his precious things'; ol/cos TOV ve\a>0a [oikos tou nechootha] [in 2 K. rrjs un-dpfecos avrov Kal TOV [tes hyparxeoos autou kai tou nechootha] v. 50, in Is. -Ta X[aleph]*]). Nekoth is possibly an Assyrian loan-word; bit nakamti = treasure-house, Pel. Prol. 141 ; ZDMG 40:731; cp Haupt, ZA 2:266, who plausibly reads ni?? TfZ = bit nakavati (for nakamati, plur.). Very possibly too the same word should be read in Nah. 2:9 [2:10] (i.e., n fVO: for n:R, EV 'store').

(3) ^?, ganzak (1 Ch. 28:11-12; &K X IO [zakchoo] [BAa7, see Sw.], airoBriKwv [apothekoon] [L]), like the NH n3733i perhaps Pers. origin with the addition of O. Pers. ak (Lag. Ges. Abh. 27). The simpler form occurs in Ezra 6:1 **, !??, ginzayya, EV 'treasures', or in combination with rra in Ezra 5:17, 7:20, EV 'treasure house' (LXX{BA} ya^a [gaza]; LXX{L} in 5:17, 7:29 yab<vAaicio> [gazophylakion] ; but it is used alone in the last-mentioned sense in Esth. 3:9, 4:7 {1} (y<u(b&lt>uAoKioi [gazophylakion], yoAa [gala] [BNAL]), a usage which is paralleled by Gk. etyaavpos [thesauros] (treasure, store-house, casket, etc.).

(4) (cop/Saras [karbanas], Mt. 27:6 (cp Jos. BJ, 2:9:4); see CORBAN.

(5) ya.ort>v*.dieiov [gazophylakion], 1 Macc. 3:28, 14:49, 2 Macc. 3:6+, 4:42, 5:18, Mk. 12:41, 12:43, Lk. 21:1, Jn. 8:20; see TEMPLE, 36 (a).

1 Apparently also in Ezek. 27:24, see CHEST (2).


(ninn } ]}), Gen. 2:9 , and TREE OF LIFE (Dnn } !?), Gen. 2:9; see PARADISE, 11. TREES, SACRED. See NATURE-WORSHIP, 2-3


1. PTI, hel, 2 S. 20:15, RV 'rampart'. See FORTRESS, 5.

2. jjJTO, ma'gal, 1 S. 26:5, 26:7 ; and 3. rPJJJCi ma'galah, 1 S. 17:20. See CAMP, 1.

4. D 33, gebim, 2 K. 3:16 RV, AV 'ditches'. See CONDUITS, 1:1 (3, 5).

5- n ;i ?) te'alah, 1 K. 18:32+, 2 K. 18:17, 20:20, Is. 7:3, 36:2, Ezek. 31:4, Job 38:25. See CONDUITS, 2.

6. p7y, Is. 5:2, 'made a trench' RV, AV 'fenced'. See VINEYARD.

7. xP<*f [charax], Lk. 19:43, RV 'bank', RVmg. 'palisade'. Cp. SIEGE, 2.


(D^N), Lev. 5:6. See SACRIFICE, 27-28.


(D^rn), Cant. 7:5 [7:6], RV. See GALLERY, (2).


See TEMPTATION. The words are :

1. DSD, massah, Job 9:23. Cp MASSAH.

2. jna, bohan, Ezek. 21:13; see BDB ; but also Toy (ad loc.), who follows RV for 'there is a trial', and refers to Jer. 20:12, Ps. 66:10, 139:23, Is. 29:16; add Ps. 17:3, rurQ. i&oKifuurat- [edokimasas]

3- nns, eTrupiocras [epyroosas], Ps. 17:3.

4 and 5. Soxi.fj.ri [dokime], 2 Cor. 8:2, RV 'proof' [of affliction], and SoKiniov [dokimion], 1 Pet. 1:7, Jas. 1:3 (AV here 'trying', RV in both passages 'proof'); cp Ps. 17:3, eSoKifitto-as [edokimasa] (jn^). But is SoK^iioy [dokimion] really a substantive? In the Greek Egyptian papyri SOKI /OIIOS [dokimios] is an adj. = 'genuine'. Deissmann (Neue Bibelstudien, 88) proposes to adopt this sense here - 'that which is genuine in your faith'; cp 2 Cor. 8:8, TO TTJS v/iierepo? aya nrjs yinij&iov [to tes hymeteras agapes gnesion].

6 and 7. Treipa [peira], Heb. 11:36, and Treipocr/ids [peirasmos], 1 Pet. 4:12 (cp 1:6-7).

On trial in the sense of a legal process (a sense not found in EV) see LAW, 10, GOVERNMENT, 16 etc. For the trial of Jesus see, further, PROCURATOR, ROMAN EMPIRE, 5, SYNEDRIUM, 3+.


1 S. 18:6, RVmg. See Music, 3 (4).



  • Words (1).
  • Clans (2).
  • Tribes (3).
  • Number and origin (4-8).
  • Lists : order (9-10).
  • Current theories (11-13).
  • Criticism (14).
  • Conclusion (15).

1. Words.[edit]

The well-established Hebrew words for tribe are shebet, tD2^ ; , and matteh, Ht^P (see ROD, STAFF), to which (byAH [phyle] corresponds in LXX and in the NT.

Matteh is characteristically post-exilic; on the possibility of exceptions in 1 K. 7:14, Mic. 9 see Giesebrecht, ZATW 1:239+. {1} Shebet occurs throughout the OT, from JE to Ch. ; but its use in post-exilic writings may be archaic. Shebet also appears to bear the sense of 'clan' (a tribal division) in Nu. 4:18, Judg. 20:12, 1 S. 9:21; in all these passages, however, the text may be questioned. {2} A third word, according to some, is mishpahah, nnS!i D = 6rj|u.os [demos], <7u-yyeVeia [syggeneia] (for probable etym. see Ges. (13)); see Josh. 7:17, Judg. 13:2, 17:7, 18:11. But here again critical scepticism is legitimate. {3} Beth ab, ax n 3 = oios7raT/nas [oikos patrias] ('fathers house'), and eleph, r l?J< = ^iAias [chilias] ('thousand'?) may also perhaps be added. For the one see Nu. 7:2 (cp 1:4), Josh. 22:14; for the other, Nu. 1:16, 10:4 (cp 7:2), 10:35, Josh. 22:21, 22:30 (cp Ps.(2) on Ps. 68:18). Mishpahah, beth ab, and eleph, however, are properly terms for subdivisions of the tribes. Using them for 'tribe' would seem to be in a certain qualified sense a relic of the old nomadic times before the groups of clans could become consolidated into the later tribes. Mishpahah and beth ab might apparently be used synonymously (see Ex. 6:14, Nu. 3:24); more properly, however, the ,inSt?i D (the Gk. <j>pa.Tpa [phratra] or <j>pa.Tpia [phratria], or, to use the word somewhat vaguely, 'clan'; EV 'family') was made up of beth aboth 'fathers' houses' (so EV) or 'families'. Eleph (EV generally 'thousand'; Nu. 1:16 RVmg 'families') is perhaps = mishpahah; cp Judg. 6:15, 'my thousand ( 3/N, EV 'my family'; Moore, 'my sept') is the poorest in Manasseh', meaning the clan of the Abiezrites; also 1 S. 10:19, 'by your tribes and by your thousands', but v. 21, 'the tribe of Benjamin by its clans' (l nnflB>D 1 ?). According to the prevalent view, the assumption is that the normal number of the fl^N is 1000; nevertheless Buhl (Ges. (13)) is probably right in supposing that the true meaning of the root of eleph is 'to bind together' (cp Ass. ulapu, 'band'). Naturally the members of the nS^ or 'union' (?) fought together under a i(j or 'captain' (1 S. 17:18, 18:13, 2 S. 18:1, which passage, to be sure, presupposes the meaning 'thousand' for *j 7X). Lastly, many scholars would add iV, 'kinsfolk' ( = Ar. hayyun, 'a group of families united by vital ties' in 1 S. 18:18, if not also in Gen. 3:20 (see ADAM AND EVE, 3), and 1 S. 266 (so H. P. Smith). It is remarkable that this view should have become an unquestioned tradition among critics, 4 for it seems to imply a confidence in the received text which, in the present state of textual inquiry, must be called excessive.

1 On Driver's view see below, section 3.

2 In Nu. MT has Jlhsp a BaBTriK, and in 1 S. B3ty mnBB>S. Probably, however, both -23^ and Q-S> come from jinBl?S, which seems to have been dittographed. In Judg. oat? should probably be B3;? (see Moore, ad loc.).

3 In Josh. j?o [MShY or TShY] should obviously be &yy [ShBT = shebet] (see v. 16) ; after mi.T read I rinpra 1 ? (LXX KO.TO. fijj^ovs [kata demous]). So Steuernagel (alt.). It is a mere slip of the scribe. In Judg., however, there is deep-seated corruption (see Crit. Bib.).

4 It is or has been held by Ewald, Bottcher, Thenius, Wellh., Robertson Smith, Driver, Kittel, Luhr, Budde, Siegfr.-Stade, and BDB. >;jx nnSU D s commonly omitted as a (correct) gloss. See, however, a different explanation in Crit. Bib.

5 In Judg. 9:3, 9:18, however, there are indications of another view of kinship. For here 'brother' = son of the same mother. Cp KINSHIP, 6.

6 From Judg. 6:24, compared with 8:2, we gather that Gideon's clan could muster 300 able fighting men.

2. Clans.[edit]

Before we consider the question of the 'twelve tribes' we must endeavour to do justice to the arrangement by clans, which represents the form of social system natural to Semitic nomads. The 'tribe' was no doubt composed of 'clans', but there was a stage of development in which there were 'clans', but not in the fuller sense of the word 'tribes'. What, then, was a 'clan' (nnstra)? It was an association of 'brothers ' (Gen. 24:27, 29:15, 1 S. 20:29) - i.e. , of kinsmen, or more strictly of kinsmen on the father's side. This appears from Judg. 9:1, where Abimelech speaks to 'the whole clan' of the family of his mother, from which his own clan was distinct. That the kinship was largely based on what seems (but wrongly seems) to Westerns fiction, and not on literal descent from the same father, need only be remarked in parsing. The 'clan' might form the whole (or nearly the whole) body of citizens. Hence place-names and clan-names are often identical ; hence, too, such a phrase became possible in an early legend as 'Ophrah of the Abiezrites' (Judg. 6:24). {6} Of course, however, it was also possible that more than one clan might dwell in the same city, as in the case of the Shechem of Gideon's son Abimelech. The special characteristics of clansmen are summed up in the often misunderstood phrase yn "Tea, which is really a technical term, and not to be rendered literally. {1} When in 2 K. 15:20, Menahem, king of Israel, is said to have exacted the money for the tribute of all who were Vn niaa, the persons who are meant are not merely mighty warriors, nor merely 'mighty men of wealth' (EV), but those who were at once holders of property and subject to the obligation of military service. For in Israel, as elsewhere, those who did not belong to the propertied class were excluded from the ranks of the warriors (cp ARMY, 4-5). It is equally true that the propertied class, which formed the mishpahah or clan, and consequently also the shebet or 'tribe', alone had political rights. Represented by their heads - the so-called D 3j?T 'ancients', D nii 'freemen' or 'nobles', and QI B> 'princes' 2 - they must, in the pre-regal period, have monopolised the supreme power, both in peace and in war. Under kingly government, however, the political authority of the collections of territorial 'clans', denominated 'tribes', naturally faded away more and more. Nothing is said about 'tribes' in 2 Kings, and none of the statistical passages in Ezra and Neh., with two exceptions, mention a tribal connection. The exceptions are Neh. 11:3-24 and 11:25-36, both certainly late passages, though with an artificial antique tinge. It should, however, be added that the lists in the Books of Ch. and Ezra- Neh. produce the impression, that uhen these books were compiled the tie of the clan had by no means disappeared. This is surely natural, for this tie had the sanction, not merely of antiquity, but of religion. Two proofs of this are preserved, viz.

  • (1) the notice of the yearly sacrifice of David's mishpahah (1 S. 20:6, 20:29), and
  • (2) the direction in the law of the Passover in J (Ex. 12:21 ; see Baentsch, ad loc.) that the paschal lamb was to be provided by each mishpahah (?NX inp D3 nnDlS D l ?)i which contrasts with the legal direction given in a secondary stratum of P (Ex. 12:3) that every 'father's house' (ax ira) should provide a lamb for itself.

3. Tribes.[edit]

The designation 'tribe' belongs specifically to the Israelites, and means, in its fullest sense, an association of clans and families, living near together, and conscious of a closer mutual affinity than that which united them to 'Israel' as a whole. If we are not misled through relying too implicitly on the traditional text, we nowhere find the term D t:3i?. 'tribes', applied to any of the peoples with which Israel was most closely connected.

The Edomites ('sons of Esau') are said in Gen. 36:15-19, 36:40-43 (cp the 'alluphim of the Horites in vv. 29-30) to have had D S17N ('alluphim), a term which presupposes the existence of C 2^X ('allaphim) - i.e., following Buhl, 'unions'. Evidently, in some sense of the word, 'tribes' are meant. The Ishmaelites, too, are said in Gen. 25:16 to be divided into H7bN - i.e., 'populations'; and in Nu. 25:15 Tsur (Ti3) is said to have been 'head of a people (ni2K ; read n^X?), of a father's house in Midian'. 3 Strangely enough, in Is. 19:13 we hear of persons who are called 'the cornerstone' of Egypt's 'tribes'. Duhm wilfully makes these 'tribes' into 'nomes'; not less wilfully his predecessors explain 'castes' (Herod. 2:164). Now, however (see MIZRAIM, 26), it is almost beyond the possibility of question that the Misrites of N. Arabia are [not] referred to, so that here, at least, in a late literary production we [don't] have the word shebet applied to a neighbouring non-Israelite people. But, as a rule, it is only Israel that has shebatim.

1 See E. Meyer, GA 1:449 ; Entst. 152-153 (cp 109-110/).

2 On Judg. 8:14, where the C ^iy are apparently distinguished from the Q 3J3>, see Moore's commentary.

3 Stade, however, would read C B?N for C B??N, which is probably right. Similarly in Ex. 15:15 B7N may be read for Bl^N-

Though both shebet and matteh might conceivably have been used by early writers in speaking of the primitive stage of Israel's social development, the probability is that both terms arose after the Israelites had begun to acquire territory by conquest. We may therefore concede to Driver, 1 that though matteh may be in OT usage only post-exilic, it was scarcely invented by P, and that, like shebet, when used in a metaphorical sense, it is at any rate suggestive of high antiquity. 'Archaic', however, which is Driver's word, seems to claim too much. 2 At the time that we here suppose the metaphorical use of shebet (and of matteh ?) to have arisen the creative tendency of language was still strong. As to the precise date when the usage was initiated, who can venture to dogmatise ? We can only say that it must have been a fairly ancient, though not archaic period. When the Blessing of Jacob was written in its original form, the usage must have been already in existence, not because Gen. 49:16 speaks of Dan as 'judging his people, like any of the tribes of Israel' (for the text of v. 16b is questionable), 3 but because the contents of the series of blessings require this view. The union of clans must, at this time, have been closer than in the nomadic age, owing to the pressure of new conditions arising out of changed circumstances. And even though it cannot be historical that the first king was chosen by lot (1 S. 10:20-21) - first Benjamin being selected from the other 'tribes', then Saul's 'clan' and then Saul himself - we can believe that there was in that hero's time not only a 'clan' of Matri, but also at least the beginnings of a 'tribe' of Benjamin (cp SAUL, 1g).

It is probable that the tribal association was strengthened by the sanctions of religion. The names of some at least of the Israelitish tribes can be more or less plausibly explained as borrowed divine names 4 (see ASHER, DAN, GAD, MANASSEH, REUBEN), and though it would be natural that some specially famous sanctuary should draw pilgrims not only from the tribe on whose territory it stood, but also from other tribes, yet we may presume that every tribe had some sanctuary of its own in which, besides Yahwe, some tribal god or divine hero was implored to give his blessing to the tribe. 5

4. Number and origin.[edit]

If we ask how many 'tribes of Israel' historically existed together, the answer must be that, apart from a hieratic and literary convention which only in quite a late period can be shown to have become a popular belief, the number must, from the nature of the case, have been variable. A clan may

  • (1), through the adhesion of other clans and through favouring fortune, become so large as to be called a tribe, or
  • (2), through acquisition of fresh territory may be inevitably impelled to bifurcation; again, a tribe may
  • (3), through persistent ill-fortune, sink so low that its constituent clans, or those of them which survive, may seek protection in a fresh tribal attachment.

In a word, there is no sharp division between clans and tribes. 6 An example of the first of these cases may be found in the growth of the tribe of Judah (see CALEB, 2-3; JUDAH, 5) ; of the second, as some think, in the division of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh ; of the third, in the attachment of Simeonite clans to the tribe of Judah (see SIMEON). The gradual disappearance of Reuben and the destruction of a tribe or clan called DINAH (q.v. , but cp 12, below), and of Simeon and Levi, regarded as territorial tribes, should also be mentioned here, though with regard to Levi it has to be once more pointed out that the city of ZAREPHATH (q.v.) in the Negeb, with which in the earlier form of the tradition Moses is [not] most probably connected (see MOSES, 4), appears [not] to be referred to, in the appendix to the Book of Judges, as the headquarters of the Levites. 1

1 JPhil. 11:214 (in the course of an answer to Giesebrecht, ZATW 1:242).

2 B. Luther's phrase (ZATW 21:14), 'dass der Begriff kein hohes Alter hat', may be accepted in so far as it rejects the idea that the term shebet, tribe, is archaic.

3 See Crit. Bib. ad loc.

4 K. Kohler (Der Segen Jacob's, 1867) presses the theory that a tribal name may indicate the god anciently worshipped by the tribe to an impossible extent.

5 Dt. 33:19 is often supposed to refer to a mountain-sanctuary, common to the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar. Mt. Tabor has been thought of. See, however, Crit. Bib.

6 Cp Gruneisen, Ahnencultus (1900), p. 242.

5. Number twelve.[edit]

The convention referred to, however, definitely represents the tribes of Israel as twelve in number. There is a similar convention with regard to the clans or tribes whose origin was traced to Nahor (Gen. 22:20-24), to Ishmael (Gen. 17:20, 25:13-16), and to Esau (Gen. 36:15-19, 36:40-43) respectively. 2 Its artificiality is obvious. Never can the 'twelve tribes' of Israel have been all in existence together. When, e.g., Benjamin came into prominence as an independent tribe, Simeon and Levi presumably had long suffered the fate poetically prognosticated in Gen. 49:7. What, then, was the origin of the numeration? More than probably it had a mythological character. Diodorus Siculus (2:30), in his account of the Babylonian astronomy, after speaking of the thirty-six star-gods, tells us that the Kvptoi [kyrioi] of the gods are twelve in number, to each of whom are allotted a month and one of the signs of the zodiac. In mythological style the twelve months and the twelve signs of the zodiac could be called 'sons of the moon'. It is probable that, either directly or indirectly (through some other people), a faint echo of this had reached the primitive Israelites. The most plausible view is that the priests at the chief sanctuaries of the people, from whom Israel derived a pale reflection of a mythology, knew of a myth of the moon -god who had twelve sons (the months, or the signs of the zodiac) ; 3 and it is further probable that they connected the ancestor of their race with the moon-god, and the constituent tribes of their people with the moon-god s sons. To what people Israel was indebted for its semi-mythic tales, is matter for investigation.

Elsewhere, however (see PARADISE, SODOM), we have seen that other semi-mythic stories of the Israelites were most probably [not] borrowed from the N. Arabian people of Jerahmeel, and it is reasonable to suppose that the semi-mythic figure of Jacob (3Sj; ), the ancestor of the Israelites, is a reflection of the mythic ancestor of the Jerahmeelites, who was presumably called Jarham (from rWi 'moon', perhaps with the Arabic mimation). Cp col. 2363, n. 2. Jacob s wife Rebekah (npai, 'Ribhkah') may also owe her name to popular corruption of Jarham, just as Isaac's wife Rachel owes hers to popular distortion of 'Jerahme'el'. See REBEKAH, 2, 4

Gunkel, with his wonted penetration, remarks, 'There must be a line leading from the twelve Babylonian zodiac-gods to the twelve tribes of Israel; but of what nature and how long the line is, cannot at present be said' (Gen. (2), 293). It is much to see a problem, even if its solution be hidden. But the evidence already adduced makes it difficult to doubt that the earliest conveyors of Babylonian myths to the Israelites were the N. Arabian Jerahmeelites.

6. Solomon's twelve departments.[edit]

Another view has been put forward by B. Luther, 5 and though this scholar does not deny that the number of the months may lie at the root of the numeration of the tribes, his theory may perhaps be welcome to those who would sooner admit the post-Solomonic origin of the 'twelve tribes' than grant the possibility of mythological influences on biblical representations. It is well-known that, according to the received text of 1 K. 4:7+, Solomon divided the land of Israel into twelve departments, each of which had to supply provision to the king and his house for a month in the year. Now B. Luther is of opinion that the Solomonic division of the land into departments was at least a principal cause of the later theory of twelve tribes. Solomon, it is held, found a division into tribal provinces (not as yet twelve) already in existence, and adopted it so far as it was geographically suitable for his purposes. It was natural that a later generation should follow the precedent set by this king, and reckon twelve tribal provinces. The reason why Solomon fixed upon the number twelve was its supposed sacred character. (Cp NUMBER, 7, and note that in the Amarna letters [81, 8] we find the expression, not to be taken literally, 'twelve of my men').

1 No harder section than Judg. 17-18 can be found among the early narratives. Methodical correction is the only remedy for the otherwise insuperable difficulties of the text. Cp MICAH, 2, and Crit. Bib. Gruneisen's view (op. cit., 241) that mi.T nnSt?33 (EV, 'of the family of Judah') describes the Levite as one who sojourned for his livelihood in the tribe of Judah, is certainly wrong. Budde, at any rate, gives effect to a right impression when he substitutes as the original text mmi.238m3aS 'of the clan of Moses'. For the Levites who dwelt at Zarephath were [not] the clan of Moses. See MOSES, 17.

2 Cp Ewald, Hist. 1:369, GENEALOGIES, 5, n. 2.

3 For Winckler's form of the lunar theory, see his Geschichte Israels, 2:57. The credit of originality as well as learning is due to him.

4 That cni [YRHM] is a shorter form of ^MDRV [YRHM'L] is indisputable. See JEROHAM.

This view derives its plausibility from the mention of the months - 'each man had to provide victuals for a month in the year' (1 K. 4;7). But is this notice critically acceptable ?

Kittel indeed says that the providing spoken of (cp 4:22-28 [5:2-8]) is equivalent to the collection of taxes. 1 But this is by no means natural. 'To provide victuals for the court month by month' is not the same as 'to enable Solomon to do whatsoever his soul desired'. Stade accordingly 2 criticises the whole statement in 1 K. 4:7. He thinks that there were not twelve but thirteen 'prefects' (D SJH), and that the reference to Solomon's magnificent scale of living is due to the editor who inserted the old list of prefects in the main body of chaps. 3-11, and whose object was to enhance the glory of the king. This object he effected, but in doing so he correspondingly diminished the importance of the prefects, who became commissariat officers. It is now possible, however, to go beyond this, and to say that, text-critically, the statement in 1 K. 4:7b may be regarded as absolutely wrong, 3 and that the whole of it has most probably arisen (thanks to an ingenious editor) out of a gloss on the incorrect word ^KW (Israel). The region over which the D 3!i3 presided was, not [not] the land of Israel, but the land of Jerahmeel or Ishmael, i.e., [not] the Negeb (see SOLOMON, 6).

The number of the prefects may coincide with the number conventionally given to the tribes, but either the coincidence is accidental (twelve, as we have seen, was a sacred number), or the number of the prefects was suggested by that of the tribes, not vice versa.

7. Another early theory.[edit]

We must, therefore, still hold that the traditional number of the tribes is due to a hieratic theory respecting the ancestor of the Israelites and his sons. To this it may perhaps be objected that, as statistics show, Israel is 'the older and the original designation of the tribes united by Moses', 4 and that the OT prose-writers of all ages use 'Israel' and, less frequently, the phrase 'b'ne Israel', as the name of the people. If this may be taken to imply that Israel, not Jacob, was originally regarded as the name of the ancestor of the Israelites, must we not question the originality of the representation of the tribes as descended from sons of Jacob? This criticism may plausibly be supported by the remark that 'Jacob' as a designation of the whole people is nowhere found in prose-writings, and that the phrase 'b'ne Ja'akob' occurs only twice in prose literature, viz. - in 1 K. 18:31 and 2 K. 17:34, both which passages are to be assigned to redactors. The right answer perhaps is, not that 'Israel' was preferred to 'Jacob', as the higher or religious name, but that according to the original view 'Israel' and 'Judah' were both sons of Jacob 5 - i.e. , of Jarham or Jerahmeel. For the earliest accounts of the historical relation between Israel and Judah exclude the idea that Judah was even theoretically regarded as a part of Israel; 'Israel and Judah', as B. Luther remarks, 'are opposed as two equal powers'.

1 Konige (HK), 32 ; cp Gesch. 2:161 {Hist. 1:186).

2 GVI, 1:305. Ewald and E. Meyer also adopt the number thirteen. Cp, however, Benzinger and Kittel ad loc.

3 The section 5:2-8 [EV 4:22-28] also calls for the application of a keener textual criticism. See SOLOMON, 6, n. i, and Crit. Bib.

4 Staerk, Studien zur Religions- unif Sprachgeschichte des AT, 2 70.

5 B. Luther, op. cit. 32, of course without any reference to Jerahmeel.

If this relation were to be expressed in genealogical style, it would, in accordance with analogy, be stated that 'Israel' and 'Judah' were brothers, and precisely such a genealogical description Luther finds unmistakably implied in the fierce words of the 'man (i.e. , men ; t"N collective) of Israel' to the 'man (men) of Judah' in 2 S. 19:43 [19:44], 'I have ten parts in the king, and moreover I am the firstborn (1133, as LXX) rather than thou'. {1} It was not till long after the breaking up of Solomon's kingdom that Judah became a 'son', i.e. , a dependent, of Israel. The genealogy which represents Judah as a son of Jacob can, it would seem, have arisen only at a time when Judah, not less than any one of the 'ten tribes', owned the supremacy of the central Israelite power, and, one must of course add, when the identification of Jacob and Israel had been effected by those who recast and refashioned the old tradition. Luther, therefore, holds (p. 33) that 'the genealogy of J, if not his own work, can at any rate not be much older than the time of Ahab, when Judah became the vassal of Israel'.

To accept this, however, as the approximate date of the representation of the tribes as twelve sons of Jacob, simply because in the forms in which it has reached us Judah always appears, is somewhat hasty. It is possible that there were reckonings, now lost, of the twelve sons of Israel in which Judah was not included. As a matter of fact the number of the tribes whose origin is accounted for genealogically by JE is not twelve, but thirteen, so that if we take away 'Judah', the number left will be twelve. The reckoning which underlies JE is as follows,

(a) The Leah-tribes (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah) 4
(b) The Bilhah-tribes (Dan, Naphtali) 2
(c) The Zilpah-tribes (Gad, Asher) 2
(d) The Leah-tribes (Issachar, Zebulun) 2
(e) The Rachel-tribes (Manasseh, Ephraim) 2
(f) A Rachel-tribe (Benjamin) 1

It is true, there is evident trace (in J) of an earlier arrangement, which included Dinah and excluded Benjamin. This, however, does not affect our present argument, which is that if we are counting tribes, we cannot speak of Joseph, but only of Manasseh and Ephraim. That there ever existed a tribe which included the later (?) Ephraim and Manasseh, and passed under the name of Joseph, cannot be shown with any certainty; we cannot appeal to Nu. 13:11 because the text there is evidently in disorder (see JOSEPH [TRIBE], i, n. i). Winckler's conclusion may here be mentioned without of course committing him to more than he has said. 'That Joseph is not a tribal name, but a genealogical form [creation] is proved by the circumstance that his domain [Shechem] is in possession of the tribe of Ephraim, who therefore has to be Joseph's son' (GI, 268). Mr. Hogg, on the other hand, thinks that not improbably 'Joseph and Ephraim are simply two names, older and younger, tribal and geographical, for the same thing' (JOSEPH, 2).

1 Budde, however (Sai. KHC, 295), thinks it safer to explain thus; 'the North is conscious of its unity, and therefore feels itself not a row of brothers but one brother, under the name Israel, as opposed to Judah'. On the reading 1133 see Driver, TBS, ad loc.

2 On the geography of the statement in its original form, see SHILOH, 2. It may be added that in Dt. 33:6-25 the number of the tribes is left doubtful. V. 13 opens with the words, 'And of Joseph he said'; this implies that there are eleven tribes. But v. 17b introduce a reference to Ephraim and Manasseh.

8. Other reckonings.[edit]

We may here refer to the possibility of other reckonings of the tribes - ten, eleven, and thirteen.

  • (a) Ten sons of Israel may perhaps be referred to in 2 S. 19:43 (see above).
  • (b) Eleven sons seem to be impljed by 2 K. 11:31-32, {2} where Ahijah the Shilonite bids Jeroboam take only ten of the rent pieces of his garment, symbolising ten tribes, because one tribe was to be left for Rehoboam. Kittel indeed alters 'ten' into eleven (cp v. 30), whilst LXX as arbitrarily reads 'two tribes' for 'one tribe' in v. 32. Since, however, we must take some liberty with the text, is it not least hazardous to read 'eleven' for 'twelve' in v. 30, and to suppose either that, as in Dt. 33, Simeon is omitted, as having early disappeared, or that Levi is omitted as not being a territorial tribe? {1}
  • (c) The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by Israel (Gen. 48:13+, E) makes the number of Jacob's sons thirteen (see above). Similarly the sons of Joktan (Gen. 10:26-29) and Keturah {2} (Gen. 25:1-4) appear to be reckoned as thirteen.

T. K. C.

[As to the different biblical arrangements of the tribes, it is strange but true that there are more than twenty. In the following section, these twenty are tabulated, and a brief indication will be given of the relative influence of the different principles that govern them. The earlier and more interesting extra-biblical lists are included in the examination. For a fuller treatment see G. B. Gray, 'The Lists of the Twelve Tribes', Exp., March 1902, pp. 225-240. It will, it is hoped, become abundantly clear that in spite of the great variety of arrangement there is always some controlling principle.]


9. Geographical orders.[edit]

The twelve tribes, or 'sons' of Jacob, are mentioned by name together some twenty-five times in OT and NT; and except in Nu. 2:7, 10:14-29 the arrangement of the names is always different. In all there are upwards of twenty different arrangements. Early extra-biblical literature, such as the Book of Jubilees and the writings of Philo, repeat some of the biblical arrangements, but also contain fresh variations.

In Charles's Book of Jubilees (1902), pp. 170+, the text of the dates given for the birth of the several children is discussed. In the present text of Juhilees, the hirth of Dan is placed in an earlier year than the birth of Judah ; but this must be due to textual corruption, for it is out of accord not only with the order in which the tribes are mentioned, but also with the express statement of 21:17-18. There are several similar errors in the text of Jubilees and later works dependent on it.

In a few cases where the tribes are mentioned in connection with the conquest or distribution of the country, geographical considerations have overridden all others; and in two other instances (Jos. 13:15-16, 1 Ch. 4-6) these considerations constitute the main principle of arrangement. These lists are not included in the following table and may be briefly discussed at once. The most perfect geographical arrangement is found in Jos. 21:4-7 (cp 1 Ch. 6:54+): here the tribes are mentioned in four groups, the southern first, then the midland, then the northern and then the eastern. In Nu. 34:18+, Judg. 1 and Jos. Ant. 5:1:22 only the western tribes are included ; the order of mention is from S. to N. , but in Judg. and Jos. Dan is mentioned last, either in consequence of its subsequent position in the extreme N. , or as being descended from a hand maid. In Jos. 13:15-16 the eastern tribes Reuben and Gad are treated apart (13:13), but in the discussion of the western tribes (13:15-16) a strict geographical order is not followed; considerations of the importance of the tribes appear to have modified the tendency of the arranger to follow a S. to N. order. In 1 Ch. 4-8 the southern tribes Judah and Simeon come first, then the three eastern tribes and the rest in an order governed by no obvious principle. The one common feature of these arrangements is the marked tendency to survey the tribes from S. to N. ; of the contrary tendency there is nowhere the slightest trace.

1 Cp GENEALOGIES, 5 (on the reason for the enumeration of the priestly tribe of Levi).

2 The 'sons of Dedan' in v. 3 are interpolated.

10. Other orders.[edit]

The main considerations that have governed the order of the remaining and far more numerous lists of the tribes are obviously the traditional order of births and the several 'mothers' or 'wives' of Jacob from whom the tribes traced their descent. On this account these lists are here tabulated by means of symbols that will show at a glance the extent to which these principles have exerted their influence ; so far it will speak for itself. It will only remain to consider how far and with what results the two principles conflict with one another and what other influences over the arrangements can be detected.

The two wives of Jacob, Leah and Rachel, are indicated by L and R respectively ; Leah's handmaid, Zilpah, by l, Rachel's handmaid, Bilhah, by r. The order of birth from the same mother is indicated by index figures, and the grandsons of Rachel by Joseph, who also fall to be considered, by an additional index letter, thus:-

  • L
    • L1 = Reuben.
      • Lla = Henoch (eldest son of Reuben).
    • L2 = Simeon.
    • L3 = Levi.
    • L4 = Judah.
    • L5 = Issachar.
    • L6 = Zebulun.
  • l
    • l1 = Gad.
    • l2 = Asher.
  • R
    • R1 = Joseph.
      • R1a = Manasseh.
      • R1b = Ephraim.
    • R2 = Benjamin.
  • r
    • rl =Dan.
    • r2 = Naphtali.
Sources References
1 L1234, r12, l12, L56, R12 JE 1. Gen. 29:31-32, 30:24, 35:16+; Jubilees 28:11-24, 28:32-33
2 L123465, r1, l12, r2, R12 Early Poem Gen. 49
3 L143, R21ba, L65, l1, r12, l1 Early Poem Dt. 33
4 L123456, R12, r12, l12 P Gen. 35:23-26; Jos. Ant. 2:7:4; Jubilees 28:22
5 L123456, R2, r12, l12 P Ex. 1:1-5.
6 L123456, l12, R12, r12 P Gen. 46:9+; Jubilees 44:13+; cp Nu. 20 LXX
7 L12456, R1ba2, r1, l21, r2 P Nu. 1:5-15
8 L1245, R1b2, L6, R1a, r1, l2, r2 P Nu. 13:4-15
9 L12, l1, L456, R1ba2, rl, l2, r2 P Nu. 1:20-43
10 L12, l1, L456, R1ab2, r1, l2, r2 P Nu. 26
11 L123456, r1, R12, r2, l12 Ch. 1 Ch. 2:1+
12 L123456, r2, R1ba2, rl Ch. 1 Ch. 27:16+
13 L41, l12, r2, R1a, L2356, R12 Rev. Rev. 7:5+
14 L12456, R1ba2, l1, r1, l2, r2 LXX Nu. 1:20-43 LXX
15 L123456, r12, l12, R12 Jubilees Jubilees 34:20 ; Test. 12 Patr.
16 L123456, r1, l12, r2, R2 Philo Philo, Dreams, 2:5; Alleg. 1:26
17 L2345, R12 ¦ L1, l12, L6, r12 D Dt. 27:12-14
18 r1, l2, r2, R1ab, L14 ¦ R2, L256, l1 Ezek. Ezek. 48:1-7, 48:23-29
19 L456 ¦ L12, l1 ¦ R1ba2 ¦ r1, l2, r2 P Nu. 2:7, 2:10, 2:14-29
20 L4, r2, l1 ¦ L3, r1, L2 ¦ L156 ¦ L2, R2, L1a Jubilees Jubilees 8:5+

The last four lists (17-20) are somewhat different in character from the first sixteen ; for in them the tribes are distributed for various purposes into two or more groups, which are marked above by the perpendicular line.

The two principles that have obviously influenced the various arrangements conflict with one another; for the sons of the handmaids, in virtue of seniority, come between the first four and the last two of Leah's children. Since the simple order of birth is never adopted except in the story of the births, the tendency to group the tribes according to their respective mothers was clearly stronger than the tendency to group according to age.

Further, the least departure from the order of birth, required in order to maintain the maternal groups intact, would be to place the children of the handmaids immediately after Leah's six children. This, however (except in the later lists ­- NT, Philo, Jubilees), is a comparatively infrequent arrangement; far more frequently the children of the full wife Rachel, though younger, precede the children of the handmaids. An obvious cross principle is adopted but once (no. 6 ; see also Nu. 26 LXX).

The tendency to keep the children of the two full wives in two distinct groups is far stronger than that to keep the children of the two handmaids distinct ; indeed, a tendency to keep the children of the two handmaids in two distinct groups can hardly be said to exist. The handmaid tribes are to be regarded as constituting a single class in which considerable freedom of arrangement prevailed.

It will only be possible to refer briefly to some of the chief apparent or real violations of the principles just indicated.

In some lists Judah, though the fourth son of Leah, stands first (13, 19, 20 ; cp Nu. 34:19, Josh. 21:4 and other geographical lists). The reason, it can scarcely be questioned, is the preeminence of the tribe.

In the camp order (19), Judah is given the superior eastern position; otherwise, the four groups are constituted and arranged in such an order as to do least violence to the principle that sons of the same mother should be kept together and in the order of their birth. Since Levi is necessarily omitted from the scheme, Leah s sons fail to make two complete groups of three, I the second group is completed by Gad, the eldest son of Leah s handmaid. Lists 9, 10 seem to be so far influenced by this list that Gad follows Simeon. On the other hand, the separation of Dan from the other handmaid tribes in 11 and 12 is not easy of explanation.

In lists 2 and 3 Zebulun, exceptionally, precedes Issachar. As both these lists occur in poems of earlier origin than JE, it is possible that the arrangement represents an earlier theory of the relative ages of the two tribes, according to which all the sons of Leah were older than any of the sons of other mothers, Zebulun was older than Issachar, and the relative ages of the handmaid tribes were not the same as in the later scheme.

Benjamin precedes Joseph (R21) in only one (no. 3) of the twenty lists; in another (no. 8) it stands between Ephraim and Manasseh (R1b21a). Both these arrangements are extremely anomalous, and each occurs in a list that contains other anomalies. In the case of no. 8 the anomalies are almost certainly due to an accidental transposition in the text. If in Nu. 13 vv. 11-12 be placed before vv. 8-9, three anomalies are at once removed and an entirely normal list restored (L12456, R1ab2, r1, l2, r2, l1). In Dt. 33, unless the text has suffered very serious dislocation, the order was originally altogether anomalous.

In no. 13 also, a simple transposition, by which vv. 5c-6 should be made to follow v. 8 in Rev. 7, would restore a far more normal list (L412356, R12, l12, r2, R1a) where R1a (Manasseh) is an intentional or accidental substitute for Dan (r2).

In 17 and 18, and to a much slighter extent in 20, the tendency to maintain the traditional groups still exerts itself, but is checked by other considerations. The second group in 17 consists of the tribes whose duty it was to curse; the tribes selected for this purpose are, not unnaturally, the less eminent handmaid tribes and the youngest son of Leah; why Leah's eldest son completes the group is not clear, unless the curse pronounced on him in Gen. 49 has influenced the selection. In Ezek, a similar slightness of regard for the handmaid tribes has given them positions most remote from the holy district.

G. B. G.

Current Theories.[edit]

The problems which have just been stated and illustrated, differ in their degree of importance, and the most interesting of them advance but slowly towards a satisfactorv solution. More particularly, opinions are divided relative to the inner meaning of the first list of the tribes (that of JE), and of the traditions which are connected with it. Ewald long ago expressed the conviction 1 that, rightly understood, such a list must convey important information relative to the 'pre-Egyptian period of Israel's history', and we may, at any rate, agree with him that, even allowing for the extreme uncertainty of tradition with regard to details, and for the probability of the intermixture of elements derived from the circumstances of later ages, something of value may be obtainable by the historical critic from the genealogical narrative of JE.

11. Wellhausen.[edit]

Wellhausen and Stade deserve special gratitude for the acuteness with which they have studied both this and the other tra ditional narratives relative to the origin of the tribes. According to Wellhausen, 2 with whom Guthe (GVI, 1899, p. 41) and probably Bennett (Hastings' DB, s.v. 'Tribes') and Paton (Syria and Palestine, 1902, pp. 124, 138, etc.) agree, the original Israelitish tribes were seven in number, six of which belong to the group represented by Jacob's wife Leah, and one to that represented by his other wife Rachel. It was the latter tribe - viz., Joseph, which (according to these critics) alone sojourned in Egypt (cp EXODUS, 2). The combination of the Leah and the Rachel tribes was probably effected by Moses, who came from the Sinaitic peninsula to conduct the Hebrews thither from Goshen. The sons of the concubines (Bilhah and Zilpah) - viz., Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher - are not in the same full sense sons of Jacob or Israel; these tribes were probably of very mixed origin, and joined the b'ne Israel later. On what principle the Bilhah and Zilpah groups were arranged, is not clear. Guthe thinks that these two couples of tribes had come into specially close relations with Joseph and with either Reuben or Issachar and Zebulun respectively, and that this was expressed genealogically by the statement that their mothers were the handmaids, in the one case of Rachel, in the other of Leah. For the further movements of the tribes, according to Guthe, see ISRAEL, 7.

1 GVI (3) 1:519+ (Hist. 1:362+).

2 IJG (1), 11-13, 18; Prol.(4), 322-329.

12. Stade.[edit]

Stade 1 is of opinion that the legend of Jacob and Joseph in its present form presupposes the division of the kingdoms. Leah, the legitimate but slighted wife, represents the kingdom of Judah, Rachel that of Israel. The assignment of a tribe to Leah or to Rachel depends on the question whether the tribe came earlier or later into the country W. of the Jordan. 2 The details of the legend cannot, for the most part, be interpreted historically. Bilhah was probably connected with Rachel for geographical reasons ; but not so Zilpah with Leah. Why the insignificant Reuben is made the firstborn, is obscure. 'If the precedence given to Reuben reflects actions of this tribe, these actions must go back to the most remote antiquity'. Why, too, are Issachar and Zebulun grouped with Judah, and Gad with Asher? Here again, political circumstances may be reflected. It is only Joseph and Benjamin whose position is quite clear; they reached distinction only at a late period. Benjamin branched off from Joseph (cp 2 S. 19:2i, 'I [Shimei] have come the first of all the house of Joseph') before Joseph split into Ephraim and Manasseh. Dinah is merely a genealogical creation. She represents an Israelitish minority in the population of the Canaanite city of Shechem in the pre-regal period (cp DINAH, 1). The story of Dinah (Gen. 34) and that of Tamar (Gen! 38) are the oldest parts of the tribal legend, and indicate on what lines the occupation of Palestine really proceeded. In the formation of the tribes, not only the vicinity of Israelite clans, but the intermixture of non-Israelitish elements were important factors. As we find them in the historical period, they arose on this side of the Jordan. On the question of the sojourn in Egypt, Stade is in agreement with Wellhausen.

13. Steuernagel.[edit]

A new impulse has been given to these inquiries by Steuernagel, who has made a very thorough and critical study of the legends of the immigration of the tribes of Israel into Canaan. 3 According to him, it is the Rachel-tribes which have the first right to be called sons of Jacob. They arose through the fusion of the 'genuine Israelitish' tribe Jacob, and the Aramaic tribe Rachel. The Jacob-tribe thus lost its independent existence, and by degrees the tribal name Jacob gave way to the new name Joseph. The name Jacob itself, however, did not disappear. The facts of the origin of the Joseph- tribe led to the traditional statement that Joseph was the son of Jacob and Rachel. Steuernagel, however, also seeks to throw light on the early history of the Jacob-tribe, which was led out of Egypt by Moses, and dwelt in the eastern steppe-country to the S. of Canaan, by Sinai, where the tribe allied itself to the Horite clan Bilhan ( = Bilhah), but, together with other tribes, was driven further by the Edomites, who had formed a kingdom to the N. or the Sinaitic peninsula (Gen. 36:31); this the legend describes as Jacob's flight from Esau.

1 GVI (3) 1:145-146; 'Lea und Rahel', ZATW 112-116 ; 'Wo enstanden die genealogischen Sagen uber den Ursprung der Hebraer?' ZATW 1:347-350; Entstehung des Volkes Israel, Akad. Reden, 97-121.

2 ZATW 113. In GVI 1:147, however, Stade cautions us against looking to the genealogical legend for any disclosures as to the course of events in the immigration into Canaan. For a criticism of Stade's view on the combination of two systems, one representing them as wives of Jacob, and the other as sons, see Steuernagel, Die Einwand 9-10; Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 499-500.

3 Die Einwanderung der Israelitischen Stamme in Kanaan (1901). For criticisms of this able work see Gunkel, Gen (2), 285; J. C. Matthes, 'Israels nederzetting in Kanaan', Th.T 36:517+ [1902].

From Mesopotamia, where the fusion with 'Rachel' took place, the mixed tribe now called 'Joseph' was pushed by Aramaean tribes (under Assyrian pressure) southward. On the N. border of Gilead the Aramaeans made a temporary halt, while the Jacob-Rachel tribe occupied N. Gilead. Not improbably, the boundary between them was fixed by a compact near the Yarmuk. 'If this be correct, it will follow, not only that the migration of Jacob should receive a place in general history, but also that it is to be assigned to the fourteenth century' (p. 60). The story in Gen. 32:21b-32 tells of the duel between Jacob and the god of the conquered N. Gileadites. 'Israel' means 'El ( = Yahwe) fights', 1 i.e. , for Jacob; it became a war-cry and, later on, the name of the people. The sequel is related, according to Steuernagel, in two forms - in the Jacob-story and in the Book of Joshua. Attacks of the Bedouin tribes (probably) forced the Jacob-Rachel tribe to cross the Jordan, to the S. of the point where the Yarmuk enters it. The tribe goes to Shechem, where it acquires land by payment (a reminiscence of ancient payment of tribute to the Shechemites). The narrative in Gen. 35 belongs to a later time when, as a consequence of the extension of the Rachel-tribe to the S. , the Benjamin tribe made itself independent. The Jacob- Rachel tribe now disappears ; in future the two tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, appear in its place. In the legendary style, this is expressed by saying that soon after the arrival at Bethel, and the founding of a sanctuary there, Benjamin was born, and Rachel died. As to the Leah-Zilpah tribes, Steuernagel s view is that they reached Canaan before the Jacob-Rachel tribe, and came into connection with that tribe in Canaan, on which account legend represented Leah as the wife who was foisted upon Jacob.

1 Another explanation of 'Israel' is offered elsewhere (p. 62). But both 'El fights' and 'man of Rachel' must be incorrect.

  • ?X [el] in names of the type SniK" [israel] does not mean 'God', and no sound analogy can be offered for such a tribal name as ^m t:"N> ['YSh RHL] out of which Steuernagel (as an alternative theory) doubtfully brings ^XTE" [YShR'L = israel]

2 On Steuernagel's view (p. 47) of the traditional representation of the Leah-Zilpah tribes, see ZILPAH, n. 2.

14. Criticism of theories.[edit]

All these theories are ably defended. The least satisfactory is the third, precisely because it is the most elaborate, and aims at the fullest historical results. Almost everything in the patriarchal narratives turns out to be a typical or anticipative history of the settlement of the tribes in Canaan. Unfortunately Steuernagel, under the presence of theory, has here and there to alter the traditional statements. The tradition states that lacob married Leah and Rachel at the same time, and afterwards Bilhah and Zilpah, and that the place was in Mesopotamia. This critic, however, alters the order of the marriages and the places, and represents that the Bilhah tribe joined Jacob in the S. of Canaan, and the Rachel tribe in Mesopotamia; Leah and Zilpah however only joined after the immigration. 2 This is one great drawback. Another is that Steuernagel treats his traditional material very undiscriminatingly, the connections between the legends being made as much use of as the legends themselves. For instance, the order of the events related in Jacob's progress through Canaan surely does not rest on early tradition; there is no real traditional authority for placing the foundation of Bethel before the death of Rachel at Ephrath. Nor does Steuernagel allow for the probability that the historical circumstances of the regal period have found a reflection in the patriarchal legend, and throughout he shows a confidence in the vitality of the earliest tradition which is not justified by the experience of historical critics elsewhere.

But even Wellhausen's and Stade's theories cannot either of them be accepted without important modifications, and it remains for future investigators to use the works of the three eminent critics mentioned rather as mines of suggestions than as records of results. Two things seem to be required in order that we may take a genuine step forward.

  • (1) We must criticise the Hebrew text more keenly and with more adequate methods, and
  • (2) we must look out for further help from archaeological research.

Many perhaps will shake their heads at the first of these requirements. But without a more thorough investigation of the text we shall not be in a position to use archaeological discoveries aright when we get them. Steuernagel for instance refers (113-114; cp ASHER, 1) to W. Max Muller's statement (As. u. Eur. 236+) that in the inscriptions of Seti I. and Rameses II. a land of Aseru or As(s)aru is often mentioned as occupying W. Galilee. It is true, he declines to lay any great stress upon this, though, if the land of Aseru were named after the tribe of Asher, it would fit in with his view, independently obtained, that the Jacob-Rachel tribe was forced by the Aramaean migration into N. Gilead in the fourteenth century B.C. Others, however, are less cautious. Paton (Syria and Pal. 126) tells us that 'in an inscription of Sety we meet for the first time A-sa-ru (Asher), a Canaanite or Amorite tribe that subsequently was adopted into the Hebrew confederacy, and was classified as a son of Jacob by his concubine Zilpah'. Hommel too (AHT 228, 237) thinks that the Egyptian notices can be utilised for the history of the tribe of Asher. All this is precarious until the Hebrew texts have been more thoroughly explored. It must be admitted, indeed, that Hommel (as well as the present writer) has made a beginning in examining those OT passages which may have a bearing on the origin of the trite of Asher ; but here as elsewhere nothing short of a complete survey of the biblical texts (such as is begun in portions of the present work and will be continued and completed in Critica Biblica) will enable us to give a fairly satisfactory solution even of this comparatively small problem.

Very much more importance is attached by Steuernagel to the references to people called the Habiri in the Tell el-Amarna letters (cp ASHER, 1, 1; HEBER ; HEBREW LANGUAGE, 1; ISRAEL, 3). These Habiri are identified by Steuernagel with the Israelites, or at least with the Leah-tribe. This too fits in with his chronological theory ; he infers from it that the Negeb was occupied by the Leah-tribe about 1400 B.C., and that the extension of this tribe over the central highlands of Ephraim took place towards 1385. Now in itself this dating of the conquest of central Canaan is plausible enough; it approximates to that given more vaguely by Winckler in 1895 {1} (GI 1:14). It must, however, be stated that there is so much uncertainty about the names in the early Hebrew traditions, and such tricks are constantly played us by the ancient narrators who use the same name in different senses that for the present all such theories can only be put forward with great reserve.

15. Conclusion.[edit]

It may be stated in conclusion that this is the reason why we have made no use in this article of the references to Israelitish tribes in the song of Deborah. Negatively, previous critics have done much for the text of this song i- .e. , they have pointed out many corruptions as probable. But very little of a satisfactory character has been done for the correction of the text; the old methods have once more proved their inadequacy. Here as elsewhere a fresh start in criticism must be made by the application of a broader text-critical method.

We are also precluded from taking up any position as to the question, what traces (apart from any in the Jacob legend) the narrative books contain of changes in the dwelling-places of the migrating Israelitish tribes. A number of such traces are pointed out by Steuernagel. Asher, for instance, according to this critic (p. 30), may once have dwelt on what was afterwards the border-region of Ephraim and Benjamin. Issachar and Zebulun (p. 12), dwelt anciently in the central highland country (Mt. Ephraim). Dinah, Simeon, and Levi (p. 14-15) were once settled near Shechem in Mt. Ephraim. (Steuernagel might plausibly have referred, in proof of Simeon s having belonged to N. Israel, to 2 Ch. 15:9 ; see, however, Crit. Bib. on Is. 9:7-10:4). Reuben (p. 15) once had his home NE. of Judah, in what was afterwards Benjamite territory. All these problems, however, assume a fresh aspect as the result of a continuous text-critical investigation of the Hebrew texts. To enter, at this point, on a piecemeal examination of selected passages would require too great an extension of this article, and the conclusions would not have the best chance of making a due impression on the reader.

The special articles in this work on the tribes, on the tribal 'mothers', and on Jacob, should be consulted. The conclusions, sometimes tentative, may not always be in harmony, but in the present unsettled condition of the subject this could not be otherwise. The present writer is responsible for the view that the first war of Israel was for the possession of the Negeb, and that much in the OT which has been supposed to refer to districts of Canaan proper really refers to the Holy Land of the Israelites the Negeb, or N. Arabian border land. For a full critical monograph on the tribes of Israel see 'Die Israelitischen Stamme', by B. Luther, ZATW 21:1-76 [1901] ; cp also Bennett's article 'Tribe', in Hastings DB vol. 4.

T. K. C., 1-8, 11-15; G. B. G., 9-10

1 For Winckler's latest statement of his view on the Habiri see AOFW 90-94. Budde (The Religion of Israel to the Exile [1809], 6) may produce an impression that Winckler identifies the Habiri with the Israelites. This, however, of course is not the case. Winckler expressly guards himself against being supposed to mean that the Habiri are to be limited to 'Israelitish' tribes or clans.


(KPITHPION [kriterion] : 1 Cor. 6:24 RVmg; same word also in Jas. 2:6, EV 'judgment seat', and in Ex. 21:6, Judg. 5:10 [not LXX{A} ], Sus. 49 [Theod., not LXX{87}]; in 1 K. 7:7 for QSlTp, mishpat and in Dan. 7:10, 7:26 for j" 1 !, din, T\ Kpurts [e krisis] LXX{87} in v. 26). Cp GOVERNMENT, 16, LAW AND JUSTICE, 8+.


(xiAiARXOi [chiliarchoi]), Rev. 19:18, RVmg. See ARMY ('chiliarch'), 10.


See TAXATION, and cp SOLOMON, 6.


(TpirroAlC [VA]). It was at the haven at Tripolis (TOV KO.TO, fpin-oXiv At/u^cos [tou kata triplin limenos]) that Demetrius I. , son of Seleucus, mustered the 'mighty host' and 'fleet' of which we read in 2 Macc. 14:1+. Cp MACCABEES, 5. As its name indicates (see PHOENICIA, 21), Tripolis was divided into three quarters (separated by walls); it had been founded (not earlier probably than 700 B.C.) by Aradians, Tyrians, and Zidonians, and in Persian times Zidon, Tyre, and Aradus held a federal council in it. From 197 B.C. onwards it belonged to the Seleucidae; but towards the end of that period it fell under usurpers or 'tyrants', and was plagued by robber tribes from whom it was delivered by Pompey in 64 (see PHOENICIA, 22).

The modern Tripoli or Taritbulus, on the river Kadisha or Abu 'Ali, is situated in a fertile maritime plain covered with orchards and dominated by a castle overhanging a gorge of the river, some parts of which are, perhaps, the work of the crusaders. The port (el Mini) is about 2 mi. distant, on a small peninsula (see PHOENICIA, map).


Twice the Roman triumph is referred to figuratively, and if the general meaning in one passage (Col. 2:15) is plain, in the other (2 Cor. 2:14) it is by no means plain. God, we are told in Col. l.c., 'triumphed over' the angels opposed to Christ in the henceforth annulled bond of ordinances which had been directly hostile to men, and so had justified those angels (who had in fact promulgated those ordinances?) in their opposition. The words are - dtrfKSv(rd/j,evos rdj dpxds Kdl TO.S f^ovaia? edeiy/j,dri(rei> ev Trapp-rjffiq., tfpia/x/iewras atfroi s kv avrip, which the RV renders, 'having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it'. In 2 Cor. l.c. , however, the rendering is disputed. The words are - rep de 8e<f> x&P 1 * T< ? Trdfrore OptanftfuovTi KO.I TT]V 6<T/J.T]V T7JS 7 W<7eWS O.VTOU (paffpovvri 81 TJ/J.UV iv WQ.STI r^irtf, which the RV renders, 'but thanks be unto God, which always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest through us the savour of his knowledge in every place', 1 whilst the AV gives to fyua/u/Seitafrt [thriambeuonti] the sense 'causeth (us) to triumph', in spite of the fact that the causative sense does not appear elsewhere. But, unless we desert the paths of natural exegesis, how can God be said to lead Paul and his companions in triumph ? Does not Si ^ucDi/ [di emoon] in the following clause prove that Paul himself is supposed to be a member of the triumphal procession ? Another point has to be mentioned. J. C. M. Laurent has pointed out that vv. 12-13 do not help our comprehension of the context ; according to him, they are a marginal note (by Paul himself) on the statement in 1:16. 'The subject of dyvoovftev [agnooumen] (v. 11) and the nominative of r/yuas [emas] (v. 14) are the same man, the apostle. The verb ttpia.fj.jlei oi Ti [thriambeuonti] is excellently accounted for by the avrov [autou] which precedes in v. 11'. It is over Satan that Paul 'triumphs'. The reference to a 'sweet odour' which follows harmonises with the figure of the 'triumph'. For during a triumph, sweet spices were burnt ; as Plutarch (Aemil.) says, the streets were dv/j.ia.fjLdTwv ir\7jpeis [thymiamatoon plereis]. Paul's preaching of God, or of Christ, is as penetrating, as all-pervading, as the smell of incense. It was a brave sight - that of a Roman triumph - and worthy to be chosen by such an enthusiast for Christ and his victory as Paul. 'Rome was en fete [french], the streets gay with garlands, the temples open'. The procession, it is true, presented reminders that the Christian principle was not yet supreme. The best part was the end, when 'on reaching the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, the general placed the laurel branch (in later times a palm branch) on the lap of the image of the god, and thus offered the thank-offerings' (see EB, art. 'Triumph').


(TROJAC, Ti. WH, Acts 16:8, 16:11, 20:5, 2 Cor. 2:12-13, 2 Tim. 4:13).

1. Name.[edit]

The full name of the town was Alexandria Troas ( AAef dv&peia 17 Tpuxis [alexandreia e trooas], Strabo, 581; Ptol. 5:2:4; Liv. 3542. The order Tpcoa? AAefarSpeia [e trooas alexandreia] is found in Polyb. 5:111). One or other part of the full form was very commonly used to designate the place (Alexandreia in Strabo, 599 et pass. ; cp Polyb. 5:78. Troas alone in NT, and Pliny, HN, 533, ipsaquc Troas). {1} Troas is simply an adjective, which distinguishes the 'Trojan Alexandria' from the many other towns called after the great conqueror.

Apparently the simple 17 Tpu>a? [e trooas] is not used by Greek writers before the NT period, as leading to ambiguity. For 17 Tpwtx? [e trooas] is the correct Greek equivalent for 'the Troad' - i.e., the region between Mt. Ida and the Hellespont, which was the centre of the Trojan power in Homeric tradition. The 'Troad' (as the word is adopted in English) was spoken of by the Greeks as >; Tpoia? [e trooas] from the time at least of Herodotus (5:122). In 2 Cor. 2:12 eis TT\V Tp<adSa [eis ten trooada] might therefore, so far as form goes, mean 'to the Troad'; but of course the word Alexandria must be supplied to limit the phrase to the city in question - unless we are prepared here to insist that Paul really meant the Troad and did not confine his visit to the Troad Alexandria.

1 Many varieties are found - y r!av A\eav6pf<av n-dAi? [e toon alexandreoon polis] in Polyb. 21:10-11. In an inscription at Delphi (Ditten., Syll. (2), 268 = Michel, Recueil, 6:55) we have Tpios an-b A Aef av&peiax [troos apo alexandreias] followed almost immediately by AAefai/fipeus ex ras Tpwafios [alexandreus ek tas trooados]. In Strabo, 134, we find AAedi5peia Trjs TpwaSos [alexandreia tes trooados], just as in Paus. 10:12:4 we have AAefai>6peia 17 tv rfj Tptad&t [alexandreia e en te trooadi].

2. History.[edit]

Alexandria Troas (mod. Eski-Stambui) was an important town and harbour on the coast of Aeolis (Mysia) or NW. Asia Minor, opposite the SE extreniity of the island of Tenedos; it was half-way between Sigeium and Cape Lectum (which cape was rounded by the ship in passing from Troas to Assos. Acts 20:13). Alexandria was built by Antigonus, who gathered to it the population of the neighbouring small townships - Scepsis, Cebren, Neandreia, Larisa, Kolonai, Hamaxitos, and Chrysa (Strabo, 604; cp 593, 597). The town was first named Antigonia Troas, after its founder ; but subsequently Lysimachus changed this to Alexandria Troas (Strabo, 593 ; Pliny, HN 5:33, 'Troas, Antigonia dicta, nunc Alexandria, colonia Romana'). The importance of the city is seen from the fact that, in the negotiations of Antiochus the Great with the Romans before the battle of Magnesia, the Syrian king offered to surrender 'the territories of Lampsacus and Smyrna as well as Alexandria Troas, which were the original cause of the war' (Polyb. 21:13); its extensive ruins, which for long have served as a quarry, bear testimony to its importance and prosperity.

After the defeat of Antiochus the Great, Troas fell inio the hands of the Romans and experienced many benefits from them. It was one of the few Roman colonies in Asia Minor (Strabo, 593 ; cp Plin. HN, l.c.). It dated from the time of Augustus ; hence the coins bear the Latin inscription COL. TROAD. ; COL. ALEX. TRO. : or COL. AUG. TRO. , from which we may infer the name 'Colonia Alexandria Augusta Troas'. 1 Julius Caesar was credited with a design of removing the capital of the Roman world to this place (Suet. Jui 79), and perhaps Horace (Od. 3:357) hints at the same design on the part of Augustus (cp also what is sa d of Constantino before he fixed upon the site of Constantinople, Zosim. 2:30 ; Zonar. 13:3). Augustus, Hadrian, and Herodes Atticus contributed to the beautification of the city. Herodes Atticus built the aqueduct of which remains can still be seen, and ihe baths ,vere also probably his gift (see on the baths Koldewey, in Athen. Mitth. 9:36-37).

3. NT references.[edit]

Through Troas in Roman times ran the coast road which encircled the peninsula, and thus there was direct and easy communication with the interior by way of Adramyttium. From ADRAMYTTIUM (q.v.) a road ran NE to cyzicus on the Propontis, and thence towards the Bithyhian frontier : a road also ran southwards to Pergamos. The former of these roads may well have been in the main that followed by Paul when he found it impossible to penetrate into Bithynia (Acts 16:7-8); but the scantiness of the record here reduces us to conjectures which gain but little strength from the later traditions (see Ramsay, Church (5), 488, Expos., Oct. 1888, p. 264; April 1894, p. 295). Similarly, when Paul was obliged to retire from Ephesus (Acts 20:1) to Troas (2 Cor. 2:12), he may have gone either by sea, or by the coast road which led through Adramyttium (more probably the coast road, if the circumstances of the departure from Ephesus are taken into account). The importance of Troas in the itineraries of the time in this region is shown by the references in 2 Cor. 2:12 and Acts 20:5 - ships passing in either d rcction were certain to put in at Troas.

In order to clear up all ambiguity, perhaps reference should here be made to a neighbouring town which also bore the name of Troy, Novun Ilium, which is quite distinct from Alexandria Troas. Novum Ilium (Grk. Ilion) claimed to occupy the veritable site of Homer's Troy, and all antiquity allowed this claim (cp Herod. 743; Strabo, 594; Diod. 18:4 ; Xen. Hell. 1:1:3) until it was disputed by Demetrius of Scepsis followed by Strabo; the discoveries of Schliemann have settled the question in the affirmative. In Alexander's time the site was a mere fortified post only occasionally occupied; but he designed the restoration of the town - a restoration finally effected by Lysimachus. Having been destroyed by Fimbria in 85 R.c. , the town was once more restored by Sulla (Appian, Mithr. 53) as a favoured city exempt from tribute (Pliny, HN 5:33, cp Tac. Ann 12:58, 'ut Ilienses omni publico munere solverentur', in 53 A.D.). This generosity on the part of the Romans was due to their fond belief that the city was the original birthplace of their race; intrinsically the town was of no importance at all (cp Tac. Ann. 4:55) and in this respect was a great contrast to Alexandria Troas. W. J. W.

1 In the time of Caracalla the coins bear the additional epithets 'Aurelia Antoniniana'. See Head, Hist. Numm. 470.


(rpcorYAAiorsi, Acts 20:15 [TR], where, for TTApeB&Ao/v\eN eic CAMON. TH Ae eXOMGNH HA0OMGN eiC MlAHTON [parebalomen eis samon, te de echomene elthomen eis mileton] [WH], the TR has TTApeBAAOMeN GIC CA.MON KAI MGINANTeC eN TpcoryM W TH exo/weNH K. T. A. [parebalomen eis samon kai meinantes en trogyllioo te echomene k.t.l.] [For rpcorYAAiu [trogyllioo] there is the variant TpoOfY^ W [troogylioo] which is apparently to be preferred : see WH 2 App. 98 n.]), Acts 20:15 AV, RVmg (see end).

The island of Samos is separated from the mainland by a channel now called the Little Boghaz, 1 formed by the overlapping of its eastern promontory Poseidium (Cape Colonna] with the western spur of Mt. Mycale which was called Trogylium 2 (now Cape Santa Maria). The channel is about one mile wide (Strabo, 636, iiriKarat 5 Tri Za/tup [sc. Mii/caAr; TO 6/)osJ Kal Trote? irpos a.M] (irfKfiva rfjs fpuyt\Lov Ka\oiifj.tvris d/cpa? tiaov eirra.- ffTddtov iropd/j.6i>). Strabo (l.c. ) also explains that Trogylium is a spur (&Kpa wpowovs [akra propous]), of Mt. Mycale and that facing it there was an island of the same name. Pliny (HN 537) names three 'insulae Trogiliae', viz. , Psilon, Argennon, and Sandalion. The anchorage of Trogylium must have been well-known to sailors, for Strabo uses it as a point from which to measure the distance of cape Sunium in Attica (1600 stades to the W., ibid. the two points lie practically on the same parallel of latitude). According to the maps, there is an anchorage a little to the east of the point, called St. Paul's Port (see Adm. Charts, 1530 and 1555).

Paul sailed through this channel on his way to Jerusalem at the close of his third missionary tour. After leaving the latitude of Chios the ship ran straight across to the eastern point of Samos (Tra.pffid.\ofjLei> [parebalomen] in v. 15 need not imply stoppage at or off the harbour of Samos which lies 4 or 5 mi. distant to the west of Trogylium : cp Thuc. 3:32). The night was spent in the anchorage of Trogylium, and Miletus was entered in the morning (see MILETUS). It is certain that there must have intervened a night between Chios and Miletus, and this can have been spent only at Samos or at Trogylium. The omission of the reference to Trogylium by the great MSS may be due to the idea that wapfj3d\o/j.fv eis ~La.fi.ov [parebalomen eis samon] implied a stoppage during the hours of darkness at that port; this idea may have been strengthened by the existence of the variant ((nr^pa [espera] for ertpq [etera] in v. 15, for by implying that the passage to, or arrival at, Samos was postponed to a somewhat late hour, it made the further progress that same night to Trogylium impossible. The western text undoubtedly here preserves a true reading, and the reference to Trogylium should be retained (omitted, except in margin, by RV: 'touched at Samos; and [RVmg - many ancient authorities insert, 'having tarried at Trogyllium'] the day after we came to Miletus'. See MILETUS, 2.

W. J. W.

1 The Great Boghaz is on the W. of Samos, separating that island from Icaria, and varies from 3 to 8 mi. in width; this is the passage generally used by modern vessels of any size.

2 Trogyllion is the form used by Ptol. 5:2; Strabo calls it n TpwyiAios aKpa [e troogilios akra]; Plin. HN 5:30 calls it Trogilia. Cp. Steph. Byz. s.v. TpwyiAos. Trogylia in the Latin Western text.


The words so rendered are :

1. 13, gad, Gen. 30:11, Is. 65:11; see FORTUNE, GAD, 1.

2. 1113, gedud, 2 K. 6:23, etc., 'band' (LXX{BA} fiovo^iavoi [monozoonoi], LXX{L} Treiparai [peiratai]). See ARMY, 3.

3. n ?AN> 'aguddah, 2 S. 2:25, RV 'band'. See above.

4. rrn, hayyah, 2 S. 23:11, Ps. 68:11 [10]. See HDB.

5. rnx, 'orah, Job 6:19, RV CARAVAN (q.v.). See also TRADE, 83 [bB].

6. Dr^, rekeb, Is. 21:7 RV. Cp CHARIOT, i.


(rpO(J>iMOC [Ti. WH]i, an Ephesian disciple and companion of Paul, seems to have been with him in Greece during his third missionary journey, and along with Tychicus preceded the apostle to Troas, where he was joined by Paul and his party on their way to Syria. Trophimus was, apparently, a Gentile, and a mistaken impression that he had been introduced into the temple proper by Paul led to the uproar which resulted in Paul's being taken into custody and ultimately transferred to Caesarea and Rome (Acts 20:4, 21:29). The allusion to Trophimus in 2 Tim. 4:20 ('Trophimus I left at Miletus sick') is one of several which have made it necessary to postulate certain journeys of Paul of which the NT contains no direct record, if the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles is to be maintained.

The name of Trophimus closes the lists of 'the seventy' by the Pseudo Dorotheas and Pseudo-Hippolytus, which state that he suffered martyrdom at Rome along with the apostle.


1. Hi?- keren, c&ArrirS [kalpigz]. Lev. 23:24, etc. See HORN, Music, 5a.

2. "isip, shophar (i.e., 'ram's horn'; Ar. sawafir, cp Egypt. thupar, Ass. shapparu, 'wild goat' and deriv. of yobel, below), Judg. 7:16, etc., xeparuT [keratine] (roO craAn-uJ eii [tou salpizein], 7:20). See Music, 5a.

3. "ISXn, ms&in, hatsotser, hatsotserah, <raAiri-y [salpigx], 1 Ch. 15:24, 2 Ch. 5:12, 7:6, 13:14, 29:28-29. See Music, 5b.

4. ^y,y yobel - i.e., 'ram's horn', so Ex. 19:13, RVmg, oroA7riy [salpigx]. See Music, 5a and cp JUBILEE.

5. In Ezek. 7:14 MT has yi23na Wpn, rendered in EV 'they have blown the trumpet' (LXX o-aATriVarr [iv] emATnyyi [salipsate [en] salpiggi]); J ipn, takoa', however, occurs nowhere else in the sense of trumpet. Cornill, therefore, followed by Toy, proposes to read y7pn 1J, pn> 'blaset nur'. See Music, 5b, end.

6. "ijflin, teru'ah, Nu. 20:1, etc., see TRUMPET-BLOWING.


(rumjjl D1\ EV 'day of blowing of [AV insert 'the'] trumpets'; HMep*. CHMACI&c [emera semasias]; dies clangoris et tubarum: Nu. 29:1), or, MEMORIAL OF ( n |VGT ; MNHMOCYNON CA.ATTirr^N [mnemosynon salpiggoon]; memoriale clangentibus tubis : Lev. 23:24). According to Lev. 23:24 (P), Nu. 29:1 (P2), the first day of the seventh month was to be 'a day of solemn rest' on which 'no servile work' was to be done, a holy convocation, a day, or memorial, of teru'ah. See further JUBILEE, 1, NEW MOON, NEW YEAR, YEAR 8 (near end), and, on the shape of the ritual trumpets, Music, 5 (cp fig. 10).

The word teruah is used sometimes in the sense of joyful shouting (Job 8:21, Ecclus. 39:15 [Heb.], 1 S. 4:5 Ezra 3:11, 3:13, Nu. 23:21), sometimes in that of the battle-shout or alarm of war (Am. 1:14, Jer. 4:19, 49:2, Josh. 6:5, 6:20). Nu. 31:6 speaks in this connection of 'the trumpets for the alarm' (nynnri miSXn)- That teruah in the passages cited means 'trumpet-blowing' (cp Nu. 10:10, Ps. 27:6, 59:16 [15]) follows from the law which enjoined that trumpets were to be blown at each new moon.


1. Heb. and Gk. terms.[edit]

The Heb. HOX ['MTh], 'emeth ( VJOS [root 'MV], 'to be firm'), requires to be rendered differently according to the context; the EVV, sometimes so needlessly addicted to a variety of rendering, is here as needlessly consistent in its adherence to the rendering 'truth'.

As a general rule, 'faithfulness', 'trustworthiness', 'permanence', 'sureness', 'sincerity', are at least as likely to be the right rendering of 'emeth as 'truth'; indeed, where 'emeth is spoken of as a divine attribute, we may constantly substitute 'faithfulness' for the 'truth' of EV. In the NT a different group of renderings is called for. The NT was not written, nor were the discourses on which, ultimately, portions of it are based, 1 spoken in biblical Hebrew; it is a Greek book, though with more or less Semitic colouring. Besides this, the religion which its writers support was a struggling religion ; its writers are conscious of antagonism to other forms of religion which has a direct bearing on the sense or senses in which they use the word d\y0et.a [aletheia]. A complete examination of passages containing the word 'truth' in the EV is impossible.

A few may, however, be referred to, and alternative, even if inadequate, renderings may usefully be suggested.

  • Gen. 32:10, 'I am too small for all the lovingkindnesses and for all the faithfulness' etc.;
  • Ex. 18:21, 'trustworthy men';
  • Dt. 32:4, 'a God of faithfulness' (so RV);
  • 1 K. 2:4, 2 K. 20:3, 'walk in sincerity';
  • 2 K. 20:19, 'peace and permanence';
  • Ps. 25:5, 'Direct me with thy faithfulness' [personified];
  • Ps. 31:5, 'faithful God';
  • Ps. 51:6, 'Thou desirest sincerity';
  • Ps. 85:10, 'Lovingkindness and faithfulness are met together' (similarly always, for 'mercy and truth');
  • Ps. 119:142, 'Thy law is sureness (itself)';
  • Is. 42;3, 'he shall declare the law faithfully';
  • Jer. 5:3, 'Are not thine eyes upon sincerity?'

Both in OT and in NT the duty of truth-speaking is urged, and the Psalter shows how deeply the teaching of the prophets had penetrated Jewish minds. This is one of the points in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism manifest their inward affinity. The substitution of 'faithfulness' for 'truth' in no degree obscures this; and of course there are passages enough in which 'truth' is the only possible rendering of 'emeth (e.g. Ps. 15:2, Prov. 8:7, 12:17, 12:19, 23:23, Dan. 8:12). In Dan. 8:12 the truth spoken of is apparently the religion of Yah we. No complete parallel to this occurs in the XT, because 'the truth of the gospel' (Gal. 2:5, 2:14) is not bound up with an elaborate cultus, but is simply life in Christ. Certainly this life is impossible without an act of obedience to the divine will. There is a lawgiver who bids us repent and believe, in order that we may have life in Christ. Consequently we have the singular phrases, 'those who disobey the truth' (ro?s . . . direiOovai Trj d\i)0flq. [tois ... apeithousi te aletheia], Rom. 2;8) and 'those who do not obey the gospel' (rots /LIT; vira.Kovov<ri T$ fvayyeXi^ [tois me hypakouousi too euaggelioo], 2 Thess. 1:8).

1 Cp Dalman's remark, Die Worte Jesu, 15 (foot), 16 (top).

2. aAnefia [aletheia] in Jn.[edit]

The difficulty in grasping the sense to be assigned to d\r)0fia [aletheia] is greatest in the Johannine gospel and epistles. This and the connected forms occur not less than eighty times in this literature. The writer's individuality is very manifest in this ; he is almost like a Zoroastrian in his intense love of truth and hatred of falsehood. 'The father of the liar is the devil in whom there is no truth', he says (Jn. 8:44). 1 And in the address of a letter to friends he thinks it worth while to say 'whom I love truthfully' (iv dX-rjOfiq [en aletheia], 2 Jn. 1). This hatred of shams suggests the peculiar form of his theology or Christology. Christ is ij d\-r)0a [e aletheia] (Jn. 146); he is full of d\T)0ei.a [aletheia] (Jn. 1:14). How shall we render aXr/Ofia [aletheia]? As Jn. 146 shows, it is one aspect of fwij [zooe], 'life', and as its combination with 656s [odos], 'way', in that passage and with x<*P< s [charis], 'liberality', in Jn. 1:14 shows, it is something which God in and through Christ generously communicates to man. It is therefore not a bundle of intellectual truths ; it is a share of the divine nature ; it is real as opposed to seeming existence. d\rj0eia [aletheia] then is strictly 'reality', and 'full of grace and truth' means 'full of self-communicating divine life'; or, in plainer English, 'full of a gift of real life'. 3 Certainly this can be given only to those who have some inward affinity to it, to those at least who are hungry for 'the bread of life' (Jn. 6:35). Such persons are 'of the truth', ex TTJS d\r)0eias [ek tes aletheias] (Jn. 18:37 ; cp e*r TOU Oeov [ek tou theou] 8:47); it is their destiny to become free ; the 'truth', manifested in the Son, can make them free, make them 'sons of God' (Jn. 8:32, 8:36, 1:12, cp Rom. 8:21). The work of Jesus is to 'bear witness of the truth' (Jn. 18:37) ; and when he 'goes away to the Father' he will ask the Father to send a never-failing representative of himself, 'the spirit of truth' rb irvfvfj.a. TTJS d\t)0eias [to pneuma tes aletheias] (Jn. 14:17). This 'spirit' also bears witness, because the spirit is 17 aX-fjdtia [e alethia] (truth itself), 1 Jn. 5;6. Still the fact remains that it is 'he that has the Son' that 'has life' (1 Jn. 5:12), and the Son (i.e., the Christ), even when he has 'gone away', 'comes' to the disciples, indeed to each individual disciple (Jn. 14:18, 14:21). The spirit of dXrjQfia [aletheia], therefore, by abiding in the disciples, enables them to 'behold' him (ffewpelre [theooreite], Jn. 14:19) in a degree in which this would otherwise be impossible. And through this supreme vision, they will make ever fresh progress in 'life' and in 'reality' (Jn. 14;19).

To return to this d\r)0(La [aletheia] or 'reality'. It has primarily to do with moral life ; it is not an idea to be thought, but a deed to be done (Jn. 6;29, TO tpyov TOV 0eov [to ergon tou theou], 'the work which God wills'; Jn. 3:21, 1 Jn. 1:6, iroielv TTJV d\riQeia.v [poiein ten aletheian]). Its opposite, when so regarded, is 'to practise ill', or 'to walk in darkness', for the writer has almost a Zoroastrian's love of the symbol of Light (see LIGHT). But 'reality' extends from the moral to the intellectual sphere. There is but one 'Light' (Jn. 1:4), and in bearing witness of this 'Light' the 'spirit of reality' is insensibly led on to the disclosure of great intellectual truths. 'He shall teach you all things' (Jn. 14:26), 'shall guide you in the whole truth' (Jn. 16:13), the truth of the primeval Reason (\6yos [logos]), and also the truth of things that are to come (Jn. 1:1+, 16:13) - in accordance with the longing of the primitive age for an apocalypse of the winding-up of the world. There is one other writing in which dXijtfeta [aletheia], real as opposed to merely speculative truth, is specially prominent - the Epistle to the Ephesians. Certainly a\ri0eia [aletheia] is still somewhat restricted in its application. The full scope of 'real truth' is so wide that it needed another name - ao<(>la. [sophia], 'wisdom', or yptDo ij [gnoosis], knowledge. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, said the wise man of old; this fear of the Lord to the Christian teacher is a\r)0tia [aletheia]. To it StKcuoffwri [dikaiosyne], 'righteousness', and offiuTys [osiotes], 'piety', are ascribed (Eph. 4:24); and the fruit of righteousness is 'in righteousness and reality' (Eph. 5:9). 'The word of real truth' (rbv \6yov rrjs d\i)6fias [ton logon tes aletheias]) is the 'Gospel of your salvation' (Eph. 1:13; cp 2 Tim. 2:15). Hence disciples are 'taught in Christ, even as real truth is in Jesus' (Eph. 4:21). Naturally, truth-speaking is one of the chief duties of such disciples (Eph. 4:25), but only as one expression of that 'truth' or 'reality' which is the first part of their 'panoply' (Eph. 6:14). In Eph. 4:15 d\rj0i fiv et> dydiry [aletheuein en agape] (RV 'speaking truth [mg. dealing truly] in love') means more than speaking truth charitably ; it is both speaking and practising that real truth which Christ embodied.

1 Lachmann's conjecture ( Test. Gr. 2, Praef. p. 7) os av XaAjj TO i^euSos [os an lale to pseudos] should probably be accepted ; 'Whoever speaks a lie speaks of that which is his own, for his father also is a liar'. The verse now becomes intelligible. It belongs probably to the editor, who rightly explains vv. 41, 44 (cp v. 55).

2 The cai [kai] in x-P- Kal <*Ar/0. [char.. kai aleth..] is the /ecu [kai] explicativum. So, in Jn. 4:24, iv jri/ev/ixaTt <cai aArjflei o [en pneumati kai aletheia] means in the spirit, with reality.

3. a\Ti6T)s [alethes], dX^cvds [alethinos] in Jn. etc.[edit]

The use of the adjectives (dXr^s [alethes], d\7)6ivos [alethinos]) should also be studied. Both are specially frequent in the Johannine Gospel and Epistles. Note especially Jn. 6:55, 'my flesh is a true meat' a\r)0T]s fern ppuais [alethes esti broosis] - i.e., 'a food which really, permanently nourishes'; Jn. 1:9 'the very light' ('very' as in the Nicene Creed, 'very God' = 0e6s dXijtfii os [theos alethinos]), 'the true light' TO <pZs rb d\T](hi>oi [to phoos to alethinon]; Jn. 15:1 'the vine rightly so-called', r/ &/u.tre\os ij d\rj0ivr/ [e ampelos e alethine]; Jn. 17:3 'the only, veritable God', TOV fjLovov d\rjdivbv Oeov [ton monon alethinon theon]. Trench compares Plato, Timaeus 25a, 7^X0.70? 6vruis d\r)6ivbs TTOVTOS [pelagos ontoos alethinos pontos], 'an ocean worthy of the name'. But Hebrew has similar phrases, npx nSx, elohe 'emeth, 'a real God' (2 Ch. 15:3); npx cnS, lehem 'emeth, 'true, unfeigned hospitality', net* ^v ton, hesed shel 'emeth, 'true, unfeigned charity' (quoted in Jastrow, Dict. 79). dXrjdiv 6s [alethinos] is also frequent in Revelation, but, except in 8:7, always with the meaning 'trustworthy'.

The use of dXrj&pos [alethinos] (EV 'true') in Jn. 1:9, 4:23, 15, etc. Heb. 8:2 (cp LXX Jer. 2:21 dXrjQivriv [alethinen] = nsx I ll) is very characteristic of the writers' belief in heavenly patterns of earthly things. Wycliffe has the fine phrases 'a verey light', 'a verrei vyne', 'the verrei tabernacle'; but in Jn. 4:23 'trewe worshippers'.

On the Johannine use of aAijSeio [aletheia] (reality) see H. Holtzmann, NT Theol. 2:378; Wendt (Die Lehre Jesu, 2:200+) gives the term perhaps too prominently an ethical sense ('righteous'). Further, on the presuppositions of the Johannine term, see Holtzmann, op. cit. 2:374-375

T. K. C.

1 New Test. Synonyms, 31.


or rather, as in RV Tryphaena (TPY<J>AINA). and Tryphosa (TPY<J><JOCA), 'who labour in the Lord', are saluted in Rom. 16:12. They appear to have been deaconesses, and not improbably were sisters.

The name Tryphosa is met with in Carian inscriptions (cp CIG 2:2819, 2:2839), and among the monuments of the imperial household in the first century; Tryphaeena appears in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla as the wife of Polemo king of Cilicia. Gutschmidt has shown that there really was a queen of that name, of Mauretanian origin; she was repudiated by her husband Polemo II. of Cilicia about 40 A.D. She afterwards lived under the emperor Claudius in Roman territory at Antioch in Pisidia (see Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-Gesch. 3:464-465).


{1} ( T pY<t>u)N [AKV] ; cp Waddington, no. 2711 and perhaps p"lL5 the name of a Rabbi upon a Hb. inscr. quoted by Euting, SBAW 16th July, 1885, no. 47), of Apamea, formerly an adherent of Alexander Balas, took advantage of the disaffection prevailing among the troops of DEMETRIUS II. to obtain the person of ANTIOCHUS (q.v. 4), the young son of Balas, whom he used as a puppet to gratify his personal ambitions. Supported by the soldiers of Demetrius, Tryphon was enabled to defeat his rival and win over Antioch (1 Macc. 11:39+). The allegiance of Jonathan and the Maccabaean party was gained (vv. 57+), and his position became gradually stronger. At last he was able to throw over Antiochus ; but fearing lest the power of the Maccabees might be inimical to his interests, he found it necessary to march against Jonathan. They met at Bethshan, and, by a stratagem, Jonathan was captured. Taking his prisoner with him Tryphon proceeded to Jerusalem, but was intercepted at Adida by Simon, Jonathan's brother. Tryphon pretended that the detention was due to the non-payment of revenues, and thus obtained a ransom for his prisoner, whom, however, he failed to hand over; and, at last, irritated by two futile attempts to reach Jerusalem, slew Jonathan at Bascama (143 B.C.; 13:1-23); see JONATHAN. Tryphon's next step was to seize the throne, 2 a proceeding which resulted in Simon and Demetrius II. forming an alliance against their common enemy (13:31+). When Demetrius was a prisoner in Persia his younger brother (Antiochus Sidetes) continued the struggle, and Tryphon was forced to flee to Dora, and thence by successive stages to Ptolemais, Orthosia, and finally to Apamea, where after a brief reign of three years he perished (Jos. Ant, 13:7:2). See SELEUCIDAE, 14.


(^R^3Fl; 9oBeA, once [A Ezek. 39:1] GoBep [thober]; once [Ezek. 27:13] H CYMTTACA [e sympasa or e symitasa] [N], TA C[Y/V\]TTANTA [ta s[ym]panta] [A; see also Qmg. Ezek. 32:26, 38:2]; Thubal] and MESHECH (^L" ; Sam. 7L"1, "pID ; MOCOX [in Ezek. 27:13. TA TTApATeiNONTA [ta parateinonta]]; Mosoch). We shall first of all collect the exegetical data presented in MT, and state the current theory based upon these data; we shall then endeavour to put the question in a new critical light.

1. Tubal = Tibareni?[edit]

As the text stands, Tubal and Meshech are always mentioned together except in Is. 66:19 (but see LXX), where Tubal and Javan are mentioned together as distant nations, and in Ps. 120:5, where, strangely enough, 'Meshech' (LXX e/jLaKpi vOi] [emakrynthe]) is || to 'Kedar', the second in order of the sons of Ishmael, and in 1 Ch. 1:17 (om. LXX{B}) where Meshech is introduced as last in order of the sons of Shem. In Ezek. 27:13 Tubal and Meshech appear as supplying Tyre with slaves and vessels of brass. In 32:26 they are among the nations which have gone down to Sheol - i.e. , have suffered some great reverse. In 38:2-3 (fj.ecrox [BQ]. HO<TOK [A v.3]), 39:1 (fj.effox [B]), they are mentioned as under the rule of Gog. Since Bochart they have been usually identified with the Moschi (fioffxot [moschoi]) and Tibareni (Tiflaprivoi [tibarenoi]) who are named together by Herodotus (394:77). In the Ass. inscriptions (see Schrader, KAT (2) 8:2+, KGF 155+; Del., Par. 250+; Winckler, GBA 172) their territory is extended farther S. than in Herodotus, the Tabali up to Cilicia, and the Mushki NE. of the Tabali. According to Gelzer and Schrader, a part of the Tabali, together with the Mushki, had been driven N. by the Gimirrai (the Ki/j./u.4pioi [kimmerioi]; see GOMER) to the seats where they were in the time of Herodotus. Ashur-bani-pal's inscriptions report that the tribute of Tabal consisted entirely of 'great horses'. Cp HORSE, 3 (Tabal was close to Cilicia).

1 This name (which means debauche [french]) was given to Diodotus, for that was his real name, after his victory over Demetrius II.

2 Whether he really slew the young king at this juncture (so 1 Macc. 13:31) is uncertain ; see Camb. Bible, ad loc.

2. A N. Arabian Tubal?[edit]

It so happens, however, that all the passages in which Tubal and Meshech are mentioned are among those which which labour under a strong suspicion of having been manipulated by editors, who approached the already corrupt texts with most inaccurate preconceived opinions. In the true text of Is. 66:19 the nations referred to are probably those which bordered on 8. Palestine, viz., Ashhur (Geshur), Zarephath, Jerahmeel, Cusham, Tubal, Jaman ; the names are used conventionally, and drawn from earlier sources. 'Cusham' corresponds with the pocrox [mosoch] of LXX, and means the N. Arabian Cush (see GUSH, 2). 'Tubal', as Tubal-kain (where -kain [see TUBAL-CAIN] is equivalent to 'Kenites') the name of a son of Lamech (= Jerahmeel), suggests, is a N. Arabian ethnic ; we meet with it in 1 K. 16:31 under the disguise of SjnriN [ethbaal] (see PROPHET, 7), and in Is. 7:6 under that of TABEAL [q.v. ], and there is an echo of it in the name of the patriarch Bethuel, in the place-name Bethul (Josh. 19:4), also in Tob (land of), and in the personal names TEBALIAH, TOBIEL, TOBIJAH.

Ps. 120:5 has been very much misunderstood; but none of the critical commentators affects to suppose that the explanation which he gives is quite satisfactory. The reference to N. Arabian oppression in the Psalms is so pervasive (see PSALMS, 28+) that we cannot hesitate to read, 'Woe is me that I sojourn in Cusham' (for parallels see SHECHEM). On 1 Ch. 1:17 see below. In Ezek. 27:13 the right reading is approximately 'Jaman (or Jamin = Jernhmeel), Tubal, and Cusham'. Their merchandise is, besides 'vessels of brass (or, bronze)', not 'human persons', but ivory (read D TSrqt?, cp 1 K. 10:22). In Ezek. 32:26 Tubal and Cusham (so read) are [not] beyond doubt N. Arabian peoples ; 'Asshur' and 'Elam', or rather Ashhur and Jerahmeel, precede, 'Edom' and 'the Zidonians', or 'rather Edom' and 'the Misrites' follow. In 38:2, 39:1 Gog is the representative of the collective N. Arabian power - the 'Zephonite' of Joel 2:20; 'Tubal' and 'Cusham' are again required.

We have reserved for the end the Chronicler's representation of Meshech as a son of Shem in 1 Ch. 1:17 (MOO-OX [mosoch]). In Gen. 10:23 MT gives MASH (q.v.). Critics (e.g. , Kittel, Benzinger) agree in rejecting the Chronicler's reading. In truth Meshech is wrong, but not more wrong than Meshech in v. 5. The right reading in both passages is Cusham. The same names occur in Gen. 10 from which the Chronicler borrows more than once. The significance attached by critics to the Table of Nations is out of all proportion to its real worth. See Crit. Bib.

T. K. C.


(ft? talfl ; 9oBeA [thobel] [AEL] ; Tubal-cain), one of the sons of Lamech (Gen. 4:22)^. See CAINITES, 10, where the view is taken that Tubal-cain is a humanised god (cp Gunkel, Gen. 48, 'vielleicht verklungene Gotter' ?), and the text is emended in accordance with Kautzsch and others, omitting t^n 1 ? (lotesh = a hammerer??) and inserting <3N, 'father of'. The theory of a N. Arabian Tubal (see TUBAL, 2), however, compels us to recommend another view in preference. Tubal-cain = Tubal of Kain - i.e. , the Kenite Tubal - is the eponym of a N. Arabian people of mercantile habits, who brought 'ivory and vessels of brass' to the market of the great Misrite capital (cp Jer. 15:12, as explained under ZAPHON). That the home of Tubal is in N. Arabia, we cannot pause here to show (see TUBAL, 2) ; but the result seems [not] unassailable. The mysterious word eraS (MT lotesh) can now be explained. Like pp, it is a collective term for a N. Arabian people - viz., the LETUSHIM, mentioned in Gen. 25:3 among the sons of Dedan, between the Asshurim ( = Ashhur or Geshur) and the Leummim, or rather the Jerahme'elim. The name of the third son of Lamech (i.e., Jerahmeel), therefore, is possibly Tubal of Kain and Letesh (to distinguish him from any other Tubal). The alternative is, not any of the renderings mentioned by Dillmann and Delitzsch, but a still more searching criticism (see Crit. Bib. ).

LXX has KOI ty [kai en] instead of Koti/ [kain] ; originally perhaps it had all three words. ai i)i> [kai en] would make up for the loss of 3N ['BY], which analogy requires us to supply. Cp Budde, Urgesch. 139-140

T. K. C.


(ToyBiANOYC [V]), 2 Macc. 12:17, RVmg 'men of TOB' (q.v.).


(D^Dtf), 1 S. 5:6, 5:9, 5:12, 6:4-5, 6:11, 6:17 RV, AV EMERODS (q.v. ).


occurs only in Dan. 3:21 for the Aram. ET3E) (see BREECHES, 2), and in Jn. 19:23, RVmg for XITWI/ [chitoon], (EV 'coat'); but 'tunic' admirably suits the Heb. kuttoneth, ru43w, from which, indeed, the Lat. tunica has possibly arisen by metathesis through the medium of the Greek y^riav [chitoon] (cp PHOENICIA, 7).

1. Ordinary tunic.[edit]

The Hebrew kuttoneth (of uncertain derivation ; but cp probably Ass. kitinne, linen, cloth; see Zehnpfund, Beitr. z. Ass. 1:532), commonly rendered 'coat', was a short, sleeveless garment worn next the body and held together by a girdle of linen, leather, etc. (GIRDLE, 2). As a garment for females it was doubtless longer, and appears to have answered to the simlah worn by men (in Cant. 5:3 it is put off at night-time); see MANTLE. The kuttoneth has evidently been derived in the first instance from the GIRDLE (1), and in Gen. 3:21 is a simple covering made of skins. In later times it was made of wool or flax, but would naturally vary in fineness according to the wearer s taste and means. Besides being a priestly garment (see below, 2), the kuttoneth is worn also by men of distinction as an official 'robe' (Is. 22:21 EV). A distinctive garment of this nature is implied in Joseph's kethoneth passim, C D3 ruha (Gen. 37:3, 37:23, 37:32), which, as we learn from a gloss in 2 S. 13:18, was worn also by the maiden daughters of a king. It appears to have been a long garment with sleeves (cp RVmg. Gen. l.c.), thus resembling the Ionian xLr(^ [chitoon] - and was perhaps of Canaanite origin. 1 It is difficult to determine from the monuments whether an inner garment or tunic was worn as well as the outer robe or mantle. On the whole, everything points to a very general simplicity in matters of dress. See further MANTLE, i.

Other varieties of the tunic were adopted by the Jews in the Roman period (DRESS, 4 end), among them the haluk (niSn), an under-robe reaching to the heels. It was commonly made of wool ; but linen and even papyrus was used.

The Greek xn-wv [chitoon] 2 (in NT 'coat', Mt. 10:10, Acts 9:39, etc. ; 'garments', Jude 23), like kuttoneth, is applied to an under-garment and thus distinguished itself from l/jLanov [imation], the richer outer garment (see MANTLE). This forms the point of the Logion in Mt. 5:40 ; it is otherwise in Lk. 6:29, where the transposition (x iT [chitoon], 'coat' following I/Mar. [imation] 'cloke') indicates the order in which the garments would be torn off. In its appearance the Xtrujj/ [chitoon] was sometimes a short woollen shirt without sleeves (Dorian), and sometimes a long linen tunic reaching to the feet (Ionian); see Dict. Class. Ant., s.v. 'Tunica'.

1 Sleeves appear to be referred to also in Is. 52:10, Ezek. 4:7. Joseph's coat of many 'colours' ('pieces' mg.) is highly improbable and must be given up, although with regret. 0@ seems to mean (as in Aram.), palm (of hand) or sole (of foot); so LXX (in Sam.) \iTfav (caprrioros [chitoon karpootos] [BA, Aq.], \. acrrpayaAajTOS [chitoon astragalootos] [L], \. xetpiSwTos [chitoon cheiridootos] [Sym.]. See also Nestle, ZNTW 1902, p. 169, who suggests the meaning 'seamless coat', and points to the parallel with Jn. 19:23.

2 In LXX it regularly renders MM, but also 112 (thrice), and (once each) ~IO (see DRESS), and TJ- D (MANTLE, 2 [6]).

3 Plur. of all the priestly garments, Ezra 2:69, Neh. 7:70, 7:72 EV 'garments'; cp X TWI^J [chitoones] Mk. 14:63 EV 'clothes'.

2. Priestly tunic.[edit]

The kuttoneth was worn by all priests (Ex. 29:8, 40:14, Lev. 8:13, 10:5). 3 It was made of fine linen and is described by Josephus (Ant. 3:7:2) as a fine tunic linen vestment dtirXrjs <Ttvd6i os fivvaiv-ris [diples sindonos byssines] called xe^o/i^fr; [chethomene], from x^ ov [chethon] 'linen'. It reached down to the feet (iro5?j/)7js [poderes]) and fitted close to the body, and had sleeves which were tied fast to the arms. The garment was girt to the breast by a girdle (cp GIRDLE, 5), and had a narrow aperture about the neck. Josephus adds, moreover, that it was called /uacrtra/idvTjs [massabanes] (var. massabazan, etc. ). The high priest's kuttoneth 1 was, according to Josephus (Ant. 3:7:4), the same as that of the rest of the priests ; but the name given to it in Ex. 28:4, kethoneth tashbets (fairn ruriD. 'broidered coat', RV 'coat of chequer work'), shows that some particular kind of tunic is meant.

Unfortunately the exact signification of ritpn [tashbets] is uncertain. It is to be connected doubtless with the riljOE D [TShBTsVTh] of Ex. 27:11 etc. on the one hand, and probably with the massabazan ( = [ 3rs) of Josephus (l.c.), on the other. The root-meaning of v-yy [ShbTs] is supposed to convey the idea of intertwining (cp Dr. on 2 S. 1:9), in which case the rns3B D would be some kind of filigree-work for jewels (see OUCHES, and cp EMBROIDERY, 3), whilst the priestly garment might well represent some woven garment, not necessarily seamless, 2 but ornamented and adorned with various patterns. The Targ. on Ex. 28:4 renders NsaTD NJ1H3 - that is perhaps, a garment woven into patterns, but this is not certain. In Assyrian ramatsu seems to mean 'set with jewels' (see Del. HWB 6246). LXX{BAL} read \IT. KtHTVfifliaTov [chitoon kosymbooton], 3 which suggests a tasseled or fringed garment. Cp FRINGES.

I. A. - S. A. C.

1 For the 'tunics' (m:n2) mentioned between the 'breeches' and 'robe' in Ecclus. 45:8c, the sing, should doubtless be read with LXX{BXA} iroSriprj<; [poderes].

2 The me'il, we know, was seamless ; cp MANTLE, g 2 [7]. The meaning of TIB n 133 (Ex. 31:10, etc.), too, is obscure ; cp col. 1137, n. i, and see Baentsch, ad loc.

3 Cp (co<7un/3oi [kosymboi] [AFL ; -laroi [ootoi], B] for the verb nx3t? Ex. 28:39 (treated as a plu. constr.), and for the D D % 3C> of Is. 3:18 (see CAUL, and NECKLACE, 2 n.).


1. Varieties.[edit]

Instead of restricting ourselves to the voluminous cloth-wrapper with which the word turban is associated, it will be convenient under this heading to deal generally with head-coverings of all kinds. A head -covering is not an indispensable protection, like the GIRDLE (q.v.) for instance. It does not appear to have been worn in Europe in the earliest times, and the monuments of Egypt and Babylonia clearly prove that even in those countries, too, it was not in habitual use. Not unfrequently, a narrow fillet encircles the head and binds the hair close. This custom is widespread among both sexes, and is frequently met with in Assyria and adjacent countries. Shishak's Hebrew prisoner at Karnak is thus depicted. Naturally this fillet varied in material and ornamentation, and a good example of the elaborate nature of an Assyrian fillet is seen in Perrot-Chipiez (Art in Chald., etc., 1:105); cp CROWN, DIADEM. Some covering like the modern keffiyeh must, however, have been in use among the Hebrews. The keffiveh is a square or oblong piece of wool or silk, folded triangularly and tied by a cord, 'agal, which protects not only the head, but also the neck, cheeks, and throat. Coverings more or less approximating to this are seen in monuments from Assyria (op. cit. 2:129, fig. 62 ; cp WMM As. u. Eur. 139), and were worn in Palestine (As. u. Eur. 294-295). The turban proper was perhaps a later introduction among the Hebrews, although a certain variety of it seems vo have been worn at an early time by the nomad inhabitants of the Sinaitic peninsula (As. u. Eur. 138-139).

A specifically feminine attire, confined (it would seem) to Palestine, is the long garment worn by the women of Lachish. It covers the head, with the exception of the face, and descends over the back to the feet, thus bearing a general resemblance to the classical flammeum.

2. Hebrew terms.[edit]

A covering of the nature of the turban is no doubt implied in the post-exilic term tsaniph, rp3u ( \/ [root] to wind in a coil, cp Is. 22:18), which was worn by the noble of both sexes (Job 29:14 'diadem', RVmg. 'turban', Is. 3:23 'hoods', RV 'turbans', cp Is. 62:3 'diadem', 1 and Ecclus. 47:6c of David [dtdd-rifia [diadema]]), and even by priests (Zech. 3:5 /adapts [kidaris], 'mitre', RVmg. 'turban', 'diadem'). 1 A similar allusion is found in Ezek. 16:10 (iPB 3 lic anKi, RVmg. 'I bound thee with a tire of fine linen', cp Orelli, Co., etc.). 2 The habalim (o Snn, <rxou>ia [schoinia], EV 'ropes') of 1 K. 20:31 sometimes taken to represent a primitive substitute for a fillet for the hair (so Nowack, HA 1:125, Benzinger, HA 104), may be taken otherwise to express the submissiveness of the men referred to. Ahab might drag them away as captives, and they would not resist. 3 This agrees with the mention of sackcloth girt around their loins, as a sign of humiliation. Of the particular form of the 'apher, ns.K, of 1 K. 20:38, 20:41-42, RV ('headband') we are ignorant; the context, however, shows that the wearer could cover his face with it, in which case it may have resembled the keffiyeh (cp Ass. afaru, apru, covering, head-gear). 4

A head-dress of some elaborate nature and of Babylonian origin is alluded to in Ezek. 23:15 C V?3B nno crrtrtna (EV 'exceeding in dyed attire', RVmg. 'dyed turbans'). According to Delitzsch (Baer, Ezek. p. 12), tebulim = Ass. tublu, 'turban', but the word does not seem to be substantiated. 5 Another head-dress more ornate than the ordinary turban is the peer (INB), which may have tapered to a point. It is worn by people of distinction, male (Ezek. 24:17, 24:23, EV 'tire') and female (Is. 3:20 AV 'bonnet', RV 'head-tire'), by priests (Ex. 39:28, Ezek. 44:18, AV 'bonnet', RV 'tire'), and by the bridegroom (Is. 61:3, 61:10), see CHAPLKT.

It is not unlikely that we may find in the peer the well-known conical head-gear worn by warriors, kings and gods of Assyria, Babylonia, and of the Hittites? 6 At all events it is exceedingly probable that this particular covering is the kind alluded to in the karbela, N^aTS, of Dan. 3:21 (AV 'hat' 7 mg. 'turban', RV 'mantle') which, from its shape, signifies in later Jewish-Aramaic and Syriac 'cock's comb'. The Gr. Ven. correctly renders by Ki pfiaffia [kyrbasia], which is actually likened to a cock's comb in Arist. Av. 487. The RV rendering 'mantle' relies too much upon the doubtful Stg^i12%"p7s of 1 Ch. 15:27. {8} In the same passage (Dan. 3:21) 'turban' occurs in the RVmg for w3rap (AV 'hosen', RV 'tunic') This rendering, implying an identification with TT^TOCTOJ [petasos], 'broad-brimmed hat', is extremely improbable; see BREECHES, 2. 1

For the sake of completeness it may be useful to note

  • (a) the primitive straw hat worn by Sinaitic Bedouins (see WMM As. u. Eur. 295),
  • (b) the characteristic Hittite head-gear, curiously resembling, in its outline, the modern silk hat. Without the brim the Hittite hat resembles the elaborate crown of Marduk-idin-ahi (see Perrot-Chipiez, Art in Chald., etc., 2 fig. 43), a variety, which, surmounted by a knob, recurs in several forms in representations of Assyrian monarchs (see op. cit. 1 fig. 22).
  • Finally (c) reference may be made to the use of feathers in head coverings. The Ethiopians of Tirhakah, as represented upon slabs in the British Museum, wear a feather in front, which is held in position with a ribbon or band, and Ashur-bani-pal's Arabians are adorned with a peculiar feathered crown which recurs in one shape or another, not only in S. Arabia (Hommel, Sudarab. Altert. d. Wiener Hofmuseums, 32+; Munich, 1899), but also in Ararat (Brit. Mus.), and Lycia, and other regions of Western Asia Minor (W. M. Muller, As. u. Eur. 364-365).

See CAP, CHAPLET, CROWN, DIADEM, HELMET, and, for the priestly head-dresses, MITRE.

I. A. - S. A. C.

1 With tsaniph, cp the high priest's mitsnepheth (MITRE, 1 [2]), and cp. col. 3157, nn. 2 and 3. In Job 29:14 (above) the tsaniph and me'il are emblems of justice, and possibly typify the high priest.

2 For his use of eon [HBSh] cp Ex. 29:9, Lev. 8:13, and perhaps Ass. hibshu, head-band (Beitr. z. Ass. 1:499, 1:525-526).

3 Cp the representations on the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments where captives are dragged away by ropes round their necks.

4 See Barth, Etymolog. Stud. 19. The Ass. parallel (Del. Prol. 54) greatly increases the probability that -isx ['PR], in spite of the ease of corruption in more than one way, is the correct reading. The vocalisation, however, is uncertain. The Ass. root aparu, 'to cover, clothe', permits us to assume that the garment was a mantle which could be drawn over the head (see further, note on 1X3, below). Targ. J. *nEJ?S 'cloak' (cp Syr. |; C> *v, ^jp") may come from a different root ( &JS>. = j-, or perhaps ; ft X.. = itv.- in MH to plait, weave =wiXj?).

5 'Turban' is traced back to Ar., Pers., and Hind, dulband ; it is the same word as 'tulip', Ital. tulipano (prop, a turban-like flower). With this cp the similes used by Josephus in his description of the high priest's mitre. If tublu can be proved (it is not cited by Del. HWB, or Muss-Arnolt), the resemblance between the two becomes significant.

6 [It is difficult not to conjecture that -1x5 [P'R] is really the Ass. apru, which (cp Jensen, Kosmol. 105, n. 2) is a synonym of agu the royal cap (not crown). See Creation-Epic 7:11, 'Let him make the aprati, or royal caps, to shine'. This view makes it still easier to accept the theory that IEK ['PR] in 1 K. 20:38, 20:41 is the Ass. word referred to. For -ex ['PR] will then no longer be isolated. T.K.C.] See Perrot-Chipiez, Art in Chald., etc. 1:106; Art in Jud. 2:27, 2:145, etc., and for the view that agu is a crown or tiara. Hommel, Sudarab. Altert. 37 (Munich, 1899).

7 From this rendering Fox deduced the well-known Quaker doctrine prohibiting the removal of the hat even in the presence of royalty (Bevan. Dan. 84).

8 A head-covering of this kind may have developed into the Roman pileus which, it has been suggested, was first introduced through the medium of Carthage (O. Schrader, Realency. d. Indogerm. Altert. 455).


(repe/WINGcc [B]), Ecclus. 24:16 AV, RV TEREBINTH (q.v.).


(nVs pri), Cant. 4:4 RVmg., EV ARMOURY (q.v.)


(I m) Cant. 2:12), TURTLE DOVE. See DOVE.


fenirpOTTOc). Gal. 4:2, RV 'guardian'; in Mt. 20:8, Lk. 8:3-4 EV 'steward'. See STEWARD.


(TYXIKOC [Ti. WH]), one of the companions of Paul, was 'of Asia' (Acts 20:4) and seems to have joined the apostle at some point on his 'third' missionary journey, preceded him from Greece to Troas, and accompanied him thence, it would appear, to Jerusalem (Acts 20:5). He is mentioned in Eph. 6:21 and Col. 4:7 as the 'beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord' who was the bearer of the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians to their respective destinations. 2 Tim. 4:12 represents him as having been sent by the apostle from Rome to Ephesus, and in Tit. 3:12 the apostle proposes to send either Tychicus or Artemas to Titus in Crete.

In the lists of the 'seventy' in Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus he is twice enumerated once as bishop of Colophonia and once as bishop of Chalcedon. In the work of the Pseudo-Epiphanius on the twelve apostles he is represented as a disciple and attendant of the apostle Andrew, by whom he is appointed bishop of Chalcedon.


the place where Paul, after his separation with his disciples from the synagogue at Ephesus, reasoned daily (Acts 19:9: Ka.6 T)/j.epav diaXeyo/JLevos iv rfi crxoXf; Tvpdvvov [kath emeran dialegomenos en te schole tyrannon] [Ti.WH]). There is nothing to indicate who this Tyrannus was whether himself a rhetorician or philosopher, or merely the hirer of the premises. D, Syr. , p. marg. (see ACTS, 17) has the reading T. TIV<JS, airb uyas TT^UTTTT;? ews 5e/car7?j [tyrannos tinos, apo hooras pemptes eoos dekates]. Cp EPHESUS, 4.

1 riapa [tiara], tiara (Theod., LXX, Vg.) and the corresponding readings of Pesh. and Ar. seem to refer properly to jpTia and not to ty CB ; see S. A. Cook, Journ. Phil. 26:310= (1899), followed by Marti, KHC, Daniel, 23 (1901).

2 It is very possible, however, that the description in vv. 25-30 is based upon a list of places in the Negeb (cp SHIHOR-LIBNATH), and that "linsaa is a corruption of "HXa (cp following note).


([TsR], "liV [TsVR], rypoc. Ass. Sun-u, Egypt. Dara [As. u. Eur. 185]), the most famous of Phoenician cities.

1. Two Tyres; references.[edit]

For its history, see PHOENICIA; cp. NEBUCHADREZZAR. Though never in the possession of the Israelites, Tyre is mentioned in the delimitation of the territory of Asher, in Josh. 19:29, as the 'fenced city of Tyre' (1S-1S3D Tjriy), or perhaps rather (following LXX{B} , 2ws 77777% [eoos peges], pjriy) '[the fountain of] the fortress of Tyre', the landmark referred to being the fountain, not the city, 2 and also in the geographical sketch of the operations of Joab at the census, 2 S. 24:7 (LXX{BA} uaXap [machar], LXX poffbppav Ttfpov [bosorran tyrou]), where, however, the mention of Tyre as on the mainland must be due either to a late hand or to corruption of the text. 1 From the present text of the OT it would appear that Tyre and Israel had close relations in the time of Solomon (1 K. 5, 7, 9; but see SOLOMON) ; it is also mentioned in the times of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah (Ezra 3:7 [LXX{B} ffupttv [soorein] = men of Tyre] Neh. 13:16 [LXX{BXA} om.]). A prophecy on Tyre finds a place in the Book of Isaiah (Is. 23) ; and another in that of Amos (Am. 1:9-10) ; and three times in our Psalter glances are taken at Tyre (Ps. 45:12 [45:13], 83:7 [83:8], 87:4)- Unfortunately in all these prophetic and poetic passages - not excepting Is. 23 - and also in Joel 3:4 [3:4], Zech. 9:2-3, the reading 'Tyre' is open to doubt (cp MIZRAIM, 2b, SIDON, 3). Where Tyre is certainly referred to (i.e., in Josh., and Ezra-Neh. , and in Ezek. 26-28, as redacted by the editor?), it is the island-city that is meant. So also in 2 Macc. 4:18+, Mk. 3:8, Mt. 11:21-22 (Lk. 10:13-14), Mk. 7:24 (Mt. 15:21), 7:31, Acts 12:20, passages of great interest, but not to be dealt with in a geographical article. 2 Palaetyrus had an ancient name of its own, which Prashek has detected in the name Ushu; possibly the Israelites may have known it as Hos or Hosah (see HOSAH). This city appears to have been ruined by the cruel Ashur-bani-pal; all the buildings that remained were demolished by Alexander, when about to construct the mole by which he was enabled to reach the island city.

T. K. C.

2. Later notices and present state.[edit]

The modern Tyre (Tsur) lies at the NW. end of the former island, which is now, owing to the widening of Alexander's mole - by deposits of sand, connected with the mainland by a tongue of land 0.25 mi. broad. The greatest length of the ancient island, from N. to S. , is about 0.675 mi. , and its area about 142 acres - a small surface for so important a town. The researches of Renan seem to have completely refuted the once popular idea that a great part of the original island has disappeared by natural convulsions, though lie believes that the remains of a line of submerged wall at the S. end indicate that about 15 acres more were once reclaimed from the sea and have been again lost. Confined to this narrow site - on which, moreover, place was found for the great temple of Melkarth with its courts, and for all the necessities of a vast trade, for docks and warehouses, and for the great purple factories (see PURPLE) which in the Roman time were the chief source of wealth and made the town an unpleasant place of residence (Strabo, 16:2, 16:23 ; Pliny, 5:76) - Tyre was very closely built ; Strabo tells us that the many-storied houses were loftier than those of Rome. In the Roman period the population overflowed its bounds and occupied a strip of the opposite mainland, including the ancient Pakt-tyrus. Pliny gives to the whole city,, continental and insular, a compass of 19 R. mi. ; but this account must be received with caution. In Strabo s time the island was still the city, and Paloetyrus on the mainland was 30 stadia off, whilst modern research indicates an extensive line of suburbs rather than one mainland city that can be definitely identified with Palretyrus. The topography of Tyre is still obscure owing to the paucity of Phoenician remains. The present harbour is certainly the Sidonian port, though it is not so large as it once was; the other ancient harbour (the Egyptian port) has disappeared, and is supposed by Kenan to have lain on the other side of the island, and to be now absorbed in the isthmus. The most important ruins are those of the cathedral, with its magnificent monolith columns of rose-coloured granite, now prostrate.

The water supply of ancient Tyre came from the powerful springs of Ras el-'Ain on the mainland (perhaps the fountain of Josh. 19:29 - see 1), one hour S. of the city, where there are still remarkable reservoirs, in connection with which curious survivals of Adonis worship have been observed by Volney and other travellers. Tyre was still an important city and almost impregnable fortress under the Arab empire. From 1124 to 1291 it was a stronghold of the crusaders, and Saladin himself besieged it in vain. After the fall of Acre the Christians deserted the place, which was then destroyed by the Moslems. The present town has arisen since the Metawila occupied the district in 1766.

See Pietschmann, Gesch. der Phonicier, 61-72 (1889) ; F. Jeremias, Tyrus bis zur Zeit Nebukadnesars (1891) ; Prashek, Forschungen zur Gesch. des Alterthums, 2:21-39 ( 898); Winckler, Assyrien u. Tyrus seit Tiglath-pileser III. AOF 2:65+

T. K. C. , 1; W. R. S. , 2.

1 It is [not] probable (see TAHTIM-HODSHI) that the present narrative in 2 S. 24 is an expansion of an earlier narrative, which represented the census of David as limited to the fighting men of Missur and Jerahmeel, regions which David had recently brought under his sway (2 S. 8:2, and cp MOAB, 14). 1i"~is2D is [so not] a corruption of "TCJfD - i.e., probably, the capital of Missur (cp MIZRAIM, 2b).

2 On 2 Macc., l.c., see HERCULES, JASON, 2, and on the connection of Jesus with the borders of Tyre, see Keim. Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, 2:534+


(KAIMAKOC Typoy, 1 Macc. 11:59) ; see LADDER OF TYRE.


p3N), Prov. 30:1. See ITHIEL AND UCAL.


pN-lN. 39) one of the b'ne BANI (q.v.); Ezra 10:34 (oujA [BabA], 0u. [thuel] [Bvid. N ], lt0 r)A [L]). In 1 Esd. 9:34 the name appears as JUEL (HUTU [iouna] [BA], iour)A [L]), cp ourjA [B], ioio)A [A], iu))A [LJ in v. 35.


(T3J>1 [VQNZ]), 1 Ch. 4:15, AVmg, AV 'even Kenaz', RV 'and KENAZ' (q. v.). LXX does not represent ? [V].


C^-IN ; in Dan. 8:2 LXX [8:7] <MA AM ; Syr. of LXX oyAAM, Theod. [BAQr] joy oyB&A ; in v. 16 oyA&i, but with o)A<M superscr. 87a ; Theod. as in v. 2), mentioned in Dan. 8:2 as a river near 'Shushan the palace' (?), in Elam ; cp v. 16 'between [the banks of?] Ulai'. Presumably the (nar) U-la-a of the Assyrian inscriptions, described as 'a river whose banks are good' (for a battle-field). The word for 'river' in Dan. 8:2 ( rniN, {1} ubal), which in vv. 2, 16 Theod. (BAQr) gives instead of 'Ulai', occurs nowhere else, and is commonly viewed as a parallel form to *?3V, yubal (see Ko. , Lehrgeb. 2:88:460), Jer. 17:8 (EV 'river'; LXX iY,uds [ikmas] 'moisture'), though LXX gives the Aramaic sense of 'gate' (TT/JOS TT} irv\ri AiXafj. [pros te pyle ailau]), So in Dan. 8:3 Theod. [BAQr] has oi /3a\ [oubal] where LXX{87} has wv\r)s [pyles]. In Judith 16 the Syriac has 'Ulai', where the Greek has 'HYDASPES' (q.v.); can 'Hydaspes' be an error for Choaspes ? At any rate, Herodotus (1:188; 549:52), followed by Strabo (15:728), places Susa on the Choaspes ; but Pliny (6:135) makes the Eulaeus the river which flows by that capital. According to Noldeke, though it is possible that Susa in the days of its glory may have stretched from the Eulaeus to the Choaspes (if we assume these rivers to be different), it is more probable that the two names represent the same river. Frd. Delitzsch, however, infers confidently from the cuneiform evidence that the Eulaeus is not the Choaspes (the Ass. Uknu = mod. Kercha), but the Karun, which is the Pasitigris (i.e.. Lesser Tigris), up which sailed Nearchus and the Macedonian fleet to join Alexander. In all this, however, the uncertainty of the original text of Daniel and of Judith must be remembered. [On the reading 'Ulai', see SHUSHAN, and cp Crit. Bib. The question of an underlying text in which the geography was different must here be reserved.]

Cp Noldeke, 'Ulai', Bib. Lex. 5:576-577; Del. Paradies, 177 193+, 329 ; Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana, 423+

1 According to Jensen however SSIN is a loan-word from Ass. ubbal 'carries down'; cp the phrase in the Ass. inscriptions, 'which (i.e., the Ulai) carries down [ubbalu] its full waters to the sea', Ges. Lex. (18), s.v.


(D^-IS; oyAAM [BAL]).

1. A Machirite name; 1 Ch. 7:16-17 (rjAa/u. [elam] [L]). Ulam's brother is called Rekem. Both [neither] names mean the same thing - viz., Jerahmeel. Cp REKEM, and for 'Ulam' cp Elam = Jerahmeel in Ezra 2:7, 2:31, and probably Is. 21:2, Jer. 49:34+

2. Ancestor (in a genealogy of Benjamin [q.v., 9 ii. B]) of the B'ne Ulam [i.e., Jerahmeel] who were distinguished for their archery; 1 Ch. 8:39-40 (aiAa/x [ailam], aiAeijn [aileim] [B]). See JQR 11:110, 11:112-113, sections 9 and 12, and for Jerahmeelite archers, Jer. 49:35, 'Behold, I will break the bow of Elam [Jerahmeel], the chief [source] of their strength'. {1}

T. K. C.


N^; cp Palm. N^J? [fem.] and Sin. ^T; coA*. [BA]), an Asherite whose sons are named in 1 Ch. 7:39. Possibly therefore he is to be identified with one or other of the preceding Asherites - e.g. , Shual (Syie f ), v. 36, or ARA (KIK)I, v. 38. LXX{L}, however, omits the names of Ulla and Ara, and makes Hanniel and Rizia sons of ITHRAN. See ASHER, 4, ii. and note.


(HSU), one of a group of place-names in Josh. 19:29 (end), 19:30, which, since they produce great stylistic awkwardness, may have been introduced from Judg. 1:31 (Steuernagel). It is usual to emend n0e (MT Ummah) into idfiy (MT in Judg. l.c. 'Acco'). See PTOLEMAIS. Geographically this can be made plausible (see Moore, Judg. 51) ; but whether it can be said to be favoured by a study of the variations of the MSS of LXX, is at any rate doubtful.

There is a strong [flimsy] probability that parts of the geographical survey in Josh, have been based upon earlier texts which referred to the Negeb, where accordingly we may have to suppose that the clans or tribes of Israel originally dwelt. Also that r(Cy< pCy {2} (Pesh.), l3y (MT in Judg.), and apx<aft [archob], axieta [akkoo], aiciuap [akkoor], and a/u>/3 [akkoob], all ultimately come from ^RDrlT (Jerahmeel). Notice that the valley of Achor (lisy) in Josh. 7:24-26 is near 'Jericho' - i.e., Jerahmeel (Kadesh?; see JKRICHO. 4). How the final editor of Josh. 19:24-31 read the name given in MT as Ummah, m^y be left uncertain. The passage has but a doubtful geographical value.

As to the Versions, Pesh. and 2 Heb. MSS (de Rossi) read poy- Of the Gk. MSS, B has apx<"|3 [archob] (i.e., a\top [achoor], modified by pow/3 [roob]?). A group of MSS which as a rule agree with B (16, 52, 53, 57, 77, 85, 131, 144, 236, 237) read * aKK<a [akkoo]; another group (44, 74, 76, 84, 134) ciKKiap [akkoor], and the related MSS 54, 75, a<c[ic]w/3 [ak[k]oob]; A and V (Holmes and Parsons, 3, 11) and related cursives with L, Compl., Ald. and Syro-hex., in which the names are generally corrected after the Hebrew, afj.ua [amma]. See conspectus in Hollenberg (ZATW, 1:100-101).

T. K. C.

1 Originally Jer. 46-51 appears [not] to have referred to the peoples on the S. and SE. of Palestine. Owing partly to confusions of geographical names, the original prophecies have been filled up and expanded so as to appear to have a wider scope. This is a highly probable, though a new, result. See PROPHET, 45.

2 Cp Jer. 21:13, 47:5 where pcyn and CpDJ, b h probably come from 5nDm (see Crit. Bib.).

3 The Nab. pr. n. pn (CIS, 2:316) may possibly be connected with CXI.

4 With regard to the rendering of LXX, it should be noticed that a belief in the existence of a one-horned animal goes back to Aristotle (Part. An. 363), who mentions as such the oryx, and the Indian ass. Later accounts such as that of Aelian (Nat. An. 16:20) are largely influenced by the accounts of the rhinoceros; cp Houghton in Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist., Nov. 1862, and art. Unicorn in Ency. Brit.(9)


(rriflO), Job 9:33 EVmg, EV DAYSMAN. See MEDIATOR.




(XPICM<\ [chrisma]), 1 Jn. 2:20 ; RV ANOINTING.


also D ") [Job 39:9-10], D JO [Ps. 92:11], cp plur. p"! [Ps. 22:21]; MONOKepcoc [monokeroos]; {4} Rhinoceros unicornis], a much-debated and somewhat unhappy rendering of the AV, {1} occurs some nine times in the OT, where it regularly gives place in RV to WILD-OX (mg. OX-ANTELOPE, cp Nu. 23:22 etc. ). It appears as a wild untamable animal, the most unlikely of all to submit to the plough (Job 39:9-12), of great strength (Ps. 22:21, parallel to aryeh ,TIK 'lion'), and agility (ib. 29:6, parallel to 'egel, ^y 'calf'), whose horns were lofty and a symbol of power and might (Nu. 23:22, {2} 24:8, Dt. 33:17, cp Ps. 92:11 [on which see Che., Ps.(2)]). From Is. 34:7 (oi adpoi [oi adroi] AVmg. 'Rhinoceros') it was apparently used also in sacrifices. The Heb. re'em is the same as the Ass. rimu, {3} which is a strong-horned, fierce-looking wild bull depicted with shoulders fully-arched, images of which were often placed at the entrances of Assyrian palaces. 4 Among the Assyrians it was often employed in metaphors of strength, and at times occurs in parallelism with piru, elephant. Hence it is not improbable that the animal referred to is the Aurochs, the Urus of Julius Caesar (BG 6:28), who mentions it as existing in the forests of Central Europe, and the Bos primigenius of naturalists. Its teeth were found by Tristram in Lebanon, in the valley of the Nahr-el-Kalb, which is just in the neighbourhood where Tiglath-pileser I. (1120-1100 B.C.) claimed to have killed the rimu. The Aurochs was of great sixe and, to judge by records, of great ferocity ; it was hunted and killed by prehistoric man, as skulls which are occasionally found pierced with flint instruments testify. It probably lingered in remote parts of Europe till the middle ages, and it is believed to have been the ancestor of the domesticated breeds of cattle. Probably its least altered descendants are the wild herds of certain English parks such as Chillingham, though these have certainly fallen off in size, in which they compare unfavourably with fossil remains of the B. primigenius? See Fr. Del. Heb. Lang. 6+; Schr. KAT, 256 ; Hommel, Saugethiere, 227.

A similar animal is the 'wild cow' or wadiha which, according to Doughty (Ar. Des. 1:328), may probably be the CN"1 [R'M]. Though of no great size it has dangerous horns measuring sometimes 23 inches (cp illustration op. cit. 327), with which when maddened with wounds it will inflict fatal injuries. The animal goes in herds of three to five, and only the keenest hunter can hope to catch one.

The literary history of the unicorn in classical and mediaeval ages has been treated by C. Cohn, Gesch. d. Einhorns (Berlin, 1896-1897).

A. E. S. - S. A. C.

1 In Dt. 33:17 the horns of the unicorn are spoken of, and to evade the difficulty AV has to render the sing. 0X1 [R'M] by the plural.

2 By CXI ni2j;in, Nu. l.c., RV 'strength of the wild-ox', we should rather understand the reference to be to the animal's horns (so RVmg.). riisjrin, lit. 'eminences', from r\y t = ys"> cp Ar. yafa', a hill, and yafa'a, to ascend. [For a conjecture, see Crit. Bib.}

3 According to its ideogram, a 'mountain-ox', cp Del., Entst. Schrift, 5:6.

4 The old conventional representation of the unicorn is ingeniously explained by Haupt ('Psalms' SBOT, ET, 173). On the reliefs from the N. palace of Ashshur-bani-pal we see the king grasping a lion by the ear and piercing his body with a spear. Another represents an arrow fixed in the lion s forehead. The existence of the unicorn seems to be derived from Persian sculptures at Persepolis and Susa, and these in turn were undoubtedly influenced by Assyro-Babylonian sculptures. The conception of the horn, according to Haupt, has accordingly arisen from the imagination of the Persian artist who combined the arrow and ear !

5 In Arabic the cognate rim is applied to the Antelope Leucoryx, a meek and graceful animal, an inhabitant of the deserts of Arabia and NE. Africa - the very opposite of the Ass. and Heb. CN1 [R'M]. When the older wild bull became extinct, the oryx from its size and general aspect was the natural legatee of its name (cp Che. on Is. 34:7). Cp the similar variation in the meanings of HEp and nSjpn in Heb. and the cognate languages.


UrNO>CTu> 6eo> [Ti. \VH] ; AV, RVmg 'to the Unknown God' RV 'to an Unknown God' Acts 17:23). It is of little moment which rendering we adopt ; difference in interpretation cannot be based upon a distinction between definite and indefinite article here, but must be derived from dyvucrrij) [agnoosto] alone. The word is translated 'unknown', or 'unknowable'. Whichever be accepted we must be careful to exclude all non-Athenian connotation. To suppose an allusion to the God of the Jews is clearly impossible, in spite of the fact that the epithet 'wholly hidden' (irdyKpvtfros [pagkryphos]) was applied to Yahwe by gentile writers (Just. Mart. Ad Gr. 38 ; Apol. 2:10; Phil. Leg. 44). On the other hand, it is equally unjustifiable to read into the inscription the signs of a want of something deeper and truer. Both notions would be anachronisms. Although we have no example of an inscription in the precise terms quoted in Paul's speech, there is no difficulty in illustrating and verifying the passage. Pausanias (1;1:4), on his way from Phalerum to Athens, remarks the altars of 'gods called unknown, and of heroes' (fiufjLoi de 6eC)v re &voiJ.a.foiJ.vtj}v dyvuffruv nal iipuuv [boomoi de theoon te onamazomenoon agnoostoon kai eroooon]). It would be most natural to take this to mean several altars, each with the inscription in the singular ; but it is difficult to do this in the face of what Pausanias says at Olympia, 'beside it is an altar of Unknown Gods' (irpbs atrnjj 5" dcrriv Ayvuxrruv deuv ftwfj.cfs [pros autoo o estin Agnoostoon Theoon Boomos], 5:14:8). Philostratus in his life of Apollonius (6:3) writes, 'it is more prudent to speak well of all the gods, and especially at Athens, where are found also altars of unknown deities' ((rutypovtarepov rb Trepi WOLVTUV dfdov eft \eyew /cat ravra \0-t)vrpjiv , oC /cat dyvuffTUv dcu/j.6vui> flu/mol iSpvvrai [soophronesteron to peri pantoon theoon eo legein kai tauta athenesin, ou kai agnoostoon diamonoon boomoi idruntai]) ; where again it is impossible to say whether the altars bore the words Ayvuffrois Beois [Agnoostois Theois] or Ayvdouri^i tfey [Agnoostoo Theoo]. The significance of such altars is clear from Diog. Laert. 1:110. Epimenides in his purification of Athens is said to have turned out some black and white sheep on the Areopagus, directing attendants to follow and watch them, and on the spot where the animals lay down altars were built r<f) wpoff-fjKOvTi #etjj [too prosekonti theoo]. This expression cannot be translated, 'the appropriate local deities' (Grote), indicating that in each instance the divinity was a recognised and familiar one : this is clear from the words which immediately follow (tiOev ZTI KO.I vvv tffriv evptiv /caret TOI)S ST^UGCS TU> A.6r]vaiuv fiwfjiotis dvuivv/j-ovs [othen eti kai nyn estin eurein kata tous demous toon Athenaioon Boomous anoonymous]). The people on this and possibly on subsequent occasions knew not what divinity had been offended and required propitiation. In Rome in precisely the same way it often taxed the inventive powers of the College of Pontifices to say what god had sent prodigies. Sometimes they named him from the manifestation itself - e.g., Aius Locutius, the Voice which forewarned the city of the approaching Gauls ; sometimes, being in doubt, they used the formula 'sive dei sive deae' (Aul. Gell. 238). It is on this principle that we find a woman imprecating curses on her rival and praying to the deities of the hot spring, 'uti vos aquae ferventes, sive vos Nimfas (Nymphas) sive alio quo nomine vultis appellari, uti vos eam interimatis (Ins. Urb. Rom. 141). In a well known passage of Horace we have 'Matutine Pater, seu Iane libentius audis' (Sat. 2:6:20). In the passage quoted from Diog. it is possible, however, that by dvuvvp-ovs [anoonymous] we should understand the altars to have been altogether without inscription. If so, we see that our examples fall into three classes, according to the degree of doubt in the worshipper s mind. The altar may be left without inscription ; whether it is god or goddess that claims it cannot be guessed. Or again, it is inscribed 'to the unknown god', in the singular or plural. In the third case the deity is known, but the votary is ignorant of the proper mode of address.

We may mention, but only to dismiss it, the theory that in the case of Athens these altars dated from a time when writing was unknown and were subsequently inscribed when men no longer knew to what god they had been raised. We must reject also Jerome's statement (ad Tit. 1:12) that the inscription ran 'to the gods of Asia and Europe, to unknown and strange gods'; the whole point of the reference in the speech lies in its being an exact quotation. Jerome may indeed have seen such an inscription as he mentions ; but it was certainly not that alluded to in Acts.

If we take the far less probable rendering 'to the unknowable god', we must understand the words to refer to the mysteriousness of God. We may then compare the inscription on the figure of the Egyptian Isis - 'I am, and was, and shall be'; no man hath lifted my veil (Plut. De Is. et Os.). Still better is the inscription on an altar of Mithra found at Ostia - 'signum indeprehensibilis Dei'. (For analogies, see Frazer, Paus. 2:33. )

W. J. W.


(ilSD), Gen. 19:3, etc. See BREAD, 1, LEAVEN, 2, and PASSOVER, 1-2, 15.


( IV; perhaps shortened from rCV [ = either the probable gentilic 'Anani (so Che. ; cp Crit. Bib. on 1 Ch. 3:24, 15:18), or 'Yahwe answers', 52]).

i. A Levitical door-keeper, a musician (1 Ch. 15:18; eAiojijA [eliooel] [B], uor)A [X], an [ani] [A], avavias [ananias] [L]; v. 20: loyei [B], avavi [anani] [A], ai-aiaas [ananias] [L]). Cp Ki. Chron. SBOT, ad loc.

2. RV Unno, a Levite, temp. Nehemiah (Neh. 12:9 Kt. uj; ; om. BX*A, ia.vai [ianai] [Xca mg] [L]). In L lavai [ianai] is a doublet of ayeKpouofro [anekrouonto] = Q:J7. Omitting 'And Bakbukiah' (as a gloss from Neh. 11:17), render, 'And their brethren took up the strain (ranged) over against them'. So Guthe (SBOT [Heb.], ad loc.); cp Be.-Rys. ad loc. {1}


(TQ-1N) in the phrases 'gold from Uphaz' and 'gold of Uphaz' (TS-1NP ^HT, zahab me'uphaz, Jer. 10:9, TD-1X 003, kethem 'uphaz, Dan. 10:5) is an imaginary place-name. Both passages are corrupt, the former most probably, the latter certainly. Later scribes, who knew the rare phrase 7310 3n], zahab muphaz (1 K. 10;18 ; see GOLD, 1 [-2] and n. ), imagined this to mean 'gold from Uphaz' (iffixp i, s. me'uphaz), and read this or (in Dan. 10:5) a phrase like this, in the indistinctly written text which they were copying.

(a) The MT of Jer. 10g is not well supported. Vg. has aurum de Ophas, but LXX Xpucriov uw/aL [chrysion moophaz] [BAQ] Xpucriov uw/as [chrysion moophas] [X] - i.e. T31O 3H7 ; while Tg., Pesh., Syr.-Hex. (mg.), and Theod. presuppose VE1XD. Giesebr. (but not Co.) reasonably adopts this ; cp pi3 for pi3 Ezek. 1:14.

(b) The phrase in Dan. 10:5 is rendered ei< \pv<ri<a <o<a [en chrysioo oophaz] by Theod. [BAQ]; LXX{87}, however, instead of rendering it, translates what is really a corrupt form of two dittographed words from the line above, except that it appends to this 73 [PZ], i.e., it gives evSeSv/j-fvo ; fivcr&iva. Kal -ri)f b(r<l>vv Trepie^w<r/J.ei os fivfftrivtf Kal ex ne crou avrov $o)s [endedymenos byssina kai ten osphyn periezoosmenos byssinoo kai ek mesou autou phoos] (where <)S [phoos] is simply a Graecised 13 [PZ]; cp <f>a [phaz] Cant. 5:11. LXX's Hebrew MS must therefore have had, not 7311* or)3> [kethem 'uphaz] but 73 V3DS1 ~I3- [.... PZ] The second word was indistinctly written, and was read by him 131 RD1. But we must not suppose that MT is really more correct. 'Girded with gold of Uphaz' (or, as LXX's text ran, 'with refined gold') is not a natural expression. We should almost if not quite certainly correct TS1X CHID into 13 Jl!pp"13, 'with embroidery of gold'. A magnificently embroidered girdle is what we expect to hear of ; the correction is easy, self-evident. Probably 7310 is an earlier reading than 731^ ; 73 VMlD would resemble 7310 rO. It's also of course more plausible; the context does not suggest the mention of a locality. It is worth noting that J. D. Michaelis explained 7310 3777 as 731x0 3nt - a so that in Cant. 5:11 LXX read 731 DTlD ; Theod. 731^ CHD (Lag-)- Cp GOLD.

T. K. C.

1 The following word cn riN, if not a corruption for 'after them', may have been introduced to give a meaning to 3 and the already corrupt ijy. El}} 1 ? DnTIN> as Be.-Rys. points out, is unnecessary here ; cp v. 24.

2 [Probably LXX read t~ix for TIN, rather \<apa is a transliteration of 7IN confused (?) with -nj;.]


lit. Ur Kasdim Dnb 3 ; [ H ] xoopA 2 [TCON] XA^AIWN [.... chaldaioon] [BXADEL] ; cp. Acts 7:4 ,<*K 7W xaXSai uw [ek ges chaldaioon]; Syr. 'ur dekaldayya; Ur Chaldaeorum, but in Neh. (de) igne Chaldaeorum, alluding to the Rabbinic explanation of 'Ur' as = fire, with which a singular Aggadic legend is connected ; see Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1:91, and cp Koran, Sur. 21), Gen. 11:28, 11:31, 15:7. The place whence Abram set out on the journey to Canaan, also mentioned in Neh. 9:7-8

1. Prevalent theory.[edit]

That Ur is the old Babylonian city of Uru (mod. Mukayyar, on the right bank of the Euphrates, about 40 mi. SE. from Warka and about 135 mi. SE. from Babylon) is altogether more likely than Rawlinson's identification with Erech (i]ni<), the mod. Warka, 1 and is generally accepted ; even Dillmann in 1892 (Gen. (6), 214), after holding out long against the view, substantially adopted it. The chief opponent of the theory at present is Kittel (Hist. 1:181+; and earlier, Theol. Stud, aus Wurtt. 7:215+). The fact that there is no other known Ur in the territory of the Kasdim than the Babylonian Ur is a great difficulty in the way of rejecting the identification, especially since language and literature point so decisively to close relationship between Hebrews and Babylonians. If it is difficult to reconcile with other statements of J or of P - who mentions Ur Kasdim (Gen. 11:31) - that only points more strongly to the strength of the tradition in favour of the Babylonian Ur. But in fact the difficulties are not so formidable as Kittel thinks, [and the comparative antiquity of the tradition is shown by Judith 56, Jubilees 1:1, Acts 7:4. Cp Francis Brown, JBL, Dec. 1887, pp. 46+. ; Del. Par. 226-227; Budde, Urgeschichte, 433-434; Schrader, HWB (2), 1729-1730; and see references in Dillmann's note on Gen. 11:28].

2. Greatness of the S. Bab. city Uru.[edit]

The greatness of the city of Uru in politics, religion, and commerce is well brought out by Hommel, GBA 212-218, 325-329 (cp his Die semit. Volker u. Sprachen, 204-211); see also BABYLONIA, 48. Rogers (HBA 2:371-372) thus describes its situation: :'The river Euphrates flowed just past its gates, affording easy transportation for stone and wood from its upper waters, to which the Lebanon, rich in cedars, and the Amanus were readily accessible. The Wady Rummein came close to the city and linked it with central and southern Arabia, and along that road came gold and precious stones, and gums and perfumes to be converted into incense for temple-worship. Another road went across the very desert itself, and, provided with wells of water, conducted trade to southern Syria, the peninsula of Sinai, and across into Africa. This was the shortest road to Africa, and commerce between Ur and Egypt passed over its more difficult but much shorter route than the one by way of Haran and Palestine. Nearly opposite the city the Shatt-el-Hai emptied into the Euphrates, and so afforded a passage for boats into the Tigris, thus opening to the commerce of Ur the vast country tributary to that river. Here, then, were roads and rivers leading to the N., E., and W., but there was also a great outlet to the southward. The Euphrates made access to the Persian Gulf easy. No city lay S. of Ur on that river except Eridu, and Eridu was no competitor in the world of commerce, for it was devoted only to temples and to gods - a city given up to religion'.

The local god of Uru was Nannaru or Sin, the moon-god ; cp Eupolemus (Eus. Praep. Ev. 9:17), according to whom the Babylonian city Ka/napivr [kamarine]) (Moon-city) was called by some TroXis Ovpirj [polis Ourie].

These details are doubly interesting if Abraham was a historical personage, or even if the tribe which regarded him as its ancestor once lived a pastoral life in the neighbourhood of Uru (cp Tomkins, Life of Abraham (1), 7+). Certainly it is still the average opinion of scholars that the Ur-kasdim, with which P at any rate, if not also JE, closely connects Abraham, is this S. Babylonian city. Why '-kasdim' was added, is not indeed plain ; for no other Ur is mentioned in the OT. That, however, is a mere trifle. The considerations which induce Kittel 2 to reject the prevalent theory are as follows :-

1 [This view was adopted by Loftus, Chaldea and Susiana, 126 (1857). The Syrian Christians, however, maintain Edessa to be the Ur-casdim of the patriarch.]

2 The English translation of the History (1:181, n. 4) gives an important modification of view as regards Armenian Chaldaeans; Kittel now withdraws one of his original arguments.

3. Kittel's opposition.[edit]

  • (1) The genealogy given by P in Gen. 11:10+ assumes that the Semites of Arpachshad's time migrated gradually from N. Armenia to Mesopotamia. They then moved on to Harran.
  • (2) In harmony with the above fact P states (Gen. 8:4) that the ark 'rested on the mountains of Ararat', which must be on the N. or NW. of Assyria. Here is the starting-point of the subsequent history. Can we imagine him suddenly transporting the Semites to the mouth of the Euphrates, and making this their starting-point, simply to bring them back to the place where they once stood with Serug ?
  • (3) We also meet with 'Ur-kasdim' in the J2 stratum (11:28, 15:7). Now J does not state where the ark grounded. Budde therefore conjectures that J must have meant a mountain in the S. of the land of the Two Rivers, corresponding to Mt. Nitsir in the Babylonian story. From this point Noah's descendants will have pressed on to Ur, in S. Babylonia. Terah and Abraham are then supposed to have migrated to Harran. This conjecture is not a very solid one; but in any case 'what a marvellous zigzag we must ascribe to J2, if we make him take the Semites from the mountain in the S. on which they landed, to Mesopotamia in the N. (Peleg, Serug), thence to Ur-Mugheir, and thence to Haran !

4. And Gunkel's.[edit]

Gunkel, too (Gen. 145 [1901]), does not accept the favourite identification. 1 'The Kasdim', he says, 'are not the Chaldaeans of the "land of the sea" [S. Babylonia], but the people of the same name reckoned in 22:22 among the Nahorids; cp also Job 1:17, 2 K. 24:2 and see Winckler AOF (2), 2:250-252. From the description in Gen. 11:31 we can only infer that the way from Ur-kasdim to Canaan passed by Harran. Against this location of Ur-kasdim it may be objected that we know both Uru and Harranu to have been famous seats of moon-worship, so that these two places appear to have an inner connection. But this coincidence may be accidental. At any rate the statement that Abraham came from Ur-kasdim will be a very primitive tradition - a variant to the other statement that he came from Harran. In P both traditions are united in such a way that two journeys are distinguished, the first from Ur-kasdim to Harran, the second from Harran to Canaan.

1 In Gen. (2) 139 [1902], however, Gunkel falls back on the average opinion of scholars. After stating the view mentioned in the opening sentence of the quotation, he continues, 'against the latter location of Ur-kasdim it may, with justice (mit gutem Grund), be objected', etc.

5. New 'solution' of problem.[edit]

The riddle, as usually stated, admits of no satisfactory solution, for the simple reason that the texts of the narratives in Genesis, after having been partly corrupted in transcription, were re-edited by men who had different geographical presuppositions from those of the original writers. It is becoming more [less] and more [less] probable that the original scene of the primary Hebrew legends was in the Negeb. From 'Adam' to Joseph this can be traced, sometimes with virtual certainty, sometimes with considerable probability. The geographical changes introduced were owing partly (as we have seen) to corruption, and partly to the perplexing similarity of the names in different parts of the ancient East (cp Schr. KGF 29:247). There was a Harran in the N. ; there was also in all probability a Harran in the S. (referred to, e.g. , in the phrase, 'Sanballat the Haranite', nnn, Neh. 2:10, see SANBALLAT). There was an Aram in the N. ; there was also an Aram in the S. The later scribes unfortunately forgot all about the [non-existent] southern Harran and Aram, though they were conscientious enough to leave abundant half-concealed evidence of their existence. Transcriptional errors too were easy.

ISO and Bnp, e ~1p and ?13 were very easily confounded, and beside B13 there was a form C\y)3, which was liable to be miswritten DK lp ar >d even p&y\ ( see PROPHET, col. 3861, n. 2). It would not be right at the opening of a large field of inquiry to assume that such confusions in any particular case were more than probable. But we are not at the opening of an inquiry. Sufficient evidence has been produced by the present writer to justify him in the assertion that there is a strong [flimsy] probability in favour of any correction which brings any particular legend referred to away from the N. into the S. (i.e., into the Negeb). In a continuous survey of the sagas or legends of Genesis it would be possible to make this clear to virtual demonstration. All that can be done here is to point out that, given the presuppositions obtained by the study of other passages, we have a right to make the following emendations which affect the question of Ur-kasdim.

  • 1. Arpachshad (TC 1 :!?-
  • 2. Ur-kasdim (Cni S
both come from & 3 ^ -Arab-cush(im) - i.e., 'Cushite Arabia'.
  • 3. Chesed (~lt?r) comes from B^3 - i.e., 'Cush' in N. Arabia (see CUSH, 2).
  • 4. Dammesek (pil S 1 ;!) sometimes comes from C ^3 Cusham.
  • 5. Kena'an (JJ?33) sometimes comes from TJp 'Kenaz'.

In spite of the attempts of Gunkel and Winckler 1 to justify the traditional reading, it remains for us no mere struggling hypothesis but a [non] fact that the Kasdim of Job 1:17, 2 K. 24:2, are the N. Arabian Cushites (see JOB, BOOK OF, 14 ; OBADIAH (Book), n. i). We are [not] now bound to go farther, and to assert that according to the original tradition Abraham (the Jerahmeelite patriarch) first dwelt in Arab-cush, and thence went to harran in the land of Kenaz. It will be remembered that Caleb was known as a Kenizzite, and as the hero of Hebron, which name appears to have supplanted the original name REHOBOTH (q.v.). Abram or Abraham too migrated to Hebron, or rather Rehoboth - the well-known Rehoboth in the Negeb; he retained however a 'son of Cusham', 'a Cushamite', whom he had brought from Arab-cush (Gen. 15:2 ; see Crit. Bib.). In the same chapter which states this circumstance we read (v. 7) a solemn assurance of Yahwe that he had brought Abraham from Arab-cush to possess the land of Kenaz. It is difficult to believe that the original writers (or schools of writers) whom we symbolise as J and E were unaware of this. On Neh. 9:7 we must content ourselves with referring to Crit. Bib. It is enough to have stated distinctly here the original tradition.

F. B. 1; T. K. C. 2-5.


0-1N), one of David's 'thirty' (1 Ch. 11:35-36; cGyp [sthur] [B]- coyp [sour] [X] top [A], oyp t 1 ])- One would have expected Uri (nix) ; but see ELIPHELET, 2.


or rather, as in RV, Urbanus (oypB&NOC [Ti. WH]), is saluted as 'our fellow-worker in Christ' in Rom. 16:9. The name is a Latin one. When, or in what capacity, Urbanus helped the apostle in his missionary labours is not known.

Urbanus figures as bishop of Macedonia in the list of 'the seventy' compiled by Pseudo-Dorotheus. The i/TTOjou Tjju.a [hypomnema] of Peter and Paul as given by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes represents him as consecrated bishop of Tarsus by Peter.


C^ IN, perhaps a clan-name, shortened and corrupted from Jerahme'eli [so Che.], but see NAMES, 52, and cp URIAH).

1. b. Hur - from 'Ashhur'? [Che.] - the father of BEZALEEL (Ex. 31:2, 35:30, 2 Ch. 1:5 : oup[e]iov [our[e]iou] [B, and A in 2 Ch.], oup[e]i [AFL]; 1 Ch. 2:20 : oupU [BAL]).

2. Father of GEBER [q.v., no. 2] (1 K. 4:19 : oSat [adai] [LXX{BA}], a 55at [addai] [L]). Cp SOLOMON, 6, third note.

3. A post-exilic door-keeper temp. Ezra ; Ezra 10:24 (taSovd [oodouth] [BX], wiove [oodoue] [A], ouptas [L]) = 1 Ch. 9:17(AHIMAM ; Jp riK; aina.fi. [aimam] [B], -i> [-n] [AL]); probably corrupt [Che.]) = 1 Esd. 9:25-26 (oupios [L] ; om. EV with BA, unless the name is buried in arr/s [anes] of ToABavns [tolbanes] = O5n [ThLM]+avns [anes] or in |3a/<xoupos [bakchouros] of v. 24).